SPEAKEASY
REPORT OF THE
EVALUATION OF
IRISH FAMILY
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
SPEAKEASY
PROGRAMME
Claire Barry
Sonas Consulting Ltd
September 2008
Speakeasy
Programme
inside front
cover
Report of the
Evaluation of
Irish Family Planning Association
SPEAKEASY
SPEAKEASY PROGRAMME
Claire Barry
Sonas Consulting Ltd
September 2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Irish Family Planning Association would like to thank the following
organisations and individuals for their contributions and assistance
throughout the Speakeasy programme:
>>
Crisis Pregnancy Agency
>>
Family Planning Association – UK
>>
Vivien Nolan and the staff at CUMAS
>>
Sylvia Ryan and the staff at North Wall Women’s Centre
>>
Helen McInerney and the staff at Limerick School Project
>>
Claire Barry, Sonas Consulting Ltd
>>
Speakeasy Facilitators: Rosie, Kris, Dolores and Aine
>>
All of the women who participated in the Speakeasy programme.
Introduction
1
Executive Summary
3
Section One: Terms of Reference
5
Section Two: Context
7
Overview of Speakeasy Programme
Speakeasy Pilot Programme in Ireland
The Case for Sex and Relationships Education
Section Three: Methodology
11
Section Four: Findings
13
Questionnaires
Focus Groups with Participants
Interviews with Local Coordinators
Interviews with Trainers
CONTENTS
Section Five: Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
23
INTRODUCTION
1
The evaluation of the Speakeasy programme was commissioned by the Irish Family Planning Association in
March 2008, just after the organisation had begun to pilot the programme with three groups. A fourth group
began the programme in April 2008. It was the first time this training programme had been delivered in the
Republic of Ireland. The pilot programme was funded by the Crisis Pregnancy Agency.
The aim of the Speakeasy programme is to provide training for parents to enable them to speak positively to their
children about relationships and sexuality. The evaluation was commissioned to determine if the programme was
achieving this objective and to determine what future direction the programme might take based on identified
learning.
Section one of this report outlines the terms of reference for the research.
Section two provides background information surrounding the Speakeasy programme, including the aims, content
and methodology of the programme as well as a brief cultural context to sex and relationships education in
INTRODUCTION
Ireland.
The methodology used in the evaluation is outlined in section three.
The findings of the research are outlined in section four, including findings from questionnaires and focus groups.
Section five discusses these findings from the report, draws conclusions and makes recommendations.
The study would not have been possible without the cooperation and candour of those associated with the
Speakeasy programme. I wish to acknowledge the honest and helpful contributions of the participants both in the
focus groups and through their evaluation forms. I wish to thank the two local coordinators with whom we
consulted for providing their invaluable insights into the motivation for organising the programme and the
outcomes. I would particularly like to thank Rosie Toner and Kris Lake from the IFPA who contributed to the
research through sharing their own experiences and observations as trainers and through their assistance in
practical tasks associated with the research.
Thank you all.
Claire Barry
September 2008
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim of the Speakeasy training programme, a programme originally developed in Northern Ireland, is to increase
the ability of parents to speak positively to their children about sex and relationships. The programme was delivered
by the Irish Family Planning Association [IFPA] on a pilot basis to four groups from March to June 2008. All of the 31
participants were female. Three of these participants were grandmothers who were rearing their grandchildren. This
evaluation was commissioned to determine if the Speakeasy programme achieved its objective.
The programme is delivered via eight modules each lasting 2½ hours, with each module having its own focus and
objectives. A programme manual guides the trainer through the content and methodology, of which the core element
is working with the participants’ own experiences. The programme is delivered through a mix of information
provision, discussion, and question/answer activities. All training resources are provided and each participant
receives a handbook into which they put worksheets and information provided during each session.
The evaluation consulted with those who participated in the training, as well as the local organisers and IFPA training
staff. This consultation was through a combination of focus groups and individual interviews. Evaluation forms which
participants completed prior to and after programme completion were reviewed. Other documentation reviewed
included the programme manual/workbook, IFPA literature, and national statistics and research on sex and
relationships including those with a youth focus. All of the data was triangulated to determine if the programme
achieved its stated objective.
The evaluation found that the programme had intended and unintended outcomes. The primary outcome was that the
programme was very successful in achieving its objective i.e. enabling parents to speak positively to their children
about sex and relationships.
All of the participants indicated that their confidence and knowledge about sex and relationships increased as a
result of their participation in the programme and many cited, in focus groups and in the evaluation sheets, concrete
examples of how they had been able to apply their learning at home. The greatest learning in terms of knowledge
which parents noted was in the area of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraception and also slang which
young people use around sexual activity.
There were two notable unintended outcomes. Participants suggested that their increased knowledge made them
more aware of their own health and reproductive needs, including their own personal exposure to STIs and unsafe
sexual practices, and the need to engage in better health screening e.g. smear tests.
A second unintended outcome was the reach of the programme beyond the actual participants. The majority of
parents and grandparents spoke of passing on their learning to partners, family members, friends and colleagues
many of whom had young children. All of the participants said they would recommend the programme to others and
that there was nothing they didn’t enjoy about the programme.
The evaluation concludes that the Speakeasy programme was successful in achieving its objective and represents a
long-term opportunity to improve the health and reproductive choices of Irish young people and their parents. The
evaluation makes eight recommendations, the primary recommendation being that the programme be established as
part of the IFPA’s range of services and be offered through a range of avenues including community and family
centres, resource centres, schools and resident associations.
The research also recommends that the IFPA partner with national organisations whose remit includes the promotion
of safe sex practices to develop and deliver the programme. Prime among these organisations are the Crisis
Pregnancy Agency and the Family Support Agency.
Other recommendations relate to the certification of the programme, adaptation of the programme to the needs of
specific groups, targeting fathers and the development of a trainers’ panel.
4
SECTION ONE – TERMS OF REFERENCE
5
Aim of Evaluation (March 2008):
>>
To undertake an evaluation of the Speakeasy programme, run by the IFPA at four locations.
>>
The evaluation will be a summative evaluation, documenting the objectives of the training programme, a brief
overview of the programme and outcomes of the training, thus contributing to decisions regarding its future
TERMS OF REFERENCE
development and application.
>>
The evaluation will be informed by the primary question of whether the programme achieved its objectives.
>>
The evaluation will consult with participants at the midway stage and end of the programme in the three
groups where the programme is already underway. In the fourth group, which will start in April 2008, views of
participants will be sought at the outset, at the midway point and at the end of the programme.
>>
The views of the trainers and local organisers will also be sought.
>>
Documentation relevant to the training programme, including the training pack and materials will be
reviewed.
>>
A report of the evaluation will be drafted outlining the methodology and findings.
>>
The report will include analysis of the findings, conclusions will be drawn and recommendations made.
>>
Where relevant, comparisons will be made between the experiences of the four training groups.
6
SECTION TWO – CONTEXT
7
2.1 Origins and Overview of the Speakeasy Programme
The Speakeasy programme was originally developed in Northern Ireland. The Family Planning Association in London
adopted and amended the programme and it is accredited in the UK by the Open College Network. The primary aim of
the programme is to provide training for parents in how to speak positively to their children about sex and
relationships.
A programme manual outlines clear learning objectives for each module and contains a list of all the resources and
materials required by the trainers and participants.
The programme is delivered through a combination of discussion, information provision, and question/answer
activities. There is a strong emphasis on working with the learning needs of individuals in the group and using their
real life experiences.
The training programme is delivered over 8 modules, including one taster module, each module has its own focus.
The 2½ hour modules are:
>>
Taster session
>>
Development of a group contract and identification of participant learning needs
>>
Physical and emotional changes at puberty
>>
Sex education in the context of family life and responding to needs of individual children
>>
Exploration of influences inside and outside the home and the impact that this has on children
>>
Contraception and sexually transmitted infections
>>
Exploration of the development of a Sex and Relationships Education policy in a local school within the
context of national guidelines
>>
Development of understanding surrounding strategies for child protection in the instance a child discloses
abuse.
The programme can be delivered at a level one or level two, though the handbook encourages delivery at level two
unless all participants are at level one.
CONTEXT
At the beginning of the programme participants complete an evaluation sheet in which they assess their current
knowledge and confidence in talking to their children about sex and relationships, as well as what they hope to gain
from the programme.
At the end of the eight week programme participants complete another evaluation form in which they assess their
confidence and knowledge levels as a result of their participation in the programme.
All participants are provided with a handbook/folder at the outset of the programme into which they put handouts
and worksheets provided at each session.
2.2 Speakeasy Programme in Ireland
The Speakeasy programme was delivered to 4 groups between March and June 2008. Three of the groups were based
in Dublin and one in Limerick. The programme was established differently in each of the centres. In the two Dublin
centres the local coordinators were interested in providing training on this subject based on an identified need and
contacted the IFPA. In Limerick the IFPA trainer had a child attending the school and approached the principal to
negotiate providing the training on the school premises.
All participants were female and were aged from early 20’s to late 60’s. Three of the participants were grandmothers
who were caring for their grandchildren. In total 31 people participated in the programme in four groups.
In Dublin one group was comprised of women who were attending a parents and grandparents group in a family
resource centre. The coordinator/local organiser of this group decided to join the training programme as a participant.
Some of the participants knew each other in advance.
8
The other two Dublin groups were comprised of women participating in a training programme at a women’s centre.
Initially it was intended that one programme would be run. When it emerged that some of the participants had
difficulties with literacy the decision was made to run two groups, one for those with literacy difficulties and one for
the remainder of the participants. The groups ran on consecutive days. Participants knew each other in advance.
In Limerick the group was comprised of parents whose children were attending a Let’s Educate Together school and
was run in the school premises during school hours. Most of the participants did not know each other in advance.
Currently the Speakeasy programme is not accredited in Ireland. Participants receive a Speakeasy achievement
certificate when their portfolio of work has been assessed by the IFPA trainer.
2.3 The Case for Sex and Relationships Education in Ireland
Sex and relationships education has been a matter of public debate for over 30 years in Ireland. Aspects of the debate
which has a strong moral overtone, included who should provide sex and relationships education, how much
information should be provided, at what age children should be informed about sex and relationships, and whether
the formal provision of such programmes acts as an encouragement or deterrent to early sexual activity.
Longitudinal research on sexual practices and attitudes in Ireland, particularly among young people, is limited though
there is an emerging body of data over the last 10 years. The data which is available points to a need for greater
access to information on relationships, and sexual and reproductive health in Ireland in order for people to make
positive choices around these matters.
The age of first sexual activity in Ireland is reducing. The average age of first sexual activity among 18-24 years olds is
17 years. Research has suggested that those who have sex at a younger age were less likely to use condoms as were
those with low education levels or low economic status.1
The rate of recorded STIs in Ireland increased from 2,228 to 10,695 from 1989-2006, peaking at over 11,000 in 2003. The
highest proportion of STIs was reported in those aged 20-29 at 64%, while those aged under 20 accounted for 11% of
reported STIs. Chlamydia rates, an infection with no obvious symptoms, increased 1,700% in this time. Half of the 337
newly diagnosed cases of HIV in Ireland in 2006 were reported to have been acquired heterosexually.2
An evaluation of the WiSE UP programme outlines previous research which suggests that “young women who fared
best in navigating their emerging sexuality and sexual relationships had the following advantages: supportive
parental and family attitudes towards sex and sexuality, good and accurate sex education, good general selfconfidence and a sense of entitlement about being sexually active and good access to affordable and age-appropriate
formal health services”.3
The 2004 Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy research indicates that the highest numbers of those who reported
never using contraception were in the group who had left school before the Leaving Certificate.4
According to the SAVI report 35% of all Irish women and men have experienced sexual abuse or sexual violence at
some point in their life.5
Ireland has one of the highest rates of cervical cancer in Europe and it is the only country where rates are not falling.
40% of women don’t know the cause of the cancer.6
1. Crisis Pregnancy Agency. Leaflet for Parents. Crisis Pregnancy Agency.
2. Health Promotion Surveillance Centre 2005. Surveillance of Sexually Transmitted Infections in Ireland: A Report by the
Scientific Advisory Committee. HPSC.
3. Murphy-Lawless, J., Higgins, A. and Pembroke, S. (2008). Evaluation of the WiSE-UP programme. IFPA.
4. Rundle, K., Leigh, C., McGee, H. and Layte, R. (2004). Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy (ICCP) Study. A Survey of the
General Population. Dublin: Crisis Pregnancy Agency.
5. McGee, H., Garavan, R., de Barra, M., Byrne J. and Conroy, R. (2002). SAVI Report. Liffey Press in association with Dublin Rape
Crisis Centre.
6. Cervical cancer mortality in young women in Europe patterns and trends. European Journal of Cancer , Volume 36 , Issue 17 ,
Pages 2266 - 2271, F . Levi.
9
The Crisis Pregnancy Agency reports that 5,042 women aged from 15-44 with Irish addresses had abortions in the UK
in 2006 (this is a reduction of 1,600 women since 2001). The agency also reports that other jurisdictions, e.g.
Netherlands, report an increase in women with Irish addresses in recent years though exact figures are not available.7
Over 90% of adults support sex education for young people on sexual intercourse, sexual feelings, contraception,
safer sex and homosexuality. The Irish Study of Sexual Health and Relationships 2006 found that when parents talk
to their children about sex and relationships they increase the likelihood that their teenagers delay their first sexual
experience and that they will use contraception.8 The Crisis Pregnancy Agency explains that “many young people
suggest that their parents and teachers – reliable sources of information – didn’t give them the chance to talk about
their concerns and check out information they were getting on the streets.”9
Institutional provision for sex and relationships education is inconsistent. Relationships and Sexuality Education
(RSE) was made mandatory in the school curriculum in 1995, though not implemented until 1997. In 1999 the RSE
programme was incorporated into the SHPE programme, as was the Stay Safe programme. No mandatory curriculum
was formally agreed upon, as a result content is left to the discretion of the schools. Research on the RSE programme
suggests that “Irish research has repeatedly drawn attention to inadequate knowledge and understanding of sexual
health issues among young people.”10 This report suggests that at junior cycle between 15% and 30% of pupils get
no Relationships and Sexuality Education. At senior cycle level almost half of schools have no programme. Of the
schools examined in the course of the survey, schools attended by boys only fared worst of all.
7. Crisis Pregnancy Agency, Press Release, 19th June 2007.
8. Crisis Pregnancy Agency and Department of Health and Children (2006), Irish Study on Sexual Health and
Relationships. CPA and DOHC.
9. CPA, Research on Teenage Sexuality for Parents, CPA.
10. Maycock, P., Kicthing, K. and Morgan M. (2007). RSE in the context of SHPE. CPA.
10
SECTION THREE – METHODOLOGY
11
The evaluation was undertaken through a combination of:
>>
Literature and documentation review
>>
Review and analysis of evaluation forms completed by participants before and after the programme
>>
Focus groups with participants in three Dublin groups at the interim stage of the programme
>>
Focus groups with participants in the Dublin groups and the Limerick group at the final stage of the study
>>
Interviews with IFPA trainers
>>
Interviews with local organisers in two locations.
The data from all of these sources was triangulated to provide a more complete and valid picture of the outcomes of
the programme.
METHODOLOGY
The literature and documentation reviewed included:
>>
Speakeasy promotional DVD
>>
Speakeasy trainers manual
>>
Programme worksheets
>>
Attendance sheets
>>
Evaluation of the WiSE UP programme March 2008
>>
Crisis Pregnancy Agency publications
>>
Health research and statistics
The focus groups with participants were conducted based on a series of core questions posed to each of the groups:
How did you hear about the course?
When you started the course what did you want to get from it?
At this stage what do you think you have gained?
When you started the course what, if any, concerns did you have?
Do you still have these concerns?
At this half-way stage can you see a difference in the way you talk to your children about sex and relationships? Can
you give examples of this difference?
Other than what you have learnt about talking with your children are there any other benefits to doing the course?
Sixteen people in three groups participated in the interim focus groups.
Twenty five people participated in the end of programme focus groups in three groups, two in Dublin and one in
Limerick. The core questions posed at this point were:
Did the programme meet your expectations and needs?
What is your main learning from the programme?
What about the way the programme was delivered did you find helpful?
What, if anything, would you recommend should be changed?
Would you recommend this programme to others?
Do you think that this programme is suitable for mixed gender groups?
Interviews with each of the trainers and local organisers included some questions common to all people and some
specific to the roles people occupied. Question themes for these interviews included:
>>
Strengths of the programme
>>
Weaknesses of the programme
>>
Attributes of the trainer
>>
Programme future.
The following section of the report explores interview responses in more detail.
12
SECTION FOUR – FINDINGS
13
The findings of the research are reported as follows:
>>
Findings from pre- and post-programme evaluation questionnaires
>>
Findings from focus groups
>>
Findings from one-one interviews.
4.1 Findings from Questionnaires
Two questionnaires were distributed to participants, one at the beginning of the programme and the second
questionnaire on completion. These questionnaires were standard Speakeasy questionnaires and are contained in
the training manual. 30 out of 31 participants completed the pre-programme questionnaire whilst 28 completed the
post-programme evaluation.
Both questionnaires begin with five closed questions where participants are asked to evaluate themselves on a scale
of 1-5 (5 being the high score) in terms of their:
Confidence in talking to their children about sex and relationships
Knowledge of changes during puberty
Knowledge of sexually transmitted infections
Knowledge of contraception
Knowledge of keeping safe.
The pre- and post-programme responses to each of the questions are outlined below.
Question One: How confident do you feel talking to your children about sex and relationships?
1
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average
Pre-programme Score
5
5
10
0
7
0
3
49%
Post-programme Score
0
1
2
3
10
3
9
84%
FINDINGS
Question Two: How much knowledge do you feel you have when talking to your children about changes during
puberty?
1
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average
Pre-programme Score
1
9
10
1
9
0
0
59%
Post-programme Score
0
0
1
3
12
3
9
86%
Question Three: How much knowledge do you feel you have when talking to your children about sexually transmitted
infections?
1
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average
Pre-programme Score
4
14
10
1
1
0
0
46%
Post-programme Score
0
1
2
4
11
1
9
82%
14
Question Four: How much knowledge do you feel you have when talking to your children about contraception?
1
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average
Pre-programme Score
0
6
10
1
8
0
5
68%
Post-programme Score
0
0
0
4
5
1
18
92%
Question Five: How much knowledge do you feel you have when talking to your children about keeping safe?
1
2
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average
Pre-programme Score
2
6
9
2
7
0
4
58%
Post-programme Score
0
0
0
3
6
2
17
92%
Question Six: To what extent do you agree with the following statements parents have made about talking to their
children about sex and relationships:
‘I want to talk with my children openly about sex and relationships’
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pre-programme
20
10
0
0
0
Post-programme
22
6
0
0
0
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
‘I feel able to talk to my children openly about sex and relationships’
Strongly Agree
Pre-programme
7
14
2
5
2
Post-programme
17
11
0
0
0
‘I am aware of opportunities when I could raise issues around sex and relationships with my children’
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pre-programme
9
10
8
3
0
Post-programme
18
10
0
0
0
‘I feel confident learning as a member of the Speakeasy course’
15
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pre-programme
19
11
0
0
0
Post-programme
23
5
0
0
0
‘I have been considering going back to learning /further education’
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pre-programme
12
11
4
1
1
Post-programme
15
10
1
0
0
Question Seven: At the moment who do you think has the main responsibility for talking to children about sex and
relationships?*
Parents
Teachers
Schoolfriends
Pre-programme view
30
10
0
Post-programme view
27
23
4
Other Family
3
10 (2 specified
grandmother)
Other
1
2
*Some participants gave more than one response, some included a grading that suggested that parents had prime
responsibility for talking to their children around this issue.
4.1.1 Specific pre-programme questions
The pre-programme questionnaire included one open-ended question. At the beginning of the programme participants were asked to identify areas they needed to know the most about.
Three participants said they needed to learn everything, while five focused on learning about puberty two of whom
emphasised the needs of boys. Twelve participants said they wanted to learn about STIs including slang associated
with the issue.
One participant suggested knowing when to talk about sex and relationships was their primary need, whilst two
participants said their primary need was getting the confidence and skills to talk to children i.e. knowing how to
broach the issue with children.
Two other specific needs identified by participants were: understanding what is age-appropriate information and
how to build the self-esteem of young people in dealing with safe sex / peer pressure.
4.1.2 Specific post-programme questions:
At the end of the programme participants were asked if there was anything which was not included in the programme
which they felt was needed.
Eleven participants said ’no’ to this question and ten participants did not respond to this question.
Five suggestions were made to this question, these were:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
More input on self-esteem particularly on how to support adolescents to negotiate safe sexual relationships
More statistics
More information on the link between sex and relationships and the emotional, spiritual and social
development of the child
Possibly a confidence booster session
One person suggested a course suitable for fathers (it is unclear whether she meant a different programme or
deliver this one to fathers).
16
In addition to this question, participants were asked to provide feedback on what they did/did not enjoy about the
programme. Responses around this are listed below.
What did you really enjoy?
There were two primary answers surrounding this question. One related to the content and the second to the process
of the programme. The content that left the greatest impression on participants was information regarding STIs and
contraception. The process that participants enjoyed most was working within a group context and the nature of the
programme i.e. learning from each other and the quality of the facilitators, all of whom were named personally by
various participants. One participant “loved the openness of discussion” and another the “buzz and liveliness of the
group”.
Other responses regarding enjoyable aspects of the programme included:
“Encouragement to be aware of the many opportunities that sex and relationships can be discussed in normal
everyday family life”
“The language I gained”
“Open discussions with valid up-to-date information”
“Keeping children safe”.
Was there anything you didn’t enjoy?
All 28 people said there was nothing they did not enjoy about the programme.
Did you enjoy the presentation of the course? Why and why not?
All of the participants enjoyed the presentation and focused on the quality of the facilitators e.g. “Rosie and Kris
explained things very well and went back and if you didn’t understand they explained again” and “Dolores’ facilitation
was fantastic”.
Other enjoyable aspects of the presentation were that “it was easy to follow and gave a lot of information”, “a good
facilitated learning experience rather than a straight taught programme”, “all in all a very well rounded experience
including discussion, writing etc”, “handouts were great” and “materials were appropriate”.
How do you intend to use the information that you have learnt during the course?
All of the participants said that they intended using the information learnt with their children and grandchildren.
Many people indicated that they had done this already e.g. “I find it very interesting when a topic crops up at home to
use it as an opportunity to begin an informative discussion with the kids” and “I feel good and relaxed when I talk to
my child now”.
One participant said she intended to “use it first with own children and then with friends who need information”,
another said “to learn my son and nieces”. “I keep up the dialogue with my daughter about the changes she is going
through” was how one participant described using her learning while another said she had used her learning “to talk
to my kids and even my husband”. Over half of the participants said that they intended using their learning with their
peers and family to “spread the word about what I have learned”.
One participant said that she was interested in training as a trainer. While not specifically a use of the training
programme, one participant wrote about another benefit of doing the training as follows: “The fact that the course
was held in the school meant a lot to my kids who are quite proud that mammy is one of a few who took the time to
do this course more or less for them!”
17
4.2 Findings from Focus Groups
4.2.1 Interim Focus Groups
The following core questions were asked of participants in the three Dublin groups during consultation at the interim
stage of the programme:
How did you hear about the course?
When you started the course what did you want to get from it?
At this stage what you do you think you have gained?
When you started the course what, if any, concerns did you have?
Do you still have these concerns?
At this half-way stage can you see a difference in the way you talk to your children about sex and relationships? Can
you give examples of this difference?
Other than what you have learnt about talking with your children, are there other benefits to doing the course?
All of the participants in Dublin had heard about the course through their prior involvement with the centre i.e. a
family centre and women’s centre. In Limerick all participants were parents of children attending a school where the
course was advertised. Participants volunteered to attend.
The primary expectation was to be able to “get more information for talking to kids”, “he is only six and asking
questions already”.
A small number of participants said that they hoped to get some information on contraception and one person said
she “wanted to learn new things out there”.
A recurring theme for all parents was that while they had expectations of learning something on the programme they
believed they knew a lot anyway: “I thought I knew it all before this”, “people were laughing at me, a mother, coming
on this, what did I need to learn about sex!” These comments were said in a humorous way to illustrate that they did
not realise how much they did not know about the content.
Two participants expressed a “little embarrassment” about coming along to the programme for the first time, whilst
the remainder of the participants said they had no concerns. Those who had some concerns “got over it very quickly”.
Participants suggested that “the environment is very important to make people feel comfortable”. Some people said
that the good outline of the programme in advance helped, others suggested that as they knew some people coming
in at the beginning of the programme it was easier. At this point and throughout the conversation the participants
were highly complimentary about the trainers saying that they “were great”, they “made the training fun and we had
lots of laughs”, and “the girls explain everything really well”.
The participants had children/grandchildren in different age groups and all saw value in the programme. All of the
participants suggested that they had learnt much more than they expected, as many remarked that “thought I knew it
all”.
In one group someone said that “everyone has been shocked at some stage and taken aback by what they
learnt/heard”. Sometimes this shock was about “language or maybe about what kids do”. A number of parents talked
about understanding new language/slang and also different types of sexual practices among adolescents. Some
parents said they were surprised at how early children were sexually active now compared to their time.
The “biggest revelation was about the slang words and codes young people use”. This group suggested that in the
training you are “able to practise the language and dealing with surprise in the session”.
A number of participants talked about how they would leave the programme folder and leaflets etc on the kitchen
table when they got home so that their teenagers could read it. Taking this approach had opened up opportunities for
conversations surrounding the programme content afterwards. One participant said that previously when there was
anything vaguely sexual on the television when her daughters were in the room, she would change the channel out of
embarrassment, but that now she felt ok about leaving the station on. The two areas that provided the greatest
learning unexpectedly was information regarding STIs and contraception.
18
As well as the benefits of being able to talk more openly and confidently to their children, the additional benefit for
participants was being able to share their learning and new information with other adults e.g. partners/family,
friends, neighbours and colleagues: “I was going home telling my neighbours everything”, “my work mates would
wait for me to come in on Thursday morning to hear what I had learnt”.
Though unsolicited, members of each of these three groups suggested that this programme should be delivered
directly to young people in schools and youth clubs. They suggested that the programme should be delivered by
outside trainers e.g. IFPA rather than teachers.
4.2.2 Post-programme focus groups:
Three of the four groups were consulted after the programme had been completed. They were posed a number of core
questions:
Did the programme meet your expectations and needs?
What is your main learning from the programme?
What about the way the programme was delivered did you find helpful?
What if anything would you recommend would be changed?
Would you recommend this programme to others?
Do you think that this programme is suitable for mixed gender groups?
As with the interim focus group interviews, the main learning that participants identified was in the following areas:
>>
Using everyday opportunities to talk to your children about sex and relationships and knowing age
appropriate responses
>>
The types of STIs and the symptoms and effects of these
>>
Different types of contraception
>>
Implications for your own health.
One participant said that the programme is a “good intervention because you know you are giving good advice”.
Another parent said her daughter is now using Tampax since the programme because she had been too embarrassed
to discuss them prior to the programme. A participant said how she had been able to discuss “wet dreams” with her
grandson. A number of participants also talked about encouraging their teenage children to use condoms.
Due to the fact that the participants had children of different ages, ranging toddlers to young adults, they found
themselves using the learning differently. Some participants found immediate opportunities to talk to their
adolescent or pre-adolescent children about puberty. Others said that they were more prepared following the
programme to answer questions from their small children in an appropriate way. One mother said that she was able
to respond to her daughter’s questions on vaginal discharge which, prior to the programme, she would have been too
embarrassed to give a response. She also said that her daughter asking her about this opened up a conversation
about puberty and changes.
Another participant said that “my kids were in convulsions when I showed them the books but the following day they
came back and asked me questions and told me things”. In the same group a participant said that “I didn’t know at
what age I should start talking to them, what I should tell them, now if they ask questions I take my folder out”. Other
participants said that as well as their own children, they had the opportunity to talk to their teenage children’s
friends following a conversation about the work folder which had been left out to be read.
When participants were asked if there was anything they gained from the programme which they did not expect to
gain, the participants spoke about their increased knowledge about their own health: “As women we don’t know what
is going on in our own bodies”, “I am more conscious of my own health and once you have the knowledge it is easier
to make choices”, “If I had diseases I would like to know”, “I’d be better about going for a smear test now”.
19
In relation to contraception one participant suggested that “when you find a form of contraception that suits you, you
tend to stay with it but science doesn’t stop because you do”. The programme “opened your eyes for diseases, you say
to yourself it won’t happen to me”, and “if you sleep with a fella you are sleeping with all the women he has slept
with before and diseases are like a chain”.
The primary comments about what people liked about the programme related to trainers, resources and the format.
Participants felt that the trainers “were great”. All four trainers were named (three principal trainers were involved in
the programme and the fourth trainer participated in some of the sessions). Trainers were variously described as
“good at explaining”, “a mine of information about STIs”, “down to earth”, “to the point in telling you things” and “if
we were getting off track they would bring us back to the point”.
The participants thought that the resources used during the training sessions, and given out as part of the folders were
very helpful. Those resources mentioned most frequently were the cartoon-style books which parents have made
available to their children at home: “Cartoon magazines were great particularly with kids from about 10 upwards”, “the
handouts, the photos in the class”, “the picture of STIs should be posters and billboards” and the body maps. Many of
the participants said that bringing in examples of contraceptives was very useful, specifically the Femidom.
One area that participants recommended changing was the amount of writing involved in completing programme
worksheets. They suggested that “writing helped you remember but it can take up a lot of the class, but means you
don’t have to do it at home later”. However, participants expressed that they did not think that poor literacy was a
block to the programme due to the approach taken by the trainers: “I have dyslexia and it wasn’t a problem”.
A number of women in the Dublin groups suggested that a site visit to an IFPA clinic or GUM clinic would be a good
idea, though they did not think having a doctor attend a session was necessary, as “the girls (i.e. trainers) know
everything.”
Every member of the focus groups said they would recommend the programme to others, many said that they had
shared their learning with family and friends. In addition a large number of participants repeated that the programme
should be delivered to young people in schools/youth clubs etc. One participant who was not originally from Ireland
said: “I didn’t anticipate something as good as this in Ireland because it is still behind the rest of Europe – but it is
less so now I realise”.
There were different views regarding the suitability of the programme for mixed gender groups. All participants felt
that the programme was suitable for men and women, some suggested that it could be delivered to a joint group, a
small number of participants also said that single gender groups would be better as people might feel more free to
talk, ask questions or share their experiences e.g. “you mightn’t ask as many questions with a man present and it
might be difficult for them.”
The participants’ view of the programme is best summarised by one participant’s comment: “I couldn’t say anything
bad about it; it’s the best course I’ve ever been on”.
4.3 Interviews with Local Coordinators
Two coordinators contacted the IFPA for the programme to be delivered for three groups in Dublin. The group in
Limerick was established when the IFPA trainer approached the school directly.
In Dublin both local coordinators approached the IFPA, in one instance looking for a “more one-off intervention” as
part of a FETAC accredited programme which the participants were doing. The need for this type of programme arose
from an earlier personal development course where “the participants were uncomfortable with their bodies and
didn’t know how to talk to their kids.”
The coordinator from the other Dublin group was involved in running parenting programmes in her area and saw a
need emerging for this type of programme. This coordinator was also involved in running a support group for
grandparents who were caring for grandchildren. In both areas parents already known to the coordinators were
offered the opportunity to join the programme. One coordinator decided to join the group herself as a participant.
20
In one area the coordinator said that there is a tradition of oppression in the area and this is handed from one
generation to another. She suggested that the “notion of having a ‘man’ is very important, even if they don’t want a
relationship, it’s all about the man and what he wants”. In this area the coordinator also said that there is an “awful
lot of domestic violence attached to relationships, so raw we can’t bring in Women’s Aid to the group”. She continued
that “despite all the money in the area the women are back in the 1950’s in terms of how they talk to each other i.e.
they don’t”.
Both coordinators considered that the preparation and contracting with the IFPA was good and “things fell into place”
with information provided for participants in advance to explain the programme. IFPA trainers had discussed with
coordinators, prior to the commencement of the programme, what might happen if difficulties arose for participants
during the course of the training, as a result of the topic, and a counsellor was made available if the need arose.
The feedback from the participants was very positive in the three groups: “they find it brilliant” and “they love the
course and it is the one the women attend in high numbers”. One coordinator said that “one women who wouldn’t
talk about sex had gone on work experience in a department store recently , was put in the lingerie department and
was at ease with this”. The coordinator attributed this change in attitude to the course.
The coordinator who was organising the programme as part of a wider training programme said that it would be part
of any training she organised in the future. The other coordinator said that she would like to receive training to be a
trainer so that the programme would be more widely available within the community.
4.4 Interviews with Trainers
The interviews with the two main IFPA trainers took place when the programme was complete.
Interviews with trainers centred on:
Need for the programme
The strengths of the programme
The weaknesses of the programme
The attributes required for being a trainer
Programme future.
The trainers considered that “it is very evident that parents in all groups regardless of social status are finding it
difficult to talk to the children”. One trainer said that the lack of information out there and their own growing up
experience is very relevant to how they speak/don’t to their own children and “with the support from the programme
they are now initiating conversations”.
One trainer said that delivering the programme on three consecutive days gave the trainers an opportunity to identify
what was and was not working with the programme and to make adjustments accordingly. The real value in the
programme, they believed, is in the discussions among the participants.
The main strengths of the programme identified by the trainers were the content, the developmental nature of the
programme and the format that sought to encourage group discussions. The modules on STIs and contraception “were
the most popular because they have the potential to be humorous and also generate lots of questions which makes it
interactive”. On the developmental aspect of the programme one trainer said that the “whole programme is a tool”
and that “having 8 weeks allows the possibility to build relationships with participants”. This trainer suggested that
the programme is a “good framework to deliver information in the context of people’s lives and for exploring
associated issues e.g. negotiating sexual activity”.
21
The trainers identified some weaknesses in the programme. These were related to the fact that the programme is not
an Irish programme and also elements which are inherent in the programme design. The primary shortcomings of the
programme in the Irish context are related to child protection with one trainer saying “that the interpretations of child
protection are limited and unhelpful in the programme and it might be more helpful to think about child welfare” and
that this particular section might need to be adapted to an Irish context. The same person said that “it is difficult to
transcend the attitudes to social workers but that this was beyond the scope of the programme.” The trainers said that
the “school policy module needed to be reworked or modified”.
The weakness in the programme design was identified as the amount of written work which is required. A trainer
suggested that “the amount of written work was full on for people with literacy needs” and “maybe there are other
ways of demonstrating understanding rather than writing things down”.
For the purpose of the pilot programme it was decided to use two trainers but generally trainers felt that one
programme facilitator would be sufficient. One trainer said that in a “group of six participants one trainer would be
fine but in a group of twelve two trainers might be required”. Trainers identified that the use of two trainers generates
its own challenges as the trainers have to work together to meet the groups’ learning needs and agree who is leading
what. It was “important to check in with each other before and after the session”.
IFPA trainers considered that Speakeasy trainers would need some form of registration or affiliation process so that
the IFPA can monitor the quality of the training programme if it is continued and expanded.
In terms of the attributes of a trainer it was considered “that a good understanding of sexual and reproductive health
was necessary” as was “an understanding of where this can go or what it can bring up”. One trainer suggested that
good organisational and facilitation skills were important as well as a “willingness to work with where people are at”.
The trainers both felt that attendance at the programme needed to be voluntary. They both suggested that it would be
good to deliver the programme to fathers and to a mixed gender group. They also suggested that it would be
preferable to have a male trainer for these groups.
22
SECTION FIVE – DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
23
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Irish Constitution confers the role of primary educator of children on parents in the broadest sense, which
includes education about relationships and sex. The Speakeasy programme aims to provide parents with some of the
skills and knowledge to exercise this right.
The underlying research question for this evaluation was to determine if the Speakeasy programme achieved its
objective i.e. to enable parents to speak more openly to their children about sex and relationships. Analysis of the
data reported earlier suggests that it does meet the stated objective.
The data also suggests that as well as the intended outcome, the programme also had unintended benefits specifically in terms of increased awareness among the participants surrounding their own sexual and reproductive health
needs.
Written and verbal evidence from the parents themselves, the local organisers and the trainers suggests that the pilot
programme has been successful. The high levels of attendance on the programme, sometimes where participants had
difficult personal circumstances, also suggests that participants were actively engaged as learners on the programme
and that the programme was meeting, and exceeding, their needs and expectations.
The questionnaires highlight that all of the participants wanted to talk to their children about sex and relationships.
Participants evaluated themselves at the beginning and the end of the programme in terms of their confidence levels
and knowledge levels.
On the issue of confidence, participants made the judgement that their confidence almost doubled and many cited
examples of how they had begun to use the programme content at home. They drew specific attention to using
everyday situations to open discussions with their children and said that they were more aware now of opportunities
to talk to their children. Participants also reported the ability to respond to their children’s questions now where some
indicated that previously they would have ignored these or minimised them.
In terms of their knowledge participants were happy that they were now more informed with factual and up-to-date
information, and also about helpful language to use and the age appropriateness of certain conversations. In terms of
knowledge the most striking increase was in the area of STIs which at the outset had been the area in which people
considered themselves least informed. On all four knowledge areas parents suggested that their knowledge had
increased by at least 30% upon completion of the programme.
Furthermore, participants were asked to consider statements which other participants had made about speaking to
their children about sex and relationships, particularly in terms of their comfort levels in taking responsibility for the
role. Prior to the programme participants considered that they had primary responsibility in this area but did not
necessarily feel confident in this. Following the programme all participants feel confident or very confident about
taking on this role. Prior to the programme most parents felt that they had the primary responsibility for talking to
their children about sex and relationships whilst upon programme completion, they still felt that they had this role,
but that others had a role in this also, primarily teachers and other family members. In addition, four of the participants thought that young people’s friends had the primary responsibility for this education. Due to the closed nature
of this question it is unclear what the intention was behind this response. However all participants gave multiple
responses to this question, suggesting that they now realise that young people will talk and share information with
friends. Other responses by these participants in the questionnaire indicated that they had learnt and built their
confidence on the course and intended to use this learning with their children.
It is apparent that the richness of the learning experience of this programme can be attributed in the first instance to
the ability of the trainers to help the participants form into cohesive trusting groups which, in turn, led to participants
sharing their own experiences. The value of participants own experiences and contributions through questions and
stories cannot be underestimated with this most evidenced by one group where participants ranged from early 20’s to
late 60’s. The participants in this group noted during both focus groups the importance of this diversity.
All participants said there was nothing they did not enjoy about the programme. The majority of the participants did
not recommend any changes to the programme and those that did so recommended some additional input on the
issues of emotional development and self-esteem.
24
While the programme is aimed at supporting parents, it is ultimately about young people being able to make
informed choices now and in the future regarding their relationships, as well as sex and reproductive health. All of
the data suggests that the programme has achieved its intended aim of enabling parents to speak more openly to
their children about sex and relationships.
Two unintended impacts (in relation to stated objectives) of the programme have been the increased awareness
among the participants of their own sexual and reproductive health needs and the wider reach of the programme
beyond the official participant group. Participants cited both increased clinical and emotional awareness as a result of
their involvement with the programme. Given that many of the parents grew up in an era of absolutely no or minimal
sex education it is not surprising that their limited knowledge had an impact not just on their ability to communicate
and inform their children, but also on their understanding of their own personal needs and rights. Participants have
identified their need for more regular health screening and also for making more positive choices arising from the
programme.
Participants spoke consistently about sharing their learning with their partners, family, friends and colleagues thus
increasing the reach of the programme beyond the immediate group participants, this represents a secondary benefit
accrued from the ability of participants to speak about their learning. This shared learning demonstrates an increase
in confidence in using language previously unknown or the cause of embarrassment. The wider reach also acts as a
promotion for the programme in local communities.
Findings of research outlined in section three of this report indicate that many young people do not feel able to speak
to parents about relationships and sex. This programme represents an opportunity for parents to increase their ability
to initiate conversations with young people and also to respond to their queries.
Recommendation One:
The Speakeasy programme should be established as part of the IFPA programme of services and be made widely
available. The programme should be marketed and made available to parents through the widest range of avenues
including schools, family centres, residents’ associations, and community groups. The programme should be marketed
as an additional resource to parents to develop and add to their existing skills and knowledge on sex and
relationships and ways of sharing this knowledge with their children in an age-appropriate manner.
Promoting healthy and respectful relationships, sexual practice and wellbeing is not the brief exclusively of the IFPA.
Both statutory and voluntary organisations have a remit and interest in this area and the Speakeasy programme,
when rolled out, should compliment and support the intent and work of these agencies. National and local
partnerships will be critical to future success of the programme.
The Crisis Pregnancy Agency and the HIV & AIDS Education and Prevention Plan have prioritised, in their current
strategic plans, training programmes for parents to increase their ability to provide sex and relationships education in
the home. The HIV & AIDS Education and Prevention Plan delegates this task to the Family Support Agency. The IFPA
as the licensee of the Speakeasy programme should consider initiating or strengthening relationships with these and
other national organisations whose brief also includes the health and wellbeing of young people and families, as well
as health promotion including the promotion of safe sexual practices. Partnership with national organisations may
include funding agreements, mutual sharing of expertise and contribution to knowledge/research.
Recommendation Two:
In the event that the IFPA is not able to broaden the delivery of the pro gramme due to resources, the agency should
seek funding from other sources to undertake this task. Such sources could include Crisis Pregnancy Agency and the
Family Support Agency whose stated brief and current priorities are compatible with the Speakeasy pro gramme
intent and approach.
25
Notwithstanding the additional funding which might be secured from other sources, providing training is only one
aspect of the IFPA brief and the organisation has a small training department. Ensuring the development and
sustainability of the Speakeasy programme will require additional trainers competent in the delivery of the
programme. These trainers (whilst not necessarily being full-time staff members of the IFPA) will need skills,
knowledge and attitudes compatible with the objectives and values of the programme.
Recommendation Three:
The IFPA should develop a panel of trainers who are competent in the delivery of the Speakeasy programme.
Consideration should be given to approaching youth work and community-based organisations e.g. Family Resource
Centres, who may have some expertise in health issues and/or facilitation to encourage their staff to participate in the
training and subsequently train as a trainer to extend the influence of the programme.
The IFPA should also consider the development of a panel of trainers in conjunction with other organisations who are
actively engaged in sexual health promotion. The panel of trainers should include both female and male trainers. To
ensure the integrity of the programme trainers should be certified as Speakeasy trainers and registered with the IFPA.
All of the participants of this programme were female. All involved thought that the programme could and should be
delivered to men, either in a men’s only group or a mixed gender group. The ambivalence of some participants about a
mixed gender group demonstrates how difficult adults find it to talk about sex and relationship issues, not just to
children and young people but to other adults, a point reinforced by one of the local coordinators and reported
earlier. This is likely to result from the poor, limited or no sex and relationship education which many of the adults
received. However this ambivalence should not preclude fathers being offered the opportunity to avail of the training
and, as over 90% of adults are in favour of providing some form of sex and relationships education to young people,
fathers should be encouraged to take up a role in this regard.
Recommendation Four:
The IFPA should pilot the Speakeasy programme with a father’s group and a mixed gender group. The IFPA should be
guided by local organisations in establishing these groups. Family resource and community centres with men’s groups
may prove to be valuable partners in this work.
On reviewing the programme handbook and training format it is clear that the programme pays equal attention to the
content and the format for delivery. The programme is, in keeping with adult education, best practice in employing a
mixed approach, in which use of the participants’ own experience and voluntary participation are fundamental. The
participants’ self-evaluation indicated that participant interest in returning to education and training had increased
since taking part in the programme. It is reasonable to speculate that the positive experience of the training
programme, both content and process as well as realising their expectations, contributed to this increased interest.
The primary shortcoming of the programme identified was the degree of written work involved for participants. Both
participants and trainers considered that this need not be a bar to someone with poor literacy attending, though
additional supports may be required. Research outlined earlier points to the link between low educational
attainment, economic status and “risky” sexual activity. Those with a poor educational achievement and experience
may be reluctant to, or feel excluded from, engaging in training in which they believe there to be a strong written
dimension. However it is these people and their children who may be most at risk and therefore the prescribed
manual/workbook aside, efforts made to encourage their participation would be very worthwhile. Participants in the
pilot programmes did not think that poor literacy or dyslexia were a block to learning though the programme required
more intense support for these participants.
Recommendation Five:
The IFPA should consider amending the programme format to make it more suitable for those with poor literacy
including dyslexia and promote this aspect of the programme.
26
The Speakeasy programme is not accredited in Ireland, whilst it receives certification in the UK through the Open
College. Participants in Ireland receive a Speakeasy certificate of achievement on review of their workbook. There is
currently a move to certify adult training and also to recognise other forms of learning through the Qualifications
Authority. Central to this intention is to recognise the life/work experience and disparate training particularly of
people who may not have had an opportunity to pursue traditional certified programmes. The Speakeasy programme
adheres to the principles of adult education and utilises participants own life experiences. Securing certification for
the programme is likely to increase the attractiveness of the programme to some agencies e.g. those providing
returning to education programmes, who could offer the Speakeasy programme as part of their overall training
curriculum. Such a development would have the multiple effect of increasing the appeal of the programme for some
potential participants as well as providing meaningful learning opportunities for participants.
Recommendation Six:
The IFPA should explore opportunities to secure reco gnised certification for the Speakeasy programme e.g. FETAC or
Open College. This process might include creating links with organisations which offer life skills or return-toeducation training programmes.
The nature of the subject matter is sensitive and may raise feelings because of participant’s own current or previous
experiences. These feelings can range from mild embarrassment to an inability to participate because of fear and
anxiety. The SAVI report suggested that over a third of Irish adults have an experience of sexual violence. In this
context it is essential that preparations continue to be made by both the trainers and the host organisation to deal
with feelings which may arise as a result of the training. Embarrassment resulting from speaking openly or listening
to others speaking about sexual experiences is likely to be dealt with in the context of the training situation. The
trainers may facilitate open and positive conversations and are likely to use this experience as part of the training.
Where deeper feelings are generated perhaps by experiences of sexual violence, cognisance needs to be taken of
how a person can be supported to deal with this. Where appropriate, additional supports may need to be provided for
the person to assist them to deal with what is being generated as a result of programme content.
Recommendation Seven:
The IFPA should continue to ensure that the pro gramme preparation and contracting process includes consideration
of and arrangements for participants who experience anxiety and distress as a result of their participation in the
pro gramme.
Many participants who were involved in the programme said that the programme should be made available to young
people in schools and in youth clubs. They suggested that the programme should be delivered by trainers rather than
teachers. The primary objective of the programme is to provide parents with the skills and information to speak to
their children about sex and relationships and therefore one of the core elements of the programme would not be
relevant in this regard. This does not mean that a programme using some of the other core elements and methodologies should not be developed and delivered to young people. Such a programme would complement the work of
the IFPA as well as other organisations concerned with the welfare of young people and might represent another
opportunity for the IFPA to partner with a relevant organisation to encourage positive choices in relation to sexual
health and relationships.
Recommendation Eight:
The IFPA should consider the possibility of developing a programme for young people based on some of the core
Speakeasy content and approaches. This consideration could include partnering with youth work organisations in the
design and delivery of the programme in order to maximise its reach.
27
Conclusion
It is not the brief of this research to make a case for sex and relationships education in Ireland. Examples of such
research were outlined earlier and a number of agencies have committed their resources to this. The lived reality is
that young people in Ireland are becoming sexually active at a younger age, and Irish people generally are engaged
in risky and unsafe sexual practices often with permanent consequences. While Irish people and institutions have
been debating publicly and privately the merits and remit of sex and relationships education, STIs have been
increasing at an exponential rate and crisis pregnancies continue unabated.
Many parents have themselves limited factual knowledge on sex and relationships and low levels of confidence in
sharing what they do know with their children. Queries on relationships or sexual matters from a child which are
ignored or minimised by a parent subtly communicate the message that the issue is not a topic for discussion,
perhaps forever. In an age where young people have access, through a variety of media to various, sometimes
complex and often conflicting views, on what constitutes safe and healthy relationships and sexual practices, any
programme which increases their factual knowledge and understanding, through parental involvement, is to be
welcomed.
The Speakeasy programme has proven that it represents such an initiative.
28
Irish Family Planning Association, 60 Amiens Street, Dublin 1, Ireland
T: +353 1 806 9444 W: www.ifpa.ie E: [email protected]