Conflict Resolution Uncut
CAYT Impact Study: REP14
The Centre for Analysis of Youth Transitions (CAYT) is an
independent research centre with funding from the Department
for Education. It is a partnership between leading researchers
from the Institute of Education, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and
the National Centre for Social Research.
Centre for Analysis of Youth
AYT Transitions
STUDY REFERENCE: REP14
Programme name: Conflict Resolution UnCut
Contact details/links for further details:
Working With Men, Unit K308, Tower Bridge Business Complex, 100 Clements Road, London, United Kingdom, SE16
4DG. Tel.: 020 7237 5353.
Programme description, aims and objectives:
UnCut aims to prevent crime, particularly knife crime, by building boys’ conflict resolution skills and raising their
awareness of the consequences of knife crime. The intervention consists of several programmes which include conflict
management and community safety programmes for primary and secondary school students; a ‘mock trial’ programme;
assemblies; one-to-one sessions with selected students; sessions on transition to secondary school, co-delivered by peer
mentors; managing conflict training for practitioners and working with parents.
The programmes vary in length and in their targeted audience. For example, the managing conflict programme consists
of 6-8 sessions with groups of eight pupils and addresses such topics as: examining communication in conflict-type
scenarios, discussing weapons and violence, spotting and avoiding danger, examining the motives behind carrying knives
and discussing aspirations and motivations. The mock trial programme has a similar structure but focuses on the
consequences of knife crime, including legal aspects and the police perspective. Assemblies address whole year groups
and explore medical and criminal justice issues. One-to-one sessions are delivered to students identified as requiring
further support.
Activities used in various programmes include conflict-resolution role plays, watching and discussing a mock trial DVD,
contrasting earnings from immoral activities and from employment, a testimonial by a knife crime victim and expression
of a topic through art and presentations.
Target population:
The intervention targets boys in primary and secondary schools (aged 10-16). Whole school years are included in
assemblies and selected individuals take part in intensive programmes or one-to-one work. Additional support sessions
are provided to Year 6 students in order to prepare them for the transition to secondary school.
Expected outcomes:
Improved conflict resolution skills, active listening skills, ability to solve disagreements, confidence, ability to control
one’s temper and to keep safe. Deterring and preventing knife crime by increasing boys’ awareness of its consequences
and showing them practical ways of avoiding knife crime.
References:
Bourne, V. (2011). ‘Conflict Resolution Evaluation Report’. Working With Men.
Clear Plan (2010). ‘Fear and Fashion: Programme Evaluation. Final Report’.
Working With Men (2012). ‘UnCut Project 2011-2012: City Bridge Report’.
Study details:
Conflict Resolution Evaluation Study
The study uses a treatment and a control group to identify the impact of a conflict resolution intervention on boys’
conflict resolution skills, both self-reported and assessed independently based on observations by teachers.
Wilberforce Study
Presentations and Q&A sessions, co-delivered by peer mentors, were delivered to Year 6 pupils in Wilberforce Primary
School, with the aim of preparing them for the transition to secondary school. A further set of workshops on conflict
resolution and community safety was then delivered to 12 boys. The study presents data on students’ self-ratings (on a
scale from 0 to 10) of conflict – and safety-related questions asked before and after the conflict resolution workshops.
Qualitative Data
Between 2007 and 2010 over 2000 young people in North Westminster participated in UnCut activities. The majority
were engaged through assemblies and over 350 young participants attended workshops or one-to-one sessions. Training
was delivered to 68 practitioners (teaching staff, learning mentors and youth workers) and 129 parents were involved in
the programme. A consultation process was conducted in 2011 with young people and practitioners, which provided
qualitative data on outcomes.
Study samples:
Conflict Resolution Evaluation Study
The sample consists of 54 boys. The intervention group includes 42 boys between 9 and 13 years old (mean age: 11
years) from 6 different schools. The control group consists of 12 boys between 10 and 13 years of age (mean age: 11.8
years) from 2 schools. The boys participating in the study had on average 0.7 exclusions, with more than a half of the
sample (54%) having been excluded at least once. The sample consisted of representatives of nine different ethnic
groups.
Wilberforce Study
The sample consists of 12 boys in Year 6 at Wilberforce Primary School who participated in a conflict resolution and
community safety programme which consisted of six 1 hour weekly group sessions.
Qualitative Data
35 young people (aged 14-18) and 18 practitioners who were involved in the UnCut project between 2007 and 2010 took
part in consultations which provided qualitative information on the participants views of the intervention and its impact.
Methodology:
Conflict Resolution Evaluation Study
The study uses data collected at three points in time: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention and 6
weeks later, based on an intervention and a control group. Self-reported data and teachers’ observations are treated
separately which increases the robustness of the results. In order to check whether the effectiveness of the intervention
did not differ according to boys’ personal characteristics, additional estimates were performed, using data on the
intervention group only, in which the following covariate factors were entered individually into the analysis: age, year
group, school attended, ethnicity, exclusions.
Wilberforce Study
The analysis uses students’ self-reported ratings on 5 different skills and qualities, completed before and after the
intervention. In each area students were given a scenario and asked how they would respond and why. Self-reported
scores are compiled in overall averages. No formal statistical tests are used to detect statistical significance of the
changes in scores.
Qualitative Data
The data were collected through one-to-one and small group (2-3) interviews conducted a year or more after the
intervention. The interviewees were asked the same sets of questions. Responses to some questions were then
compiled for the purposes of a numerical analysis.
Results and impact:
Conflict Resolution Evaluation Study
Before the intervention there was no statistically significant difference between the conflict resolution scores in the
intervention and control groups when these skills were measured by self-report. Observer-rated scores of participants’
conflict resolution skills prior to the intervention were higher (better) in the control group and the difference
approached statistical significance at the 5% level. Both the self-reported data and the observer rated scores indicated
that there was a clear improvement in students’ conflict resolution skills over time in the intervention group, relative to
the control group. This improvement in the skills of the intervention group was statistically significant. For both selfreported and observer data there was no statistically significant increase in conflict resolution skills in the control group.
Additionally, the scores of pupils in the intervention group improved further by 6 weeks after the intervention and again
this result was statistically significant.
Additional analysis of other factors found no statistically significant impact from any of the following factors: age, year
group, school attended, ethnicity, exclusions. Analysis of the observer rated data suggests that age and year group
(which are closely related) have a statistically significant negative impact on pupils’ conflict resolution skills across the
three time points, with younger pupils showing better conflict resolution skills. Further analysis suggests that the result
may to some extent be driven by higher average scores assigned by teachers to Year 6 students as compared to students
in Years 8 and 9, which may reflect an unintentional bias in the teachers’ ratings when applied to younger pupils.
Wilberforce Study
The study analysed students’ self-reported ratings of the following outcomes: listening skills, solving disagreements,
level of confidence, controlling one’s temper and keeping oneself safe. No formal statistical tests are used. The average
scores are higher after the intervention than before for all outcomes measured and the increase is around 2 points (out
of 10) for each outcome. The highest relative increase occurred in measures related to conflict management (controlling
one’s temper and solving disagreements) and keeping oneself safe, with relative improvements of 44-45% and 51%
respectively.
Student’s Attitudes – Qualitative Data
A vast majority (91%) of respondents said that the programme had a positive impact on their attitude and behaviour.
Students’ statements suggest that the intervention encouraged them to stay away from knife crime and provided
practical ways to avoid it. It also increased students’ awareness of the consequences of knife crime. All (100%)
respondents in the interviews expressed that the programme deterred them from carrying weapons. Most respondents
(83%) agreed that the intervention should be targeted at those at risk of joining gangs and a majority (69%) expressed
that the intervention should begin in primary school (students aged 10-11). Even though almost all students (94%)
agreed that knife crime prevention work should be delivered in schools, most students (91%) suggested that the
intervention should be delivered by individuals other than teachers, for example someone who used to be a gang
member. Of the different parts of the programme the ones which stood out for students the most were testimonials by
a knife crime victim, mock trial DVD and discussions, conflict resolution role-plays and comparing the impact on longterm earning potential from immoral earnings and from employment.
Practitioners’ Feedback – Qualitative Data
The majority of respondents (83%) stated that the programme met their expectations. A selection of statements from
the interviews also suggests that the programme was seen as useful and engaged young people. Improvement was
noted in the way in which young people communicated with each other. The statements also suggest that the aspects of
the materials found useful by practitioners included activities on negative images perceived due to dress codes or body
language; DVDs on such issues as conflict and stabbing; the conflict escalation exercise and an exercise which compared
lifetime earnings from immoral sources and from employment. 100% of practitioners who took part in the interviews
found the training they received useful. Statements by practitioners suggest that the training provided new tools and
strategies and was a platform to hear from others involved in working with young people.
Overall
A formal statistical analysis shows that the conflict resolution intervention is associated with a statistically significantly
higher increase in conflict resolution skills when compared to a control group, with gains measured up to six weeks after
the intervention. No difference in the impact of the intervention was found according to the school attended, ethnicity
or the number of exclusions. The difference according to one’s age or year group is unclear and may be attributed to
more generous rating awarded to younger students.
A before-and-after analysis of data from a small sample of Year 6 students suggests that after the conflict resolution and
community safety workshops there was an increase in the following outcomes: listening skills, solving disagreements,
level of confidence, controlling one’s temper and keeping oneself safe. Although it is unclear whether the differences are
statistically significant, the relative increase in scores is substantial (between 29% and 51%).
Qualitative data from interviews show that students felt that the programme had a positive impact on their attitudes
and behaviour and that it deterred them from knife crime. Interviews also suggest that the programme met
practitioners’ expectations and that the training they received was useful.
Impact grade: 2
Costs:
No figures quoted.
‘UnCut’ consists of several programmes and the costs of the intervention depend on which programmes are adopted
and on the needs of individual students (for example, transition workshops for Year 6 pupils or one-to-one sessions for
students requiring further support). The costs also depend on whether the intervention is delivered only by
professionals or whether it is co-delivered by peer mentors as well as on the length of the programme.
To provide an indication of the intensity of the intervention (which is closely related to costs), the table gives details of
the length of each programme and the usual numbers participating in each programme.
Programme
Length
Number of participants
Conflict Management Programme
4 sessions, 2hours each or 8 sessions, 1
hour each
8
Mock Trial Programme
4sessions, 1.5 hours each
8
Assemblies
A single session
Whole school year groups
(150 students)
One-to-one sessions
Minimum 8 weeks
1
Managing conflict raining for practitioners
1 day
8-12
Peer Mentoring Training and Transition to
Peer Mentoring Training: 3 1hr
sessionsTransition Presentation and
10 Peer Mentors
Secondary School Workshops
Q&A: 1 session, 2 hours
Approximately 25-30
Quality of evaluation evidence:
Conflict Resolution Evaluation Study uses a clearly defined control group in a mixed-design ANCOVA based on a sample
of 54 observations. Outcomes are measured at three points in time and two separate measures of conflict resolution
skills are used, increasing robustness. The sample is relatively small and the analysis of the impact of individual
characteristics on the change in scores could be made more precise by including more observations.
Wilberforce Study uses before-and-after analysis based on boys’ self-reported scores. Whilst a before-and-after analysis
does not necessarily show a causal relationship, the relatively short length of the intervention (6 weekly sessions)
suggests that little change can be expected independently of the intervention. However, a very small sample is used. A
larger sample and, ideally, a matched control group, would increase the quality of evidence.
Quality of evidence grade: 4 (Conflict Resolution Evaluation Study), 3 (Wilberforce Study), 1 (Qualitative Data)
Appendix: details of impact grades and quality of evidence grades are set out below
Impact grade
0 (none)
1 (low)
2 (medium)
3 (high)
Description
No relationship between the youth service and the
outcome in question.
Provision of the youth service may be positively
related to one but not all outcomes or just for subgroups of the target population.
The youth service has moderate impact on all
outcomes and sub-groups or high impact on some
outcomes and sub-groups.
The youth service has high impact on all outcomes
and sub-groups.
Score
0
Type of study
Basic
More Description
Studies that
describe the
intervention and
collect data on
activity associated
with it.
Studies that ask
respondents or
experts about
whether the
intervention works.
Example of a study
A study that describes the
intervention and states
how much it cost or how
many hours of services
young people received.
1
Descriptive,
anecdotal, expert
opinion
2
Study where a
statistical
relationship
(correlation)
between the
outcome and
receiving services is
established
The correlation is
observed at a single
point in time,
outcomes of those
who receive the
intervention are
compared with
those who do not
get it.
3
Study which
accounts for when
the services were
delivered by
surveying before
and after
This approach
compares
outcomes before
and after an
intervention.
A study that conducts a
survey before and after
the programme.
4
Study where there
is both a before
and after
evaluation strategy
and a clear
comparison
between groups
who do and do not
receive the youth
services
These studies use
comparison groups,
also known as
control groups.
A study that matches two
locations where both
individuals and areas are
comparable and surveys
them before and after the
programme e.g. pilot
studies.
5
As above but in
addition includes
statistical modelling
to produce better
comparison groups
and of outcomes to
allow for other
differences across
groups
Study with a before
and after
evaluation strategy,
statistically
generated control
groups and
statistical modelling
of outcomes.
6
Study where youth
services are
provided on the
basis of individuals
being randomly
assigned to either
the treatment or
the control group
A study that uses focus
groups or expert opinion
or indeed surveys those
who received the
intervention after they
received it.
A study that conducts a
survey only after the
services have been
delivered and concludes
that youths who received
the services responded
more positively than those
who did not.
A study that uses a
statistical method, such as
propensity score
matching, to ensure that
the group receiving the
youth services is similar to
the comparison group and
a statistical model of
outcomes (e.g. difference
in difference).
A study which conducts a
Randomised Controlled
Trial
How to improve the quality of evidence
Collect some “before and after” data on the
outcome of interest for those receiving the
intervention. If it is too late for that, collect
outcome “after” data for the group receiving the
services and try to compare these outcomes with
comparable youth using other sources of data.
Collect some “before and after” data on the
outcome of interest for those receiving the
services. If it is too late for that, collect outcome
“after” data for the group receiving the services
and try to compare these outcomes with
comparable youth using other sources of data.
This evidence does not allow for the fact that
prior to the intervention youths who received the
service may have been different from those who
did not. Collect some before and after data on
the outcome of interest for those receiving the
intervention. If it is too late to do that, see if you
can compare outcomes for a clearly defined
comparison or control group using other
“before” data sources, such as administrative
data.
If you have before-after data you can measure
the change in a particular outcome after the
services were delivered. Try to determine
whether you can compare this gain in the
outcome for those who received the youth
services to the gain for a similar group of youth
who did not receive the services. You might use
administrative data for this.
You have most of the data you need. Contact an
expert on statistics or econometrics and they will
be able to apply various statistical methodologies
to improve the robustness of your results e.g.
matching methods to define a better control or
comparison group. NOTE: this is the minimum
level of evaluation quality applied by the
Social Research Unit et al (2011), which also
stipulates that any such study fulfil various
quality criteria.
Short of a random control trial, this methodology
is the most robust. To improve confidence in the
results try to collect additional data, perhaps
from administrative sources, on the comparison
group to determine any differences between
them that may have pre dated the intervention.
The gold standard. It is challenging to run a RCT,
with cost, ethical and practical issues arising.
Even with a RCT you have to think about how
generalisable it is to other situations. If the RCT
was only males, it cannot tell you about how well
the youth service would do for females, for
example.