Targeting children and young people

Introduction

This chapter explores the pilot project approaches to identifying children and young people who cannot afford a bike, and ensuring delivery focuses on this group.

Target groups

Eligibility

The pilot projects each set their own target group, within the parameters of a pilot for children who cannot afford a bike. Pilots developed different ways of identifying and targeting children and young people who could not afford a bike. This included focusing on:

• areas of high deprivation based on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)
• children eligible for free school meals or universal credit
• children who may have difficulties affording a bike due to life challenges, experience of care, rural deprivation or additional support needs
• children identified as needing a bike for Bikeability training

focusing on children identified as in need of support through partner organisations, including charitable, third sector and community organisations.

Table 5: Project targeting

Project	SIMD	FSM	Low income	Care experience	Other
Angus Re-Cycles	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Rural deprivation
Barnardo's Gearing Up	No	No	No	No	Life challenges*
Bike for Good	No	Yes	Yes	No	School clothing grant
Clackmannanshire Bike Buddies	Yes	No	No	No	Whole school approach in area with high SIMD
Cycling Friendly Secondary Schools	Yes	No	No	No	No
Equality Cycles	Yes	No	No	No	No
I Bike	Yes	Yes	No	No	Schools in SIMD areas
Pedal Up Shetland	No	No	No	No	No bike at Bikeability stage
Rock Up and Ride	No	Yes	No	No	School clothing grant

*The project is targeted at people experiencing life challenges, identified by Barnardo’s. Most are in areas of deprivation, experience low income and some have experience of care.

Projects using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation to target participants used different approaches. Some projects targeted schools in high SIMD areas, and schools could then have discretion on which pupils had access to bikes. One project targeted a cluster of schools in deprived areas and used an opt-out model for all p7 pupils in the target cluster. Some projects targeted young people in SIMD deciles 1 and 2 (the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland) while some targeted a wider range up to deciles 1 to 5 (the 50% most deprived areas in Scotland).

A few projects placed additional requirements on access, for example a parent confirming that the child had no bike or confirmation of having an indoor space to store a bike. Some projects required participants to have a basic level of cycling skills through Bikeability or wider cycling skills programmes run through the pilot, before they were able to take the bike away to use themselves.

Age and gender

The age range targeted varied between projects.

Table 6: Pilot target age range

Project	Nursery	Primary	Secondary	Older	Notes
Angus Re-Cycles	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	3-17
Barnardo's Gearing Up	No	No	Yes	Yes	10-22
Bike for Good	No	Yes	Yes	No	P6-S2
Clackmannanshire Bike Buddies	No	Yes	No	No	P7
Cycling Friendly Secondary Schools	No	No	Yes	No	S1-S6/ 11-17
Equality Cycles	No	Yes	Yes	No	8-18
I Bike	No	Yes	Yes	No	P5+
Pedal Up Shetland	No	Yes	No	No	P5-7
Rock Up and Ride	No	Yes	Yes	No	7-14

Some projects selected the age range to fit with wider activities, including school-based Bikeability training or transition from primary to secondary school. In a few cases, the age range was designed to match bike sizes, for example focusing on upper primary age children to ensure that bikes can last longer as they grow up. In some cases projects were working out how to balance the need for a bike at P5 stage for Bikeability, and the good links with this programme, with the likelihood that children may quickly grow out of a bike offered at that stage.

Monitoring information on the gender of participants was available from five projects at the time of this evaluation. This highlighted that of the 1,370 participants from five projects for whom information was available, 55% were male, 44% were female and 1% identified as other. For comparison, 51% of students in Scotland’s schools in 2021 were male, and 49% female (Summary Statistics for Schools in Scotland 2021, December 2021).

Flexible targeting

As well as set criteria, most projects also took a holistic approach, and were keen that young people in need did not miss out because they did not qualify for free school meals, or live in a particular locality. For example, some projects accepted referrals from school staff or community partners who identified young people based on their professional knowledge of young people and their families.

Some project leads and partners commented on the challenge of finding a balance between efficiently identifying and reaching the target group, and not wishing to stigmatise people through the offer.

I didn’t want people to feel like it was a charity bike, so we framed it as an active travel opportunity. - Project partner

While almost all involved in the pilots were comfortable with targeting, a small number raised concerns that targeting could exclude certain children and young people. A small number were concerned that a targeting approach based solely on eligibility for free school meals would result in an incomplete understanding of need and could miss young people who cannot afford a bike, particularly in light of the cost of living crisis during 2022.

Most pupils took up the offer, either for a bike, accessories or maintenance. This approach was felt to have worked well and avoided potential stigma attached to a free bike. Project evaluation showed that only two eligible pupils opted out across the six participating primary schools.

The dignity element is important, if children are to adopt, engage and feel comfortable being part of the pilot.

There were mixed views from those involved in the project about the value of an opt out approach. Some felt that the opt out model was very important, worked very well and was positively received by partners as delivery was succinct and no child was excluded. But some partners noted that the opt out model provided fewer opportunities for engagement. Families did not need to proactively opt in, which meant at the early stages only those who were opting out needed to communicate. This made it challenging to gather information at a later stage for example about bike size, preferences and needs.

An evaluation of the pilot suggested that a bike library system should be explored to ensure that once children grew out of the bikes, they could swap their bike for a larger model, or hand it back into the scheme for future participants.

Collective criteria

A few project leads and partners commented that it would have been helpful to have collectively agreed eligibility criteria across the pilot projects at the outset. It was felt that this could have helped projects to get started more quickly, and ensure that the offer was consistent. A few indicated that collective agreement on eligibility remained important for current and future planning.

Approaches to reaching the target group

Projects used a wide range of approaches to reaching target children, young people and families. This included:

• asking schools to take the lead on identifying children in need of a free bike
• issuing information to targeted families through schools
• working closely with partners connected to schools such as Active Schools
• identifying eligible young people through partners working closely with the target group including community and third sector organisations

Projects often used a mix of approaches, working with schools, Active Schools and wider community organisations.

Overall, projects indicated that it was important to build skills, rapport and commitment before handing over the bike. Some found that they needed to invest time in building relationships with young people and families. This could involve working closely with partners who have good relationships with families and communities, or taking time to develop relationships gently over time.

Not only do we provide them with a bike, but we also teach them how to fall in love with cycling. - Project lead

Working with schools to identify families

Most of the projects were working with local authorities and schools to promote the project and generate referrals, providing knowledge about levels of need and disadvantage.

Projects working with schools generally found this approach worked well. Families could be targeted effectively, and the knowledge of teachers and wider support staff could be built in to ensure families were not overlooked due to strict criteria.

The schools have been very proactive, they are on board and really promoting it. - Project lead

Teachers involved in the evaluation were positive that there was flexibility in the criteria they could use to identify children, and felt that this flexibility helped the programme to have a bigger impact and reach those most in need.

Administering the bike distribution through schools also helped to reduce the need for personal information to be shared between partners.

The timing of the launch of the pilots coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic and the emergence of the Omicron variant, which put some additional pressures on schools and impacted capacity to some extent. However, schools noted that they had been in close contact with families during the pandemic and some felt they were more aware of which families needed help and were most in need as a result. Schools also highlighted that eligibility criteria were similar to those used in school to determine other priorities – including SIMD level, entitlement to Free School Meals or Free Clothing Allowance – and they were comfortable using these.

Many of the teachers involved in this evaluation indicated that they were passionate about cycling, or a member of their senior management team was, meaning that they felt it was valuable to put time in to ensure pupils could access the opportunity. For some schools, the pilot projects filled a clear need for pupils.

There was a clear gap I saw… a real need that I saw in school… it was perfect timing. - Teacher, primary school

Schools often invested significant time in identifying and contacting families. Schools used their data – including identifying pupils entitled to free school meals, pupils living in deprived areas, pupils with care experience and pupils who have English as a second language – as well as involving staff in nurture groups, pastoral support or guidance roles, due to their detailed knowledge of the families involved.

Most schools felt that the referral process worked well, and did not take up much time. Some schools put in more staff time to reduce the administrative burden on parents, for example filling in forms or gathering information by phone rather than in writing.

We wanted to make it as easy as possible for parents. - Teacher, primary school

Some schools highlighted that they had dedicated resources – such as early help or nurture teams – who support families and have the links and capacity to call families to explore uptake, which helped a lot. However, a few schools found the approach to be resource intensive. For example in one school, the process of gathering names and passing them on to the project was felt to be a little clunky, resulting in additional work for the school, lower participation from parents and limited information on the needs and preferences of the child for the project. Another school also found the time involved challenging, in terms of offering options, gathering forms and parental permissions.

While most school staff were happy with identifying eligible families, one teacher was not confident with the responsibility of determining who should quality for the free bikes.

Project leads working jointly with schools were conscious of the pressures on schools and the way that changing capacity of school staff could affect delivery. Some felt dependent on schools and local authorities to share information about the free bike opportunity with eligible families. This responsibility often fell on one or two key individuals within the school. Project leads also highlighted that it took time to develop these partnerships. Some felt that with more time, future targeting through schools could be more precise to focus in on the pupils who were most in need of a free bike.

Teachers highlighted that it was important to:

• ensure the administration required by parents was minimal
• have clear criteria but with flexibility
• have good communication and relationships – some had existing relationships with project partners
• know about the requirements in advance, so they could plan it in
• have simple, short written information about the opportunity available in a range of formats and languages
• allow time and not promise bikes for certain dates (like Christmas)
• avoid too much additional work during busy transition periods such as p7.

Working with community organisations

Some projects worked closely with community-based organisations, including community groups, sports clubs and housing associations. This worked well in small localities, where community work was well developed and active. Staff in community partner organisations understood the needs of the target group and passed on information. Some projects reported developing strong links, sharing skills and learning and building on the expertise of different partners.

In particular, community partners mentioned that they had built strong linkages with families in need of support during the Covid-19 pandemic, which helped them to understand the needs of families and build trust through providing practical support. As these organisations had strong relationships with families, they were well placed to encourage take up of the bikes and support the relationship between the project and the bike recipient.

Working with them helps us guarantee that the bikes will be getting to the right people. - Project lead

In some cases, sports groups were involved in targeting participants. One sports club highlighted that it wanted to have very clear criteria, as it didn’t feel it was appropriate to ask young people lots of questions. This club set a clear criteria of young people being eligible for the uniform allowance, but with some flexibility, judgement and discretion.

A few community organisations felt that the administration of the pilot was quite resource intensive and while valuable to be involved in it did create an additional workload. One community organisation involved in one pilot found that the administration involved in referring individuals to the project was very challenging. Two partners involved in one project said that their participation damaged their relationship with the young people they worked with, reducing trust as bikes were not delivered on time or to the quality expected. In one project two partners reported that some young people who thought they were getting a bike didn’t receive one.

It was really resource intensive on top of my usual work. - Partner

Barriers to uptake

Schools and community organisations found that the main barrier to uptake related to storage. Some projects required that the bike was stored indoors as a condition of loan or ownership, and some families did not have the space.

Some schools and community organisations found that the administration around the scheme – information, consent, referrals and surveys to explore options – could be a barrier for parents. Some addressed this by contacting parents by phone and undertaking much of the administration within the school or community organisation. Speaking to parents directly helped to encourage uptake, and also provided an opportunity to connect families in with wider offers of support if available locally.

One project found that a few families in rural locations didn’t want their children to have bikes as there were no safe routes to cycle (with fast roads and few pavements) and no safe passage to school. 

In some cases, projects had to take time to think about how to raise awareness of the opportunity in a way that would connect with their core audience. One project partner ran a successful social media campaign, and another translated information into different languages to ensure all were aware of the opportunity.

In one project, a few partners reported that the matching of children to bikes and lack of exploration of needs and choices was a barrier, as some children returned the bikes as unsuitable.

Consents

Each project had clear consent processes in place to ensure that parents and carers were happy with the young person receiving a bike.

Some partners indicated that the consent process worked well, particularly when consent forms were short (1 page) and information could be shared between partners to avoid asking for information more than once. However, some found that consent forms could be a barrier to participation, as they were not particularly user friendly, used complicated language and were overly long (more than 10 pages). Online forms were also a barrier for some families.

Some partners worked with pilots to ensure that consent forms were as simple as possible, or families had support to complete them. In many cases schools worked to reduce the information required from families, taking on the paperwork on their behalf. One project indicated that it took a long time to agree a suitable consent form with the local authority legal department due to concerns about liability issues, particularly with recycled bikes.

To ensure the ownership approach is clear, a few projects working with schools developed a protocol for the transfer of assets (i.e. the bike) to young people. This varied from a formal arrangement, such as that used by schools when transferring iPads or laptops, to a more informal agreement requiring the young person and parent/carer to sign a form stating that they understood their responsibilities.

Participant experiences of targeting

The survey of young people involved in the pilots, and discussions with a small sample of young people and children as part of this evaluation highlighted that participants felt happy, lucky, excited and grateful to be involved in the pilots, and have the opportunity to access a bike for free.

The best thing is that I get to keep the bike forever. - Young person

Through the survey and discussions, parents and carers were also positive about the opportunity, and felt that it was an excellent offer for children and young people.

Great opportunity for kids to have safe equipment when these things are so expensive. - Parent

A few parents mentioned that they felt it seems too good to be true, and were a little unsure at first.

I thought it was absolutely amazing. I couldn’t believe it was a thing. I felt a bit overwhelmed by it. Usually with these things there would be a small fee or something to give back, so it’s an amazing thing to be going on. - Parent

Most parents and carers found out about the opportunity through the school, but a few had heard through social work and wider support workers, community groups, press

Most found the process to be simple. All parents and carers responding to the survey found the process to be excellent (63%) or good (37%).

Absolutely fantastic service and great people to speak to. - Parent

A few indicated that they had support from a support worker or from the school, which helped. A few liked that they could apply in different ways – on a website or over the phone. Parents and carers found the consent process straightforward and easy.