The main impression in response to this question was that the starting point was one of considerable difficulty and disharmony, but that this moved on to become more positive, more effective, and, ultimately, a strength.
The negative comments suggested a more widespread reluctance to work in the required manner.
People had very different understandings of what Springboard was meant to do (who, what and how).
We’re not that great at working together in Blackpool which is strange because we are such a small place.
Again, there was a reluctance from some agencies to really join in.
40
Really positive from some of the partners that I expected to be reluctant. But from some partners that I expected would really welcome the project I got some negativity which really upset me. With the key people they were very good. But the wider network were less involved.
It was acknowledged that action was taken to address the tensions.
There were some difficulties with personalities in the first instance, but these were, in the main, resolved.
Some aspects were positive from the beginning, and while difficulties were faced, the end result was one of positive working in partnership.
From a strategy point of view [interagency relationships were] clear and strong.
The majority of interagency relationships were good - we made some very positive partnerships that carried over to other pieces of work
They had every chance to get the approach right. The method was good and there was strong emphasis on Inter-agency sharing and working together. Perhaps individual approaches often stifled that. Strong individuals who were able to think outside the box and put families first made the most difference.
5) Were the right families referred to the
project?
One respondent held that there was a problem particularly at the beginning of the project with identifying the right families.
No. At the beginning there was confusion about this. I believe very strongly that Springboard works better at level 3 rather than level 4. It needs to be more of a preventative service.
Another respondent was unsure.
They are picking up the referrals – but whether the right families are being referred I don’t know.
Otherwise, the respondents were universally positive.
On the whole yes. There were still some inappropriate referrals (but this is normal). Springboard are getting to the families they need to get to.
Yes. I gate-keep the education ones. But in the main yes the right ones were referred, for the right reasons.
I think so, yes. Yes.
Yes. Right from the start there was a lot of consideration given from the gatekeepers. Yes definitely.
6) How good was the ‘welcome’ and retention
for/of families and new team members?
With regard to staff it was clear that the welcome had been positive, both from a first-hand perspective and fro the viewpoint of those managing the team workers.
From a staff point of view they were hand picked – they responded by owning the families and the problems - they owned that way of working. They all bought in and helped to develop the project from the start.
I have always felt very included in what Springboard do (I have a seconded worker from the team).
That was very positive. Good processes were used – I haven’t seen an unhappy worker. Not actually involved. As far as I’m aware they were welcomed by families.
[One service] have had 3 members of staff. The first was the wrong person. This was an organisational mistake. The other 2 that have represented health relished it and continue to relish it so much that they would stay if it was rolled out. So that’s a good example.
There was acknowledgement that there had been some problems, and that the implications of fixed- term contracts were unavoidably disruptive.
Staff – good initially. As we came near to the end of the project there is a natural wastage because their contracts come to an end in March. Because of the fixed term nature of the contracts retention becomes an issue.
We also became a 7 day service recently and this was a reason why some staff left.
Almost all of the selected families welcomed team members, perhaps reflecting the ethos of inclusion of families in the whole process of Springboard.
For families – we have only ever had one family who refused [due to hidden issues]. Apart from that one the welcome and retention were good. They exit when they feel ready.
This was a key issue right at the start. The early welcome was really good both for families and staff. The support for staff was really good.
Springboard has made a massive difference for families. For the first time they’ve had a co- ordinated approach from a team that went in and made a difference.
Exemplary. The approach from the workers is genuine and on a level with the families and that is what they need.
One final comment that may be significant is that for various reasons it proved difficult to attract and retain a field social worker as part of the team.
4