Only 4 out of 9 projects reported positive quantitative outcomes on the numbers of children who returned home safely, though a further 2 reported on reductions of number of days in care through less waiting time in the adoption process, and are therefore included in this section. In Newcastle, 50% of the 87 children in care in the project were returned to their families, compared to 25% under the preceding model. The evaluators suggested that this might reflect better social work practice combined with reduced caseloads (though not consistently across the service). In North Yorkshire’s No Wrong Door, 40% of the 67 young people who were referred from care, ceased to be looked after during their engagement with the project, returning home or moving to independent living. This was more than double the number of those ceasing to be looked after in the comparison group. In Stockport, the numbers ceasing to be looked after are not reported but the numbers of children for whom the court allocated a care order at home doubled during the project, from 23 in 2014 to 47 in 2016. This was attributed to the use and embedding of restorative practices within social work and in both Stockport and Newcastle, a strong learning culture.
70 typically undertaken to broker access to more specialist support via the Troubled Families worker’s relationship with the family, and included introductions to families for Employment Advisers (see also Section 3.2.4), Education Welfare Officers, and Drug and Alcohol Team workers. In some instances, the Troubled Families worker would also accompany other practitioners to meet with the family at the point when sanctions were administered – to provide a ‘foot in the door’ for statutory agencies, but also to support the family through the process. In one local authority, Troubled Families workers accompanied social workers to visit the family as part of child protection enquiries to work through the next steps with them. Statutory agencies working closely with Troubled Families services in this way often proved to be a reliable source of referrals, as the regular professional contact fostered a good understanding of the role and capabilities of Troubled Families workers. In one local authority, the Probation Service had sought to formalise the link by including a Troubled Families Programme referral as part of an offender’s probation plan, which set out the actions required by the offender to meet the conditions imposed by the court. This gave extra weight to the referral.
The LCIA partnership also included a range of technology innovators, who were selected through a matching process that took place prior to the submission of the bid. The aim was to introduce bespoke combinatorial technological solutions to support the new models of care that were being implemented across the LCIA footprint. An iterative approach was used, involving a series of meetings with different large businesses in the Digital sector and senior representatives from the NHS Vanguards and Lancaster University. The need was defined according to which technology offer would best support the Vanguards’ proposed new models of care. At the first “match making” event the NHS partners pitched this need to technology providers who were potentially interested, to enable conversations to be opened up with those businesses whose solutions could potentially fit the need. A set of scoring criteria for assessing the technologies objectively and transparently was drawn up, and each potential technology partner was assessed through meetings at which the scoring criteria were applied. Philips Health Systems was selected as the LCIA lead innovation partner at this point.
developing CPD framework and the professional development career portfolio. The partnership intended to develop this tool further and this activity was highlighted as a key success by partners; one called it a ‘game changer’ as it covers theory and evidence, strength and risk and is transferable across the workforce. The same partnership had intended to establish a Professional Development Learning Centre although this has been delayed pending the outcome of a bid for a Strategic Innovation Grant. Another SWTP had planned to pilot three centres to support student practice and whole systems learning but actually established eight sites which were under development by March 2016; an initiative highlighted as a success by many of the partners involved. They were also working on the development of a sufficiency model based on a robust analysis of the regional social work workforce, mapping and remodelling to support delivery of CPD programmes in line with the proposed new national accreditation programme for social work.
The effectiveness of the educational remit of the End of Life Care facilitators was enhanced by close collaboration with the North Somerset End of Life Care Co- ordination Centre (NSCCC), which had an operational function in co-ordinating care packages (e.g. equipment, personal carers, night staff). The NSCCC had an in- house model which includes the fast track co-ordinator, nurse assessors and its own team of personal care workers (Generic Support Workers). This maximised their flexibility to respond to patient and family needs. Co-location with social service staff as part of the Single Point of Access team means that the NSCCC is well placed to set up routine procedures to identify potential end of life care patients earlier. The North Somerset Generic Support Workers were highly valued by family carers and served an important function in keeping the NSCCC, and thereby the wider healthcare system of healthcare professionals, up to date with patient and family carer needs. Future efforts should ensure that Generic Support Workers are carefully allocated based on patient and family need (i.e. vulnerable patients wanting a home death with limited family support or highly challenging symptoms) rather than Generic Support Worker availability.
experience, they were seen as authentic experts on the ground, an extra resource to help resolve ‘stuck’ cases. They were accessible as they were embedded in teams, and provided social workers with new, systemic, ways of thinking about problems. They bridged theory and practice, so supporting continued learning about systemic practice. Clinicians accompanied social workers on family visits and all reports of this were of it being a positive and useful experience. As discussed, joint visits enhanced planning. Team managers pointed to the usefulness of the clinicians. They were an additional professional working in overstretched teams and they acted as a source of emotional support for social workers. Part of the value of the role was its flexibility and presence ‘on the floor’ in social work teams. This meant their role varied and was responsive to social work needs. Consultation with clinicians were said to offer a ‘fuller
Over the recent past children’s palliative care has been developing as a sub-speciality, reflected in the increasing policy focus across the UK and Ireland on driving up the quality of services providing care to children and support to their families (see, for example: Dept. of Health 2008; DOHC 2009; Scottish Government 2012). As outlined in the introduction, children’s palliative care in Ireland over the past seven years has been underpinned by policy set out in Palliative Care for Children with Life-Limiting Conditions in Ireland, A National Policy (2009). Current service provision in Ireland can include a range of services. Care is usually led or initiated by hospital based paediatric departments, working alongside community adult palliative care teams (or “home care” teams). As there is an absence of dedicated specialist community paediatric palliative care teams, health care professionals working within existing home care teams often provide end-of-life care to children and families within the community setting. The GP acts as the primary health care provider for all children in the community and, depending on the child’s condition, care may also involve: public health nursing, disability services, dietetics, psychology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy, social work, home care packages and specialist or mainstream educational services.
It should be noted that although the evaluation contains evidence on both the process and impact of targeted prevention, the data presented here on outcomes for individuals relates only to TPA clients. The evaluation was intended to include a comparator or control group against which to assess the degree of change observed, and thus comply with stage 3 on the Nesta Standards of Evidence scale. The evaluation has explored a range of options for establishing a counter-factual for TPA. Early discussions with Stockport MBC and Nesta indicated that a comparator group survey would not be possible for a number of reasons which included a lack of a readily identifiable population group; anticipated low response rates (based on SMBC's previous experience of similar survey work), and insufficient resource to collect primary data on a sufficient scale to robustly assess outcomes and impact. Similarly, the evaluation explored the potential of utilising client level secondary data on use of health and socialcare services and comparing this to wider population groups in Stockport and/or the wider Greater Manchester areas. However, there were a range of information governance and resource barriers to this approach which could not be overcome within the evaluation timescales 1 .
This section of the report considers supervision. All social workers, however experienced, should be receiving supervision to ensure competent, accountable practice. This is a standard ‘management function’ in most organisations. Because the focus of an NQSW’s practice is work with and for children, young people and their families this can be described as case management supervision. Discussions between supervisor and supervisee may include the level of risk, assessment, the implementation of the worker’s intervention plan and ensuring the case management is in line with the law and with the employer’s policies and procedures. The primary focus here is on ‘reflective’ supervision, which aims to support the NQSW in engaging with their organisation (the ‘mediating function’) and their continuing professional development (the ‘development function’). Reflective supervision is concerned with the NQSWs learning from their experiences. It allows them to consider why they intervened in particular situations; what theories they used; what the experience told them about themselves, as a person and as a social worker, and how this could be used to help them become a more
Circles volunteers are drawn from a wide range of age groups, employment backgrounds as well as social, cultural and ethnic groups (Hoing, Bogaerts & Vogelvang, 2015; Hough, 2015; Circles South East, 2012). Circles UK currently have over 600 volunteers nationwide (Circles UK, 2016). All volunteers are screened and interviewed prior to acceptance; require references; are required to sign a declaration to adhere to appropriate boundaries and safeguarding Codes of Conduct; are DBS checked; attend an initial two-day training course prior to joining a circle; as well as receiving support and mentoring throughout (Circles UK, 2016). Volunteer training covers key areas of circles work including sex offender typology, role-play, monitoring and self-care, enabling the projects and individuals to assess suitability (Circles South East, 2012; Thomas, Thompson & Karstedt, 2014; Wilson, Cortoni & Prinzo, 2007a; Wilson, Picheca & Prinzo, 2007b). The volunteers are informed of the Core Member's past offending so can assist them in better-managing patterns of thought and behaviour that could otherwise result in their re-offending (Hanvey et al., 2011). Recent research with volunteers suggests that they volunteer for personal reasons, gain satisfaction from doing so and that they realise that they are working with a challenging group thereby recognising the importance of personal resilience and self-support (Hoing, Bogaerts & Vogelvang, 2015; Hough, 2015).
outcomes, including low educational attainment, unemployment, mental health problems, homelessness, instability and involvement in crime and substance misuse (Department for Education, 2016; O’Higgins et al., 2015; Meltzer et al., 2004; McAuley et al., 2006; Stein et al., 2000; Stein and Munro, 2008). The risk of poor outcomes for adolescents in residential care, in particular, was highlighted in the recent ‘Residential Care in England’ report (Children’s Commissioner, 2016). Support to improve outcomes and reduce risk taking behaviours is therefore an important aspect of the work that children’s socialcare staff carry out. Children and young people can often find themselves working with a wide range of ever-changing professionals, due to staff turnover (Baginsky, 2013) and the inability of one team to meet all of their needs. This can lead to children and young people becoming distrusting of relationships, and reluctant to engage with workers. In addition, there is often a stigma attached to engagement with children’s socialcare services or being supported by social workers (Oliver, 2010).
engineering, motor industry, business administration and sport sectors achieved significantly more points in their total point scores and eight highest grades achieved than learners who did not participate in the YA programme but were similar in other respects, such as prior attainment. Three of these four sectors were offered in the first cohort of the YA programme, and the fourth was introduced in the second cohort, suggesting that these differences may be related to how well-established the sector was within the programme. However, it is worth noting that a ‘typical’ learner who had been engaged with health and socialcare (introduced in cohort 1) or construction (introduced in cohort 2) attained fewer points. Therefore the difference by sector may be related to something other than how established the sector is within the programme, such as differences between partnerships or delivery models. As discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.3, young people who were engaged in YA in the hospitality sector were less likely to have achieved the qualification they took through the YA programme and five GCSEs at grades A* to C. It appears that this lower achievement at the end of Year 11 is related to factors other than the YA programme, such as their prior attainment. The multi-level model analysis, which takes account of this, revealed that young people in the hospitality sector did not gain significantly more or less points at key stage 4 than would be expected given their prior attainment. This suggests that they achieved in line with expectations given their prior attainment.
vii. Some tenants found it very dificult to repay their arrears. For example, one tenant who was repaying his arrears noted: ‘I’m struggling to pay it [my arrears] back…me social worker set up a payment plan just before Christmas but I’ve been struggling to ind it, and then they’re trying to get me out, or that’s the impression I get, so I’ve had to do without to pay it.’ ‘Doing without’, in order to repay arrears was a common theme amongst tenants interviewed in-depth. For example, one described ‘cutting back on gas, I only buy electric now so I don’t have the central heating on’, while another explained that she was not left with enough money ‘that I can eat every day’. A small number of tenants who were interviewed as part of the qualitative work undertaken by the study team were repaying at a relatively high rate; £40 and £50 per fortnight or month.
The Delivering Social Change Framework was established by the Executive to co-ordinate key actions across Government Departments to take forward work on priority social policy areas. It aims to deliver a sustained reduction in poverty and associated issues across all ages but it is also seeking to secure an improvement in children and young people’s health, well-being and life opportunities thereby breaking the long term cycle of multi-generational problems.
In Hub 1, a school lead spoke of how the relationship his school had built up with the hub college and with the Connexions adviser through the Finished at School hub would ‘ease the transition process’ (School 5/Hub 1). In this hub, the college lead had been responsive to constraints on school staff leaving school premises and had instead visited the schools in person. (As the lead explained, a specialist autism resource in a mainstream school could have 15 to 20 pupils and only two teachers, making it impossible for one of them to come out of school during school hours.) The direct relationship with schools was important as it enabled the college to find out, well in advance, the names of prospective students. This, in turn, enabled the college to ‘start doing transition work a lot earlier’ (Hub 1 lead). One course manager at College 1 valued the increased willingness of schools to work with the college through the transition period as a return to the more direct relationship colleges had had with schools prior to the introduction of the Connexions Service. In his view, that had, ‘cut us out’ so that, ‘the majority of contact with schools and students is done through Connexions’. Through the Finished at School hub, the direct link had been recreated, whilst a good relationship with the Connexions advisers had been maintained. In addition, the hub had led to the college lead joining both the local SENCO Forum, thus creating a strategic level link to all local secondary schools, and the authority’s Autism Strategy Group, creating a strategic level link to other key partners such as Health and SocialCare.
• alternative enquiry, referral and assessment routes for families with lower level needs, and the use of different media in advertising local services (for example online enquiries and film clips): families found these alternative systems relatively straight forward to use and generally more accessible than previous processes. In terms of CDC’s project aims, the programme met, or progressed towards, some of these. The new approaches appeared to have created a more streamlined approach and proportionate assessment. Family experience of the test was good, and relationships between parent carers and professionals were improved. CDC established a learning network between local authorities involved in the programme, but authorities wanted even more opportunity to share ideas and support one another.
Patients expressed a diverse range of personal definitions of the term ‘self care’ during follow-up interviews. A common theme amongst men and women was that self care referred to ‘looking after yourself’ and independent care. Other patients used the term in relation to more defined issues such as; maintenance of a healthy lifestyle, preventing illness and care of minor and long term illness: “Look after yourself, keep yourself warm if you need to, don’t do anything that’s going to damage your health like over drinking at the pub or whatever if that’s what you do or as some people with smoking which I never do, you could be doing too much of that. That sort of thing.” Male aged 71 3 , Bradford
The experiential learning approach helped to demonstrate to the participating companies that collaboration can be a powerful tool, that there is much to learn from the practices of other companies, and that there is much to learn from the feedback of other companies. UKCES hoped that the links that were starting to forge through the projects will continue beyond PC4 and assist in promoting the skills for innovation agenda in the sector. However, due to the short lifetime of the Challenge, evidence to this regard is limited at this stage. Related to experiential learning, another method that appeared to be effective was peer- to-peer learning. This involved pairs or groups of companies (through the representatives who participated in the project) coming together to learn in depth from each other’s experience of implementing existing and new manufacturing processes. The purpose of the peer-to-peer approach was to demonstrate to companies that are at the same stage of looking to change and transform their business, how other companies might deal with similar issues through different approaches, with both companies in the pair learning from each other. The difference between experiential learning and peer-to-peer learning was that peer learning tended to happen in pairs rather than groups and was structured around a dialogue between the two engaged companies, while experiential learning took place through activities targeted at the larger group of participants, for example through site visits to large organisation or research centres.
‘We have a training programme for lead practitioners in autism in the school which the [LA autism] team who we work with have put into school. [Name] and [Name] are lead practitioners; they’re qualified Lead Practitioners for autism already and they’re Teaching Assistants. That was how the plan was, to introduce a level of expertise in amongst the people that are providing support for children, and then that would be cascaded down to other Teaching Assistants and they would be accessible to give advice. Then it was this year - we have a meeting every year with the [LA autism] team where they have their ideas of how they want to push things forward in the school - and this year they decided that what they actually needed was a teacher that was…they also wanted the Level 2s to become Level 3s so they were upgrading that training and then that means that the Level 3s are qualified, if you like, to train other staff but they also saw that they needed a way into teachers as well because, unfortunately […] in some schools it can be that if you’re a Teaching Assistant you can’t really influence how a teacher works. so what they realised was that there was a gap there and we need a teacher to take on the responsibility and be a Level 3 practitioner as well so I’m doing that as well with [Names]. We’re currently doing that, aren’t we, we’re about ¾ of the way through that. So that’s like an outside influence into the school development.’ (SENCO2)
From previous data presented Away Team participants had a good understanding of the HRM elements (care bundles, PDSA cycles and run charts), and this level of understanding was maintained over the course of the programme, although less so for the Home Team. During the HRM Focus Groups, participants were asked how they were identifying eligible patients. The methods for patient identification was found to be variable (see Adoption and Fidelity sections) with sites often solving for this locally, particularly for the NSAID Care Bundle. Furthermore, participants had issues around the strict patient cohort criteria (especially for NSAIDs) and were therefore targeting patients who tended to either be outside of the recommended age bracket for intervention, or were not on a triple whammy but as per the pharmacist’s judgement still required an intervention. Most participants did seem to adhere to using some of the additional tools to aid the implementation of the HRM Care Bundle, including the stickers for prescription bags: