During the last 10 years there has been growing national concern about the extent and effects of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, and the historic and current failure of a range of public services to protect children and young people. This is a pressing problem for children’s services in London who are increasingly identifying young people (young women especially) at risk of harm in this way. There is a need for affordable, effective solutions that do not stigmatise young people or disrupt valued parts of their lives. Strategic and operational responses to CSE are complicated by the fact that London is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world. CSE does not respect geographical boundaries and is enabled by the city’s extensive and developed transport network, and its status as a global transport hub. Within this context it is challenging for local boroughs to reach an understanding of local prevalence of risk and experience of CSE; a task that has increasingly been taken more seriously (Becket et al, 2014). Collaboration between boroughs in mapping and working is essential, otherwise CSE affected young people can be placed together without risks being known, and the risks to children missing out of borough, or being educated in other boroughs, can remain unknown. Some forms of CSE are perpetrated by gangs, and over 50% of London’s local authorities have been
immediately understood. At T2, 2 social workers commented that the ACT approach can seem ‘slow’, and they felt work should be delivered more quickly. At the same time, ACT workers have sometimes felt under pressure from children’s social workers to move cases on more quickly than they believed was in the best interests of a young person. The ACT role has been less easy to define compared to other co-working roles such as those with existing multi-disciplinary CSE teams. Some social workers commented on early confusion regarding who was responsible for what, with ACT workers taking on elements of the care plan that would normally be the responsibility of the young person’s social worker. Conversely, ACT workers reported that they had sometimes been left out of statutory meetings ‘when they knew the young person best.’
There have also been considerable challenges in getting the risk and psycho-social assessments of young people completed. Initially, we agreed with the programme that these should be the responsibility of the young person’s social worker, although they would be able to delegate completion to a CSE support worker if there was one involved who knew the young person better. The thinking behind this was, first, that every young person referred to SYEP would have a social worker and they might well be the person who knew the young person best; and second, it was intended that social workers would be key members of the team-around-the-worker model who would find the assessments of interest and feed the information from these into the team. Unfortunately, this plan failed entirely: in the first 3 months there were no assessments completed. From January 2016, the Catch 22 team took over responsibility for the assessments but it still has not been an easy task, particularly as input from young people’s social workers is still usually essential.
families where the primary factors causing a child/adolescent to be considered edge of care are internal factors within the family system. This will ensure that the innovation is focusing on working with cases where improvements in family relationships is likely to lead to a reduced chance of a breakdown in care, and to positive impacts on a range of other outcomes in its theory of change/logic model. This is not to suggest that young people presenting with external risk factors, such as involvement in criminal offending, gangs, anti-social behaviour (ASB), CSE, aggressive sexual behaviour, substance misuse and going missing, should be excluded from participation in FLIP. Rather, the FLIP team should ensure that in cases where a young person is
discussing and agreeing such issues as the system of referral, how much feedback should be given to the institution as a whole, what the complaints procedure might be if clients are unhappy with their counselling, how pupils could best leave their classes to attend counselling, and the crucial issue of how much information about the client gets disclosed from counsellor to guidance teacher, and vice versa. Here, one of the counsellors stated that she felt it was important to explain to the teaching staff what counselling confidentiality was about, but she also acknowledged that it was ‘appropriate to give some kind of feedback to referrers’ provided there is permission from the client. Indeed, this counsellor suggested that in some cases, if it was the pupil’s wishes, the counsellor might act as a conduit for the client, relaying information to the client’s guidance teacher that could then be dissimulated more widely to the teaching staff. Similarly, whilst this counsellor felt that she did not want to be told everything about a client by the guidance staff, she also acknowledged that there might be times when it would be useful to know certain details about the clients, such as the presence of a neuropsychological condition. As with the guidance coordinators, then, this counsellor acknowledged the importance of agreeing together levels of confidentiality that would best benefit the pupils involved: ensuring that the pupils felt as safe as possible to talk about their issues, whilst at the same time maximising the positive impact that involved adults could have. Furthermore, for this counsellor, this dialogue was essential because each school was unique, with ‘its own culture, its own everything.’ Hence, it could not be assumed that protocols established at one school would be appropriate for another school environment. Self-referrals
Accommodation - and its Fiscal Return on Investment (FROI) was estimated to be 3.39. This demonstrates a positive cost benefit outcome equating to a saving of £3.39 for every £1 invested in the project. Data received from COS for the cost benefits analysis (CBA) was high-quality and, therefore, York Consulting was able to build a robust model. Although anything above a FROI of £1 is perceived to be a good result for this type of analysis (York Consulting), COS’ FROI of £3.39 indicates that COS is achieving greater value for money for local and central government. However, the CBA analysis was based on COS closed cases, in order to avoid the risk of double counting savings, meaning that it excluded open cases that might have been in COS for a long time, which in turn might have skewed results in favour of COS. In order to avoid this possible bias, the COS team is currently collecting data which can be used to measure savings in real time on a month-by-month basis. This was reported by the COS team as one of the positive legacies of the evaluation.
assertion that domestic violence responses demand a multi-agency response because of the complexity of issues involved. The struggle that the literature identifies multiple agencies experiencing as they try to co-ordinate their risk assessment protocols and differing understandings of risk and need, also resonated in this evaluation and is indeed a broader issue for domestic violence services and not confined to Safe Home. As Safe Home is a new and innovative service with no comparator in the jurisdiction within which it operates, a common stakeholder understanding of issues such as eligibility criteria, risk and need, can understandably be slow to develop and evolve as the service develops. Clarity regarding this common understanding of risk and need is critical in order to avoid an undermining of what Yalloway et al (2012) identify as the key to the success of the differential model: good working relationships between statutory, voluntary and NGO bodies. Identifying multi- agency involvement as the key ingredient to the Safe Home model working, this participant stated: ‘ the biggest advantage for me is that it was a genuine multi-agency model that I wouldn’t have experienced before’ (STAKEHOLDER 8). Returning to the notion of ‘added value’, focusing very clearly on the need to drive this initiative through a multi-agency forum not only enhances the innovative footprint of the project but also serves as a very clear statement of the need for a collective response to domestic violence.
Figure 3.1 over the page lays out an initial change model for the Children's Community programme, utilising the concept of a maturity model, often used in the context of school improvement 6 . This early model will be revisited, and refined, as the programme and evaluation develop, and as learning from the programme informs understanding of the ways in which the Children's Communities are progressing. In this model there are three distinct, but potentially overlapping phases: in the building phase, the community creates the Children's Community partnership, and undertakes early work to frame the approach - identifying issues, working out the focus, gathering evidence, creating a governance structure and aligning community priorities with the services and organisations engaged in it (as well as the core Children's Community principles). Some early, partnership-building activities and programmes may take place during this phase. The Community will gradually move into the development phase, when a coherent set of activities is implemented, and monitored in relation to changes they aim to engender in the short and medium term at different system levels. In the final, most mature embedding phase, the community becomes more self-sustaining and focuses on longer term change, necessarily continually monitoring and amending the activities undertaken and also monitoring and amending/extending the partnership in relation to governance and engagement of partners and stakeholders (indicated by the arrows).
9 As part of the Innovate UK Innovation Voucher, all of the junctions contained within the prototype dwelling were modelled in order to assess and quantify the thermal bridging and determine whether there were any potential condensation risks associated with the prototype design. In total, 16 No. junctions were modelled. The modelling revealed that the linear thermal transmittance (Ψ-values) calculated for two of the junctions, the door threshold junction to the lobby and the lobby wall/floor junction, were considered to be high at 0.348 W/m·K and 0.411 W/m·K, respectively. The reason for the high Ψ-value for the door threshold junction to the lobby was a consequence of the brush seal that penetrates through the floor insulation, resulting in a discontinuity in the insulation layer at this junction. The reason for the high Ψ-value for the lobby/wall floor junction (0.411 W/m·K) could be attributed to the position of the brush seal coupled with the fact that the structural steelwork fully penetrates the thermal envelope.
Feedback suggests that SADL did not enable students to effectively share what they learnt in the workshops with their peers easily. This also emerged some way into the project, during workshop 3 when students were asked to comment on their role as an ambassador. Many students commented on how they found it difficult to share what they had learnt and they mainly told their friends. One said:
The second annual monitoring period ran from April 2016 to March2017. The data gathered by the Renfrew Close weather station reveals that this monitoring period had a greater number of rainfall days but received a lower total rainfall, than the long-term average for London for the same period. The maximum temperature experienced at the site was also greater in every month monitored compared to the long-term average during this period which may have influenced rainfall volumes. Table 1: Second year monitoring period, weather summary:
School District of Maple bus drivers, mechanics, and sub- stitute, special needs and early childhood drivers were hon- ored during “School Bus Driver/Mechanic Recognition Week.” Breakfast was provided on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at Twin Gables. They were recognized for their dedi- cated service to the School District of Maple throughout the year. The safe transportation of our students remains our number one priority. A big “thank you” to each of them!
Overall, there appeared to be clarity of purpose and objectives with regard to the partnership, especially during the evaluation period. Throughout the evaluation period, the partners collaborated in reviewing existing services and designing an approach based on the gaps in existing services and the needs of local LAC populations. More specifically, there was a lack of clarity among some of the project team regarding specific milestones and tasks setting up the unit. However, all members were clear on the long-term vision of the partnership. While some elements were clear to some members, such as the unit being a 5 bedded establishment, other members were not so clear and partners were still unsure about details such as the age group and gender of young people the unit would be designed for. Although these decisions were later agreed on, team members suggested such features should have been agreed much sooner and quicker.
Many primary teachers have spent considerable time producing teaching materials for whole-class technologies. They are able to store resources on the school’s network, either in a personal workspace or a shared area, and this has encouraged sharing resources and ideas. The need to develop expertise and resources very quickly has led to task sharing in order to make the work manageable. This is especially true in sharing good visually attractive ‘drag and drop’ and animated activities in Key Stage 1 or where teachers change the age group they are teaching and need a bank of resources quickly available. There is a potential for time saving, although resources need tailoring to meet the needs of different groups of students. Already, there is a clear gain when teachers change classes or a supply teacher is employed. In one cluster the science co-ordinators developed a suite of resources for joint use back in 2004, and similar work has since been carried out by other specialist groups. The actual extent of the sharing of such resources will be a focus for research in the final year of the project.
The evaluation had two distinct elements: internal and external. This worked best where both elements could support each other: for example, asking participants in written feedback forms if they would be willing to take part in a further interview about their experiences. Engagement with the external evaluation interviews was high, suggesting that people were happy to share their views after participating. However, there were also challenges with the split between the internal and external evaluations, largely related to the clustering of project activities in the early part of 2016. This made it hard for the external team to fulfil the role of critical friend, and to be kept updated on project activities as they were developing.
The funding for the prison-dedicated Ideas project staff has been provided by the Indigo trust in the first year and Charles Dunstone Trust for the remaining three year service delivery period. This funding was always intended as short term funding for this pilot project. The longer term hope was that the prison service would take on the initiative ‘in some shape or form’ (MFD Executive Director). A meeting with the Home Office and MFD staff regarding the Ideas Project model was conducted and they were supportive of the concept, however no further contact has been made. As mentioned previously, the Ideas Projects roll out coincided with prison service budget cuts. MFD’s Chief Executive reflected that despite the warm welcome the Ideas project had received, this type of project would always remaining peripheral because innovation does not fit under prison service key performance indicators. However, UnLtd are keen to continue to support prison-based projects under their mainstream support provision. In the year two evaluation, representatives from UnLtd highlighted that they were already thinking strategically about ‘integrating the project into our every day operations’ (UnLtd, Assistant Director).
Ann is in charge of basic skills provision in her college, she has one other full time person working with her and a team of 16 part-timers. She gets involved in a range of projects, and in using ICT with her groups. She develops a good working relationship with the technical staff. She volunteers to take part in the Skillsbuild pilot. She puts a lot of effort into getting to grips with the program and in enthusing and training her own staff. The project raises the profile of basic skills within her college, and raises her own personal profile, and this makes it easier for her to obtain resources within the college for her own work. She registers for a PhD, she moves on.