A rapid review of what organisational level factors support or inhibit the scale and spread of innovations in children’s social care

1.2.1 Purpose of review

Social Care Wales (SCW) have a major programme of work on supporting innovation and as part of that will be engaging with the children’s social care sector on their priorities. This rapid review will provide insight into what needs to be in place for innovation to be adopted, spread, and scaled. SCW plan to use the findings to inform the work of their new team members (Community Managers, Innovation Coaching Manager, Innovation Coaches, and Senior Evaluation Lead), who will be working directly with practitioners to support innovation. The rapid review will highlight what targeted support might be needed, and the key issues they should bring people together on. The SASCI (Supporting Adult Social Care Innovation) project led by London School of Economics has provided similar insights for adult social care, but this work will ensure SCW understand what is needed from a children’s social care perspective.

The timing of this rapid review is particularly pertinent, because children’s services are having to consider new ways of working in light of the First Minister’s pledge to eliminate profit in children’s social care. Given that much of the children’s residential care market in Wales is privately operated, this will require a step change in the way services are run, with innovation at the heart of this change. SCW anticipate that the findings from this rapid review will be useful to the sector in navigating these changes and will use their channels to share the findings widely.

Factors potentially influencing scale and spread of innovation were categorised into three domains for this review: adopters, organisation and wider system (see Section 5.4). The domains of adopters and wider system were included along with organisation because of their relevance. Adopters included professionals and professional-carer relationships within organisations, Wider system covered inter-organisation factors.

1.2.1 Social care in Wales

Social care is a devolved issue and as such there are variations across the UK. In Wales, the Welsh Parliament is responsible for legislating for children’s social care. Delivering social care in Wales has a complex and multi-faceted approach, involving collaborative working between a range of organisations. Describing the social care delivery model for children in Wales is not within the scope of this rapid review. However, it is important to understand that, while there is a legal framework which covers the provision of children’s social care services in the form of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, there are variations in how services are implemented and provided across Wales which may affect decisions around implementation and scale-up of new and/or existing interventions.

Web searching and personal contact with local authorities (LAs) within Wales have highlighted the complexity of social care delivery including:

• A high degree of collaboration between LAs, local health boards and third sector (charity) organisations

• Unclear structure for delivery – who delivers what and how?

• Unclear funding structures

• Some initiatives identified as ongoing in Wales had little or no information available (See Section 2.2 ‘The Wales Perspective’)

• Similar interventions and/or services being implemented in different regions but being called something different (for the No Wrong Door approach discussed below).

• A lack of available evaluations

While initiatives and programmes funded by the third sector are not included in the scope of this review, many of the initiatives identified are in some way aligned with third sector partners which makes it difficult to exclude them completely.

Through the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, seven statutory regional partnership boards (RPBs) were set up in 2016 with the aim of driving strategic regional delivery of social services in close collaboration with health. RPBs bring together LAs, local health boards and third sector to address the health and social care needs of their populations. The RPBs are required by law to prioritise the integration of services for children with complex needs with a focus on preventative services for children and families and care and support services for children that require it – the aim being to prevent the child becoming looked after or enter custody.

RPBs decide their overarching approach to children’s social care for their region but there appear to be some specific requirements set out that they must include. Guidance and support in the form of planning tools, examples of best practice and resources are available for RPBs to help them to deliver their service. An example of this is the NEST Framework (https://nestwales.org), a planning tool that aims to ensure a ‘whole system’ approach for children’s social care and includes an approach called ‘No Wrong Door’ as one of its key principles. The ‘No Wrong Door’ approach is where professionals that offer extra support come together to work out what and who can help most. In 2019/20 the Children’s commissioner for Wales reported that every RPB had a plan for children’s provision and had begun making changes towards a No Wrong Door Approach. A Welsh implementation of ‘No Wrong Door’ (Gwent SPACE-Wellbeing) is included as one of the Welsh innovations in Section 2.2.

2.1.1 Secondary evidence

The three reviews are summarised below and with additional study detail and quality assessment in presented in Section 6.2.

Godar & Botcherby (2020) provides a non-systematic overview of four innovation projects (Achieving Change Together; No Wrong Door; Stockport Family and Team Around the School; Salford Strengthening Families) that were being used in ten LAs and were part of the Greater Manchester Scale and Spread programme. An iterative, collaborative approach was taken to selecting innovations to adopt. The innovation leads worked with LAs to support scale-up by providing coaching and resources. Qualitative data was collected to explore barriers and enablers. Organisational factors enabling implementation of the innovations included support and attention from senior staff and funding (start up and sustainability). Provision of opportunities for staff to reflect, research, and develop was an enabler at the level of adopters.

Study quality: Not applicable.

Sebba et al. (2017a), FitzSimons et al. (2020), Ruch & Maglajlic (2020)

We identified two related summary reports published by the Department for Education, evaluating Phases 1 and 2 of the Children’s Social Care Innovation programme (CSCIP) (Sebba et al. 2017a, FitzSimons et al. 2020). A third related summary report provided more detail on the Partners in Practice (PIP) programme which ran alongside the CSCIP (Ruch & Maglajlic 2020). The CSCIP funded a number of innovation projects in England for supporting children who need help from children’s social care services. More information about the CSCIP and PIP along with individual evaluation reports can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/childrens-social-care-innovation-programme-insights-and-evaluation. It should be noted that some of the examples from the Welsh perspective include innovations which were first implemented in England as part of the CSCIP (See Section 2.2).

Sebba et al. (2017a) summarises the findings from the individual evaluations of 56 innovation projects across England, identifying a range of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ outcomes for comparison across the different interventions. Key enablers and barriers to the adoption, scale and spread of these innovations were reported (further details are given in a thematic report¹). FitzSimons et al. (2020) summarises the findings of independent evaluations of 47 projects from Phase 2 of the CSCIP, as well as those from eight ‘light-touch’ follow up evaluations of Phase 1 projects and a further seven Phase 1 projects which became PIPs. They report that many of the findings were congruent with those from Phase 1 and noted that knowledge gained about barriers and enablers had not always been used effectively by the Phase 2 projects. Challenges for the evaluations included limited evaluation periods, small cohorts, lack of comparator data and data quality concerns. Ruch & Maglajlic (2020) provided a further summary of the experiences of PIPs from both Round 1 and Round 2 of the PIP programme. The PIP programme (commencing 2016) ran alongside the CSCIP. The aim of the PIP programme was to create a partnership between local and central government to improve the children’s social care system by bringing together practitioners and leaders from areas with excellent practice. While seven LA Children’s Services were designated PIP status in Round 1 of the PIP programme and nine additional in Round 2 for a total of 16 with data from 14 PIPs included in the report.

Across these three studies (i.e., noted within two or more studies) a number of factors relevant to organisational support were identified, including the importance of strong leadership, adequate and sustained resourcing, multi-agency collaboration and joint working, and being realistic in planning and setting modest goals. Organisational resistance to change, was also identified across the studies as a barrier, with services noting that system-level changes happened slowly. Other organisational factors included systems to support data sharing (enabler) and balancing different aspects of the innovation work (barrier). Knowledge and skills training for practitioners was identified across the studies as an enabler at the level of adopters. Considering embedding researchers and having good professional relationships were also enablers at the adopter level. Supporting changes in whole system professional practice was identified across the studies as a wider system factor. Deregulation in the wider system was identified as an important ongoing policy change which supported innovation.

Study quality: Unclear, no formal critical appraisal tool applicable to study type.

Sheehan et al. (2018) completed a systematic review and realist synthesis of Signs of Safety (SoS), a strengths-based, safety-organised approach to collaborative child protection case work. Thirty-eight publications were included (13 from the UK, including one from Wales) and the remaining from other countries that the authors deemed to be relevant to the UK (e.g., USA, Canada). The majority of included studies were qualitative (all UK studies were qualitative), but there were five intervention studies. At an organisational level, factors which influenced implementation included it being ‘organisation led’ with active leadership, multi-organisation culture change, and data recording systems to support sharing practice. Modelling strengths-based practice by managers also influenced implementation.

Study quality: Low.

2.1.2 Primary evidence

Five primary studies were identified in England and Scotland with potential implications for the spread and scale-up of innovations. Only one of the primary studies (Oliveira 2022) was an adaptation of an innovation used elsewhere, the rest were of the initial implementation of innovations. The five studies are summarized below and with additional study detail and quality assessment in Section 6.2.

Alderson et al. (2022) conducted a qualitative study in Newcastle, England, to examine implementation, service delivery and perceived impact of the Innovation Pilot Project. The project aimed to reduce fragmentation between services and increase the identification of children affected by parental alcohol misuse by using a whole family approach. As part of the project, child welfare services were brought together to improve collaboration and communication. Interviews were conducted with family members and staff, along with staff focus groups. Organisational enablers included allowing time for the team to ‘bed in’ and establishing a multi-agency recording system. Having clear staff roles and responsibilities was an enabler to implementation at the level of adopters.

Study quality: Medium.

Ecorys UK (2017) led a group evaluating the Dundee Early Intervention Team’s Improving Futures project. This was part of the wider Improving Futures project which was carried out across the UK to test different Voluntary and Community Sector led approaches. The Dundee Early Intervention Team’s Improving Futures project aimed to establish a support service for those who did not meet the threshold for statutory intervention before they reached crisis point. The focus of the service was early intervention and prevention, with a view to complement what Dundee Children’s Services offer. The evaluation had multiple components including project documentation and monitoring data, and qualitative interviews. Short-term funding was both an organisational barrier and enabler. It was a barrier by diverting staff time and referral changes which resulted in fewer families receiving support. However, it was an enabler because the service was more effective by prioritising help for families most in need of support. This revised referral process was therefore an important adaptation over time. Partnership working was another organisational enabler as was flexible staff working (so they could provide support to families at key times of the day). Good working relationships with wider services to ensure the project fit with other services was a wider system factor. Intervention specific staff training was an important enabler at the level of adopters. Relevant to embedding and adaptation over time is the plan for the service to link with a similar one for younger children.

Study quality: Unclear, no formal critical appraisal tool applicable to study type.

Oliveira et al. (2022) undertook qualitative interviews in a scoping study as part of a wider feasibility and pilot RCT of the Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline, Foster Care (VIPP-FC) in England. In the wider study the intervention was first adapted from the original VIPP and the version already adapted for foster children in the Netherlands and tested using a case series. The original intervention is an effective treatment approach for attachment problems in looked-after children. It was being adapted as a treatment approach for foster children who present with reactive attachment disorder symptoms. Because the intervention was being tested with a view to conducting an RCT, factors relate to influencing implementation within a research study (as opposed to within a service), some caution is therefore warranted with the findings because some are about the interface between research and services. For example, the study was not mandatory, thus could be put on the ‘backburner’. Findings highlighted here are those that are more general or seem to transfer across into a practice/service setting. At an organisational level, barriers included a lack of resources (predominantly in the LAs) for research, change and organisational inertia, and difficulties in the professional network in implementing the study. Suggested enablers included dedicating resources to maintain relationships good face-to-face communication across the study (including support at every level) and sharing information/learning between the research team, LA and wider network. The framing of the intervention was also suggested to be important. Lack of standardised organisational structures were also noted as wider system barriers to research. Investing in relationships and the training being viewed as opportunities for staff development were both enablers at the level of adopters. However, lack of understanding about the study (recruitment process, aims, approach, benefits) and the instability of placements were both barriers to recruitment. Being clear about the potential benefits to foster carers was an enabler, whereas their available time was a challenge.

Study quality: Medium.

Plumridge & Sebba (2018) conducted an evaluation of Birmingham City Council’s Step Down Programme to identify whether and how the project supports young people and also to consider what works well/less well and what outcomes are achieved for young people. The Step Down Programme aimed to move young people from residential homes into foster (stable) placements. A social investor pays for the additional services upfront, which they receive back for the young people who have stable placements (i.e., in placement for 52 weeks). Quantitative service delivery data was collected as well as qualitative interviews. Consistent involvement of LA staff was an organisational enabler, as was proactive team use of progress meetings (part of the programme). At the level of adopters, the importance of particular staff roles was highlighted, as well as carers being adequately equipped and supported.

Study quality: Unclear, no formal critical appraisal tool applicable to study type.

Turney & Ruch (2018) explored the contribution of the Cognitive and Affective Supervisory Approach (CASA) to social works practitioners’ assessments and decision-making practice in two LAs in England. CASA is a practice-based approach aiming to enhance the quantity and quality of available decision-making information and uses cognitive interviewing techniques originally designed to gain evidence from crime witnesses and victims. The study used qualitative methods including interviews and discussion groups. At an organisational level, introducing the approach was reported as a difficult task/process, though benefits were noted.

Study quality: Low.

Innovations in Wales with formal local evaluation

Innovations in Wales with informal local evaluation

Innovations in Wales with no local evaluation as yet