Working in the New Environment Patrick Ayre University of Bedfordshire [email protected] .

Working in the New Environment

Patrick AyreUniversity of [email protected]://patrickayre.co.uk

Origins Structural and organisational changes are

being delivered in the wake of Bichard and Laming

Every Child Matters: Change for Children (ECM: CfC) establishes a framework for building services around children in which previously separate services must now work together in an integrated way

However, organisational change cannot of itself bring about shifts in entrenched attitudes, beliefs, customs and vocabulary.

Government’s prospectus ECM: CfC is a new approach to the well-being of children

and young people from birth to age 19. The Government's aim is for every child, whatever their

background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to:– Be healthy – Stay safe – Enjoy and achieve – Make a positive contribution – Achieve economic well-being

This means that the organisations involved with providing services to children - from hospitals and schools, to police and voluntary groups - will be teaming up in new ways, sharing information and working together, to protect children and young people from harm and help them achieve what they want in life.

Government’s prospectusChanges include the improvement and integration of universal

services more specialised help to promote opportunity,

prevent problems and act early and effectively if and when problems arise;

the reconfiguration of services in one place, for example, children’s centres, extended schools and the bringing together of professionals in multi-disciplinary teams;

the development of a shared sense of responsibility across agencies

listening to children, young people and their families

The big picture

Outcomesfor children and young

people

Integrated Working

Silos

Implementing Integrated Working means implementing Integrated Processes and Integrated Front-Line Delivery

The vision for Integrated Working

Integrated Working

Silos

Info Sharing

CAF

LP

IS Index

Improved Outcomes

Key elementsBasic: Integrated working Common Assessment Framework Information sharing and ContactPoint Lead professional

Complex: Workforce reform and professional

development Common Core of Skills and Knowledge Setting up multi-agency services

Key elements

Setting up multi-agency services Common Assessment Framework Common Core of Skills and Knowledge Information sharing Lead professional Workforce reform and professional

development Integrated working

Common assessmentfrom this point

Information sharing between practitioners - supported by the Information Sharing Index

Lead professional from this point Lead role already required by statute or best practice, e.g. key worker

Statutory or specialist assessments

Multi-agency services

Multi-agency panel

Multi-agency team

Integrated services

How integrated are we going to be?

Mo re

L e ss

Co llab o ration

Sh a llo w D e e pCo -o p e ratio n

T o ke n co n ta ct F re q u e n t co n ta ct M u lti-age n cy p an e ls

M u lti-age n cy te ams Jo in t fu n d in g In te g rate d se rv ice

So me jo in t wo rk

But how integrated is integrated?

Mo re

L e ss

Co llab o ration

Sh a llo w D e e pCo -o p e ratio n

D iffe re n tia te dp ro fe ssio n s in s ilo s

All-p u rp o se ch ild re n 'swo rke rs in u n ita ry se rv ice s

Multi-agency services

Multi-agency panel

Multi-agency team

Integrated services

Panel characteristics Managed by a coordinator or chair There is a good mix of agencies Panel members remain based in and identify

with their home agencies. Regular meetings May have a core team of key workers and

administrative support (YISP) Practitioners are likely to focus on individual

support Usually joint assessment and information

sharing

Benefits and opportunities No recruitment or HR issues

Practitioners fully involved in home agency, including training and development

Work together regularly and experience of different working styles and remits.

Can allocate the lead professional role, give authority needed, and share information

No need for a permanent base or IT infrastructure.

Challenges Focused on outcomes for the child or the

contribution of individual agencies?

Identify with home agency not panel.

Members not be given enough time to carry out their casework and lead professional responsibilities

Planning meetings can take up a significant amount of time.

Multi-agency team characteristics Dedicated team leader Good mix of agencies Members think of themselves as team members.

(Recruited or seconded into the team, either full or part time)

Work with universal services and at a range of levels – individual, small-group, family and whole school

Likely to share a base Regular team meetings: case working and

admin issues

Benefits and opportunities Good sense of team identity. Co-working is at the heart of the team's

approach, allowing sharing of skills and knowledge.

Communication is straightforward. Joint training is easy to facilitate. Opportunities for preventive and early

intervention work in whole school and early years settings, as well as small group and individual casework.

Challenges Recruitment and HR. Time and resource for team building

and development. If not based together, challenges for

team working and communication. Good relationships with schools and

other universal providers are vital. Need to set aside sufficient time for

meetings and other team contact time.

Integrated service characteristics

Range of services which share a common location and a common philosophy, vision and agreed principles

Visible 'service hub' for the community, with a perception by users of cohesive and comprehensive services

Management structure which facilitates integrated working

Commitment by partner providers to fund and facilitate integrated services

Integrated service characteristics

Usually delivered from a school or early years setting

Staff work in a coordinated way, likely to include joint training and joint working, perhaps in smaller multi-agency teams

Service level agreements set out the relationship between home agencies and the multi-agency service

The manager may be a member of the school or early years setting (for example a headteacher) or they may be recruited externally.

Integrated service characteristicsServices may include: high-quality, all-year-round, inclusive education, care

and personal development opportunities for children and young people

multi-agency teams to provide specialist advice and guidance on aspects of health, social welfare and employment

outreach services to support local families with additional needs

a family support programme to involve and engage parents

a framework of training for adults providing a range of informal and accredited courses

a framework of training strategies for practitioners.

Benefits and opportunities Opportunity to address full range of issues in

a non-stigmatising universal setting. Knock-on benefits for educational standards. Greater co-working and cross-fertilisation of

skills between agencies. Opportunities for joint training. Shared base enhances communication Members are still linked in to what is going on

in their home agency. Members likely to have access to training and

personal development in their home agency.

Challenges Requires fresh thinking around the

concept and purpose of the school or early years setting

Engaging partners and the whole school community in 'collaborative leadership'.

Sense of joint purpose so members identify with new service not home agency.

Pay and conditions for staff doing joint work at different levels of pay

Challenges to effective inter-agency working

Relationship problems

Resource problems


Closed professional systems and closed minds

Power struggles and polarisation

Exaggeration of hierarchy

Status insecurity

Sectors inadequately integrated


Acclimatisation and collusion

Stereotyping, lack of trust, lack of knowledge

Role confusion

Lost in translation– Different professional cultures, values and

vocabulary (Who is the client? What are we trying to achieve? What constitutes ‘good practice’?)

Different priorities and thresholds

Resource and practical problems

Challenges structural as well as case-based

At best, rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, at worst, developing an unsustainable system?

The Child Safeguarding System (nominal)

The Child Safeguarding System (actual?)

Integrated Working?

Resource problems

Few new resources?

Lack of motivation and practical commitment at individual and service level

Geographical location and accessibility

Resource problems

High staff turnover paralysis (Beckett)

Stress and overload firefighting style, reactive practice (Beckett)

Climate of blame, mistrust & fear distort resource allocation (Ayre, 2001)

Overcoming the problems: Strategic

Common assessments

Collocation of staff,

Multi-disciplinary teams

Integrated training, pre- an post-qualification

Overcoming the problems: Personal

Ask the ‘naïve’ question

Understand and value other perspectives

Share knowledge about your own agency, its priorities and values

Practice in an inclusive, interagency manner (Not “me and them”, but “us”)

Stru ctu ra l/po litica l

C u ltu ra l

W ider po litic a l c ontex tDoes the new th inking

f it?

In teres ts

Rig id ity /f lex ib ility

Hierarc hy

Interes ts Pers onality

V alues

Trad ition

Change or ientation

Pow er of propos er-c ompuls ion-monitor ing

-other s ourc es of pres s ure

Legitimac y , v a lue andperc eiv ed v a lue of

th is c hange

R esou rce s

Pers onnel

Phy s ic a l/f inanc ia l

Likelihood that aproposed c hangewill be ac c epted

into prac tic e

Persona l

Sta tus/leg itimacy/va lu e

Factors affecting the likelihood that a proposed change will be accepted into practice within an organisation

Ex per ienc e

F it with o r compe titionwith o the r

p r io r itie s/p ressu res

What works: Heavy end Successful programmes draw on

ecological model of causes of neglect and abuse

Abuse results from – Stresses caused by poverty and

disadvantage– Poor social resources to manage those

stresses– Personal difficulties with parenting

What works: Heavy end

Programmes combine – Educational elements– Social and emotional support– Help to cope with stress

Success depend crucially on ability to identify those factors which place people at increased risk

What works: Secondary prevention

Outcomes more dependent on organisational climate than methodology:Low conflictCo-operationRole clarity Personalisation of programmes

(Glisson and Hemmelgarn, 1998)


“Effective children’s services require non-routinised, individualised service decisions that are tailored to each child”.

They require: flexibility and discretion, the ability to internalise and apply, not just to

follow, guidance. They cannot flourish without a positive work

climate.


Home visiting is effective when:

The visitors are qualified or well-trained

The visiting is multi-dimensional, intensive and long-term

Visits start before the child is born


Effective parenting programmes: Are conducted on a group rather than

individual basis Are primarily behavioural rather than

based on relationship building Use modelling as a way of teaching

new skills Are seldom sufficient in themselves

Working in the New Environment Patrick Ayre University of Bedfordshire [email protected] .

Documents

Transcript of Working in the New Environment Patrick Ayre University of Bedfordshire [email protected] .