evaluation of head, heart, hands: introducing social pedagogy into … · evaluation of head,...

Loughborough UniversityInstitutional Repository

Evaluation of head, heart,hands: Introducing socialpedagogy into UK foster

care. Final report

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repositoryby the/an author.

Citation: MCDERMID, S. ...et al., 2016. Evaluation of head, heart, hands:Introducing social pedagogy into UK foster care. Final report. Loughborough:Centre for Child and Family Research,

Additional Information:

• This is an official report.

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/24091

Version: Published

Publisher: Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University

Rights: This work is made available according to the conditions of the Cre-ative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Please cite the published version.

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/24091

The evaluation of Head, Heart, HandsIntroducing social pedagogy into UK foster careFinal synthesis report

Samantha McDermid, Lisa Holmes, Deborah Ghate, Helen Trivedi, Jenny Blackmore and Claire Baker

The Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University,

and the Colebrooke Centre for Evidence and Implementation

1

TheevaluationofHead,Heart,Hands:IntroducingsocialpedagogyintoUKfostercareFinalsynthesisreport

SamanthaMcDermid,LisaHolmes,DeborahGhate,HelenTrivedi,JennyBlackmoreandClaireBaker

TheCentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity,andtheColebrookeCentreforEvidenceandImplementation

2

Acknowledgements

Theevaluationteamwouldliketothankthevariouspartieswhocontributedtothisevaluation.Thisworkistheresultofthededicationandcommitmentofmanyindividuals,towhomweareextremelygrateful.ThankyoutotheKPMGfoundation,ComicRelief,TheEsméeFairbairnFoundation,TheManCharitableTrust,TheJohnEllermanFoundation,TheMonumentTrustandtheHenrySmithCharityforfundingthework.WewouldalsoliketothanktheCentralManagementTeamatTheFosteringNetwork,forworkingalongsideusthroughouttheevaluationperiodand,alongwithmembersoftheSocialPedagogyConsortium,theAcademicReviewGroup(chairedbyJaneHaywood)andMarkSmith,fortheirfeedbackonearlierdrafts,whichwehavereflectedtothebestofourability.ThankyoualsotoJennyCliftonandspecialthankstoJanetBoddyforherassistanceandinsightsasaconsultanttotheevaluation.

ThankyoutoLauraDaleandSusanKnightfortheirassistanceintheformattingofthisreport,andtoMengSongforbringingherconsiderableinsightstothesecondaryanalysisofthenationaldatasets.ManythankstoJoDixonandHarrietGuhiwraandtheNationalCareAdvisoryService,ClareLusheyandthepeerresearcherswhocontributedtotheinterviewswithfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleintheircareintheearlystagesoftheevaluation.

SpecialthanksshouldgototheSiteProjectsLeadsandSocialPedagoguesfortheirgenerosityandassistancewitharranginglocaldatacollections,andongoingsupportfortheevaluation.Withoutyoutheevaluationdatacouldnothavebeencollected.

Andfinally,theevaluationteamareincrediblygratefultothefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedintheevaluationdespitemanycompetingdemands.Wearegratefulforyourtimeandhonestyinsharingyourreflectionsaboutsocialpedagogy,Head,Heart,Handsandtheexperienceoffosteringingeneral.

TheCentreforChildandFamilyResearchandtheColebrookeCentreforEvidenceandImplementation

3

Contents

ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................10

Introduction.................................................................................................................................10

Methods.......................................................................................................................................11

TheimpactofHead,Heart,Hands...............................................................................................12

Receptivenesstosocialpedagogy...........................................................................................12

Relationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold.........................................................................13

TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarers.................................................................14

TherelationshipbetweenHead,Heart,Handsandthewidersystem....................................16

Placementpurpose,patternsandexperience.........................................................................17

ThecostsandvalueofHead,Heart,Hands.............................................................................19

Evaluationparticipants’viewsoftheprogrammedesign........................................................19

ImplementationinsightsandtheirinfluenceontheimpactoftheHead,Heart,HandsProgramme..............................................................................................................................20

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................21

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................22

PART1:Settingthescene:Backgroundandintroduction...................................................................24

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................24

Structureofthereport................................................................................................................25

2. WhatisHead,HeartHands?....................................................................................................25

Whatissocialpedagogy?.............................................................................................................26

SocialpedagogyintheUK........................................................................................................28

SocialpedagogyintheUK:Theevidencebase........................................................................29

Thestructureoftheprogramme.................................................................................................29

Theprogrammeatanationallevel..........................................................................................30

ThestructureoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeatalocallevel.....................................30

Describingtheprogramme......................................................................................................31

3. Methodsandmethodologicalconsiderationsandlimitations................................................34

Overallevaluationapproach........................................................................................................34

Parametersoftheevaluation..................................................................................................34

Evaluationdesign.....................................................................................................................35

Theevaluationcohort..............................................................................................................35

Comparisongroup...................................................................................................................36

Focusonfosteringhouseholds....................................................................................................36

Interviewswithfosteringhouseholds..........................................................................................37

FosteringHouseholdsample...................................................................................................38

Therepresentativenessofthesampleoffosteringhouseholds..............................................39

4

Thefostercarersurvey................................................................................................................40

Thefostercarersurveysample................................................................................................41

Focusgroupsandinterviewswithsocialcarestaff......................................................................41

Surveytosocialcarepersonnel...................................................................................................42

Thesocialcarestaffsurveysample.........................................................................................43

Casefileanalysis..........................................................................................................................43

Casefileanalysissample..........................................................................................................43

Casefiledatacollection...........................................................................................................44

Secondaryanalysisofnationaldatasets......................................................................................46

PART2:ImpactofHead,Heart,Hands................................................................................................49

4.Receptivenesstosocialpedagogy...............................................................................................49

Articulatingthedistinctionbetweensocialpedagogicfosteringfromfosteringasusual.......51

5.Relationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold.............................................................................54

Thenurturingofrelationships:TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonrelationships..................54

Genuinepositiveregard...........................................................................................................55

TheimpactofHHHonotherrelationshipsinthefosteringhousehold...................................58

TheCommonThird..................................................................................................................59

Nurturingequitablerelationships................................................................................................63

Apersonalprofessionalpractice..............................................................................................64

6.TheimpactofHHHfostercarers:Thedevelopmentofthe“professionalheart”.......................69

Thepersonalandtheprivate:TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonthefostercarersthemselves.....................................................................................................................................................71

Peersupport............................................................................................................................72

Theprofessionalheart:Theimpactoftheprogrammeonfostercarerpractice........................73

Communication........................................................................................................................75

Dealingwithconflictanddifficultcircumstances....................................................................77

Fostercarerconfidence...............................................................................................................79

7.TherelationshipbetweenHead,Heart,Handsandthewidersystem........................................82

Thewiderteamaroundthechild................................................................................................87

Theorganisationalcontext..........................................................................................................91

8.Placementpurpose,patternsandexperience.............................................................................94

Heterogeneityasadefiningfactor..............................................................................................94

TheneedsandcircumstancesofthechildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers...............95

Placementpurpose......................................................................................................................96

PlacementlengthandtheHead,Heart,Handsepisode..............................................................96

RemainingwithHead,HeartHandscarers..................................................................................97

RelationshipswithHead,Heart,Handscarers.............................................................................98

MovingonfromHead,Heart,Hands...........................................................................................99

5

Managedmoves........................................................................................................................102

Theprocessofplacementchange.............................................................................................104

TheoutcomesforchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarers................................108

9.ThecostsandvalueofHead,Heart,Hands...............................................................................110

Introduction...............................................................................................................................110

Programmeinputs:Categorisation............................................................................................111

Formandfunction.................................................................................................................111

Programmeinputs:Corecomponents...................................................................................117

Inputsatanationallevel............................................................................................................118

Inputsatasitelevel...................................................................................................................119

SPCinputatthelocallevel.....................................................................................................119

SocialPedagogueinput..........................................................................................................120

Inputsinkind.........................................................................................................................121

Timeasaresource.....................................................................................................................121

Unitcostestimation...................................................................................................................122

Valueoftheprogramme:Outcomesandimpact......................................................................123

Attributionofoutcomestotheprogramme..........................................................................123

Childleveloutcomesandcostsavoided................................................................................124

Theprocessofplacementchangeandmanagedmoves.......................................................124

Organisationaloutcomes...........................................................................................................128

Sustainability..............................................................................................................................129

Valueformoneyforfutureprogrammes..................................................................................130

10.Evaluationparticipants’viewsoftheprogrammedesign........................................................133

LearningandDevelopment........................................................................................................133

TheInitialHead,Heart,Handscourses..................................................................................133

Continuousdevelopmentandlearning.................................................................................133

TheSocialPedagogues...............................................................................................................134

PART3:Implementationinsights...................................................................................................136

11.ImplementationinsightsandtheirinfluenceontheimpactoftheHead,Heart,HandsProgramme....................................................................................................................................136

Introduction...............................................................................................................................136

Theimplementationresearchinbrief.......................................................................................136

Impactfindingsandimplementationinsights............................................................................137

Conclusions................................................................................................................................143

PART4:Conclusionsandrecommendations.....................................................................................145

12.Conclusion:TheimpactofHead,Heart,Hands.......................................................................145

Objective1.................................................................................................................................145

ImpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfosteringpractice.............................................................145

6

Receptivenesstosocialpedagogy.........................................................................................147

Theextentofimpactamongfostercarers.............................................................................148

Objective2.................................................................................................................................149

TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonrelationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold............149

Socialpedagogyandexistingapproachestofostering..........................................................150

Objective3.................................................................................................................................151

Objective4.................................................................................................................................153

Concludingremarks...................................................................................................................154

Recommendations.....................................................................................................................155

References.....................................................................................................................................157

Appendices........................................................................................................................................166

AppendixA:Theresearchquestions.............................................................................................166

AppendixB:TheattributesofaHead,Heart,Handsfostercarer.................................................168

AppendixC:TheSocialPedagogyProfessionalAssociation..........................................................169

AppendixDCharacteristicsofthesevensitesinHead,Heart,Hands...........................................170

AppendixEAttendanceatHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses....................172

AppendixFInformationabouttheevaluationsample..................................................................174

AppendixGOverviewoftheCostCalculatorforChildren’sServicesand.....................................178

underpinningconceptualframework............................................................................................178

AppendixH:Tablesfromcasefileanalysis....................................................................................180

AppendixISPCNationallevelactivityandsupportfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.......182

AppendixJHead,HeartHandsnationalmeetings.........................................................................184

7

ListofBoxesBox1:TheobjectivesofHead,Heart,Hands.......................................................................................11

Box1:TheobjectivesofHead,Heart,Hands.......................................................................................26

Box2:Head,Heart,HandsandSocialPedagogy.................................................................................26

Box3:WhatissocialpedagogyasdefinedbytheSocialPedagogyConsortium.................................28

Box4:Glossaryofkeyterms................................................................................................................48

Box5:Head,Heart,Handsgroups.......................................................................................................49

Box6:Summaryofkeyfindings:Receptivenesstosocialpedagogy...................................................53

Box7:Childrenandyoungpeople’sdescriptionsoftheirfostercarers..............................................56

Box8:Childrenandyoungpeople’sdescriptionsofsocialpedagogy.................................................57

Box9:Definition–TheDiamondmodel..............................................................................................58

Box10:Definition-LifeworldOrientation...........................................................................................58

Box11:Definition-TheCommonThird..............................................................................................60

Box12:CasestudyexampleuseoftheCommonThird.......................................................................62

Box13:Exampleoflettingthechildtakethelead..............................................................................64

Box14:Definition–TheThreePs........................................................................................................65

Box15:Casestudy:Ayoungperson’sviewoftheimportanceofthepersonal..................................67

Box16:Summaryofkeyfindings:Relationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold...............................68

Box17:Definition-Haltung.................................................................................................................72

Box18:Definition-Non-ViolentCommunication...............................................................................76

Box19:Casestudyofamorereflectiveapproachtoconflict.............................................................79

Box20:Summaryofkeyfindings:TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsoffostercarers.......................81

Box21:Summaryofkeyfindings:Head,HeartHandsandthewidersystem.....................................93

Box22:Ruby’sstory.............................................................................................................................98

Box23:Ashley’sstory........................................................................................................................101

Box24:Exampleofplacementmovesfromcasefiles.......................................................................103

Box25:Ryan’sstory...........................................................................................................................103

Box26:CasestudyExampleofamanagedmove..............................................................................107

Box27:Definition-TheFourFs.........................................................................................................108

Box28:Summaryofkeyfindings:Placementpurpose,patternsandexperience............................109

Box29:Categorisationofcostinputs................................................................................................111

Box30:TheroleoftheSocialPedagogyConsortium........................................................................118

Box31Definitionofaunitcost..........................................................................................................122

Box32:Summaryofkeyfindings:Costsandvalueformoney..........................................................132

Box33:SocialPedagoguesinHeart,Heart,Hands............................................................................134

Box34:Summaryofkeyfindings:Evaluationparticipants’viewsoftheprogrammedesign...........135

8

ListofFiguresFigure1Funding,leadership,managementanddeliverystructureofHead,Heart,Hands+.............30

Figure2Thecoreoperationalcomponents.........................................................................................33

Figure3Evaluationtimelineagainstimplementationstages..............................................................47

Figure4Placementchangeandtheprocessofplacementchange...................................................104

9

ListofTablesTable1Participationofhouseholdateachevaluationtimepoint......................................................39

Table2Numberofchildrenandfosteringhouseholdsincludedinthecasefileanalysis...................44

Table3Distributionoffostercarersacrossthegroupsateachevaluationtimepoint.......................50

Table4ThelevelsofchangethathaveoccurredsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses..........................................................................................................................70

Table5SpecificmentionsofHead,Heart,Handsincasefiles,bysite................................................89

Table6Head,Heart,Handsplacementtypes......................................................................................96

Table7LengthofHead,Heart,Handsplacements..............................................................................97

Table8NumberofchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,HandscarersbeforeandaftertheLearningandDevelopmentcourses..........................................................................................................................97

Table9CasefiledescriptionsofHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholdrelationships...................98

Table10ReasonHead,HeartHandsepisodeceased........................................................................100

Table11Unplannedmoves:Informationincasefilesoncontributingfactors.................................102

Table12:FunctionsandformsofHead,Heart,Hands......................................................................113

Table13AmountofSPCsitesupport(input)duringtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,byyear.120

Table14Head,Heart,Handsunitcostsperyear,persite,foraHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhousehold..........................................................................................................................................123

Table15CarejourneycostsforRyan................................................................................................125

Table16CarejourneycostsforRuby................................................................................................126

Table17CarejourneycostsforAshley..............................................................................................127

Table18Potentialcostinputsforfutureprogrammes.....................................................................131

10

ExecutiveSummary

IntroductionThisisthefinalreportoftheevaluationofHead,Heart,Hands.ItispartofasuiteofreportsproducedbytheindependentevaluationteamledbytheCentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity,inpartnershipwiththeColebrookCentreforEvidenceandImplementation.PreviousreportshaveexploredtheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleinthefirsttwoyearsoftheprogramme(McDermidetal.,2014;2015),theeconomicimpactofHead,Heart,Hands,alongwithanin-depthanalysisofhowtheprogrammewasimplemented(GhateandMcDermid,2016)1,2.InthisfinalreportwebringtogetherdatapresentedelsewherewiththefinalanalysisoftheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonthosefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedintheprogramme.Wealsoexaminethelinkagesbetweenthewaythattheprogrammeunfoldedandtheoutcomesithasachieved.TheaimoftheevaluationwastoascertainhowfartheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeachievedtheaimsandobjectivesoutlinedinBox1,byaddressingthefollowingover-archingresearchquestions:

1. WhatchangesdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeofferchildrenandyoungpeopleinfostercare?

2. WhatchangesdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeofferfostercarers’andtheirpractice?

3. WhatchangesdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeofferthesystemofsupportingchildrenandyoungpeopleinfostercareandtheircarers?

Head,Heart,HandswascarriedoutbetweenSeptember2012andJune2016,asanambitiousdemonstrationprogrammewithinUKfostercare,directlyinvolvingbothfostercarersandstaffinfosteringservicesandagencies.Itsstatedoverarchingaimwasto“developasocialpedagogicapproachwithinUKfostercare,therebyincreasingthenumbersofyoungpeopleinfostercarewhoachievetheirpotentialandmakeapositivecontributiontosociety”.Toachievethis,TheFosteringNetworkidentifiedthefollowingobjectives(SeeBox1)3.

1ReportsontheevaluationofHead,Heart,Handsthathavebeenpublishedtodateareavailableathttp://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/research/exploring/project---head-heart-hands.html.2Afulldescriptioniscontainedinthemainreport:(http://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf);andasummaryofkeyfindingsisalsoavailableathttp://cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Summary.pdf.3FormoreinformationabouttheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammegotohttps://www.thefosteringnetwork.org.uk/policy-practice/head-heart-hands.

11

Box1:TheobjectivesofHead,Heart,Hands

Sevendemonstrationsites(fourinEngland,andthreeinScotland)participatedintheprogramme,whichconsistsofanumberofactivitiesincluding:LearningandDevelopmentcoursesprovidedtoupto40fostercarerspersite,employmentofSocialPedagogues,“momentumgroups”4andreviewingthepoliciesandproceduresoffosteringservicesthroughasocialpedagogiclens.Socialpedagogicsupportandexpertiseisbeingprovidedbythe“SocialPedagogyConsortium”5.MethodsTheevaluationusedamixedmethodapproachtogatherdatafromarangeofkeystakeholders,incorporatinglongitudinalapproachestoexploretheevolutionoftheprogrammeovertime.Themethodsaresummarisedbelow:

• InterviewswithHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholds:Overthecourseoftheentireevaluation126semi-structuredinterviewswerecarriedoutwith76Head,Heart,Handsfostercarersand64Interviewswerecarriedoutwith52childrenandyoungpeople.Intotal76Head,Heart,Handshouseholdsparticipatedintheevaluation,whichisanoverallresponserateof34%.Some,butnotallofthehouseholdsparticipatedacrossmultipletimepointsacrosstheevaluation.Thefindingsofthisreportareprimarilydrawnfromthe

4ThesevariouslynamedactivitiesconsistofregularmeetingsopentothosewhoattendedtheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses,torefresh,shareandcontinuetoexploresocialpedagogyandhowittranslatesintopractice.5TheSocialPedagogyConsortiumisagroupofpracticeandacademicspecialistsformJacarandaDevelopment;PatPetrie,ProfessorEmeritusattheInstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon;andThempraSocialPedagogy.

• Todevelopaprofessional,confidentgroupoffostercarerswhowillbeableto

demonstratethatbyusingasocialpedagogicapproach,theywilldevelopthecapacityto

significantlyimprovethedaytodaylivesofthechildrenintheircare.

• Todevelopsocialpedagogiccharacteristicsinfostercarers.Fostercarerswillhavean

integrationof‘head,handsandheart’todevelopstrongrelationshipswiththechildren

theylookafter.

• Toimplementsystemicchangeandaculturalshiftwhichwillsupportsocialpedagogic

practiceandrecognisethecentralroleoffostercarersinshapingthelivesofchildren

withintheircare.

• Toprovideaplatformfortransformationoftherolethatfostercarersplayaspartofthe

child’snetwork.

Source:TheFosteringNetwork(2011)Head,HandsandHeartBringingupChildreninFoster

Care:ASocialPedagogicApproach:FundingProposal.London:theFosteringNetwork.

12

interviewsundertakenatWave3,whichconsistedofinterviewswith57Head,Heart,Handsfostercarersand37interviewswiththechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.

• SurveyofHead,Heart,Handsfostercarers:SurveyswithHead,Heart,HandscarersweredistributedatWaves1and3.Analysiswasconductedon98surveyresponsesinWave1and47responsesatWave3.

• Interviewsandfocusgroupswithsocialcarestaff:Atotalof33socialcarestaffparticipatedinsemi-structuredinterviewsorfocusgroups.

• Surveyofsocialcarestaff:AsurveyofsocialcarestaffwascirculatedatWave2.Analysiswasconductedon48responses.

• Casefiledata:Casefiledataweregatheredon332childrenandyoungpeopleplacedwith157Head,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholdfromfivesites.

• Secondaryanalysisofnationalstatisticalreturndata:ThesedataarerecordedandcollatedatalocalauthoritylevelandthensubmittedtotheDepartmentforEducation(England)andtheScottishGovernment(Scotland)onanannualbasisaspartoftheirmandatoryreportingandrecordingrequirements.Datawereprovidedbyfour(localauthority)sites.

• Financialdata:ExpenditureandfinancedataprovidedbothbythecentralprogrammeteamandthesiteswasanalysedandusedtocalculateaunitcostofHead,Heart,Hands.

TheimpactofHead,Heart,HandsReceptivenesstosocialpedagogyThroughouttheevaluationatypologyhasbeenusedtoexploretheextenttowhichthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogicpractices,thefactorsthatmayinfluencefostercarer’sreceptivenesstoHead,Heart,Handsandwhetherthislevelofreceptivenesshaschangedoverthetimeframeoftheevaluation.Broadlyspeaking,theEngagedAdopterswerethemostenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogy.Thisgroupwashighlypositiveaboutsocialpedagogyperseandclaimedthattheywereincorporatingitintotheirownpractice.DefendedScepticswerethemostambivalentaboutHead,Heart,Hands.Theydidnotreporttobenegativeaboutthenotionofsocialpedagogyperse.Rather,theyreportedthattheywerenotconvincedaboutthe“novelty”ofsocialpedagogyortheimpactthatitwouldhaveontheirownpractice.TheCautiousOptimistsweresomewhereinthemiddleofthesetwogroups,reportingtobereceptiveoverall,buttendedtodescribeelementsofsocialpedagogyorspecifictoolsthatcouldbeappliedtoparticularcircumstances,orwithparticularchildren,ratherthanconceptualisingitasanunderpinningframeworkwhichcouldbeappliedtoallareasofworkwithpeople.Followingeachinterview,thefostercarersweregroupedintooneofthesethreecategoriesonthebasisoftheirresponses.Encouragingly,overhalfofthefostercarerinterviewsampleinWaves1and3describedthemselvesasEngagedAdopters,peakingat70%inWave2.TheDefendedScepticsrepresentedthesmallestproportionoffostercarersineachtimepoint,representing19%ofthesampleinWave1,7.5%ofthesampleinWave2,and11%ofthesampleinWave3.Ofthesampleoffostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatmultipleevaluationtimepoints,40%(n=13)changedtheirlevelofreceptivenessoverthecourseoftheprogramme.Threeofthesefostercarersbecamemorepositiveabouttheapproach,astheyreportedtobemoreconfidentinpracticingsocialpedagogyandabletomoreclearlyarticulatetheimpactthatithadoneitherthemselvesand/orthechildtheycaredfor.Theremainingfostercarers(n=10:13%)becamelessenthusiasticabouttheapproach,duetodisappointingexperiencesinhowtheprogrammehadbeenimplemented.

13

Almosttwothirdsofthechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationatWave3identifiedthemselvesasCautiousOptimists(69%)andtheremainingthird(31%)reportedthattheywereEngagedAdopters.Frontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffweremorelikelytodescribesocialpedagogyasoneapproachamongaplethoraofdifferentprogrammesandinterventionswhencomparedtothecohortoffostercarers.Thisfindingisperhapsunsurprisinggiventhatallofthesiteswereutilisingothertrainingprogrammesandapproaches,tosupportlookedafterchildren,duringtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Itislikelythatthefrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaff(bothsupervisingsocialworkersandchildren’ssocialworkers)wouldhavebeensupportingfostercarerswhowereapplyingarangeofapproaches,makingitdifficultorunrealisticforthemtopreferenceoneapproachoveranother.Throughouttheevaluationitwasevidentthatparticipantsidentifiedresonancesbetweentheirexistingapproachestofosteringandtheprinciplesandvaluesthatunderpinsocialpedagogy.Previousevaluationreportshavehighlightedvariancesintheextenttowhichpriorfamiliaritywithsocialpedagogyinhibitedorfacilitatedengagementandenthusiasmwiththeprogrammeamongchildren’ssocialcarestaff.TwothirdsofthefostercarersinterviewedatWave3reportedthatsocialpedagogy,oraspectsoftheapproach,alignedwiththeirownpracticeandethos.OnlytwofostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatthesocialpedagogicapproachthatHead,Heart,Handsprovidedwasentirelynew.ForasmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheWave3evaluation,thelackofacleararticulationoftheuniquecontributionHead,Heart,Handsmadetoexistingapproachestocare,reducedtheextenttowhichtheywantedtoengagewiththeprogramme,andtheimpactthattheybelievedittohavemadeonthemandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem(n=6).Incontrast,twothirdsofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3reportedthatthesimilaritiesofHead,Heart,Handstotheirownapproachwasamotivatingfactortoengagewiththeprogramme.RelationshipswithinthefosteringhouseholdAlmostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewed(n=18:32%)reportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadempoweredandencouragedthemtoexpresswarmth,respectandgenuineaffectionfortheyoungperson.ItwasnotedthatthefostercarersinterviewedexpressedaffectionforthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredforpriortoHead,Heart,Hands.FostercarersinterviewedinWave3reportedthatwhiletheyhadnotnecessarilychangedtheirbehaviourstowardsthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredfor,theyhadbeenreminded,andthereforebecomemoreconsciousofthesignificanceofthecarer-childrelationship,sinceHead,HeartHands.OtherfostercarersreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadencouragedthemfurthertoinvesttimeandeffortintonurturingtheirrelationshipwiththeyoungpersonandhadgiventhemtheoreticalandpracticaltoolstodoso.ConceptssuchastheDiamondModel,theLifeworldOrientationandtheCommonThirdwereofparticularinterestinthisregard.Inthisway,theprogrammehadprovidedalanguageandaframeworkinwhichtothinkaboutthatrelationship.Twothirdsoffostercarersurveyrespondents(n=31:66%)reportedthattheirrelationshipswiththeirfosteredchildhadchangedagreatdealsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,Hands,LearningandDevelopmentcourses.Thesefindingswerecorroboratedbythecasefileanalysiswhichsuggestedthatlanguageassociatedwithfamilialwarmth,respectandgenuineregardwasusedfrequentlyinthechildren’scasefilestodescribehowthecarersperceivedthefosteringhouseholdrelationships.Anumberofchildren

14

(n=23,9%)wererecordedinthecasefilesasreferringtotheirfostercarersinfamilialtermssuchas“mumanddad”.However,asmallnumberofthecasefilessuggestedthattheuseoffamilialtermsmaybeselectiveandlinkedtochildren’sdesiretofeelasenseofbelonging.Asmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviews(n=5:8%)reportedthattheyhadbecomemoreconsciousoftheimportanceofseeminglysmall,everydayactionsthathelpthechildfeelcaredforandnurtured.ManymorefostercarerswhowereinterviewedhighlightedthattheCommonThirdenabledthemtobemoreconsciousofhowsharingactivitiestogethercancreateasharedspaceinwhichbothpartieslearntogetheranddeepentheirrelationship.AlmostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheCommonThirdencouragedthemtoreconsiderhoweverydayactivitieswereusedtodeveloptheirrelationshipwiththeirfosteredchild(n=16:28%).Alittleunderaquarterofthefostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviews(12:21%)reportedthattheyhadbeenencouragedtosharemorepersonalinformationwiththeirfosteredchildrenasaresultofHead,Heart,Handsandtousetheirpersonalrelationshipwiththechildtohelpthemtogrowanddevelop.TheconceptoftheThreePswasmentionedbythesefostercarersandwasreportedtoassisttheminestablishingwheretheboundariesbetweentheprofessional,personalandprivatemightbeforeachindividualchild,andforeachindividualfostercarer.Likemanyofthefostercarersinterviewed,participatingfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromthreeofthesitesreportedthattheprogrammehadencouragedthemtobringmoreofthepersonaltotheirworkwiththefostercarers,allowingthemtodevelopmoreauthenticrelationshipswiththem.Eight(12%)fostercarersreportedthattheconceptsandapproacheslearntthroughHead,Heart,Hands,hadapositiveimpactontheirrelationshipwithothermembersoftheirfosteringhousehold.Asmallnumberoffostercarersreportedthattheyhavereconceptualisedfosteringasawholefamilyactivity,placinggreateremphasisonwholefamilyreflectionanddecisionmaking.ForthosefostercarerswhoreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadapositiveimpactontheirwiderfamily,itispossibletohypothesisethatmorestableandstrongrelationshipsbetweenallmembersofthefosteringhousehold,maycreatemorestableandsecureenvironmentsinwhichfosteredchildrencanflourish.AsmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=7:12%)reportedthatsinceHead,Heart,Hands,theyweremorelikelytoallowthechildrenandyoungpeopletoparticipateinactivitiesthattheypreviouslywouldnothaveallowedthemtodo.However,frustrationsarosewhenthesedecisionswerenotsupportedbysocialcarestaff.TheimpactofHead,Heart,HandsonfostercarersThemajorityoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereabletoidentifyatleastonewayinwhichHead,Heart,Handshadinfluencedthemasfostercarers(n=54:95%).Itisencouragingtonotethatonlythreeoutofthe57fostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadnotimpactedontheirpracticeinanyway.Likewise,whenaskedwhatthebestthingaboutHead,Heart,Handswas,justunderhalfoftheWave3fostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheprogrammehadhadapositiveinfluenceontheirpractice(n=21:49%).Thesefindingsarecorroboratedbythecasefileanalysis,whichidentifiedatleastonewayinwhichthefostercarers

15

werepractisingsocialpedagogicallyinaroundhalfofthehouseholdsincludedinthecasefileanalysis(n=74:47%).TheviewthatthetheoreticalapproachesexploredthroughHead,Heart,Handsprovidedaframeworkthroughwhichtoarticulateexistingknowledgeaboutgoodpracticewascommonlycitedamongthefostercarerinterviews.Thesefostercarersnotedthatalthoughtheymaynothavedramaticallychangedwhattheyweredoingwiththechildrenandyoungpeopleonadaytodaybasis,theyweremorethoughtfulandintentionalintheiractions.Inthisway,Head,Heart,Handswasdescribedbysomefostercarersintheinterviewsampleasenhancingtotheirpractice,enablingthemtoapplyprofessionalknowledgeandskillsasdifferentcircumstancesarose.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthatputtinglabelsonthingstheywerealreadydoingwasinitselfhelpfulinmakingthemmoremindfuloftheirexistingbehaviours.AthirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheprovisionofatheoreticalframeworkthroughHead,Heart,Handsvalidatedtheirexistingapproachtocare,givingthemmoreconfidencethattheircurrentpracticewasalongtherighttracks(n=19:33%).ItwasalsoreportedthatthecommonlanguagepromptedthroughHead,Heart,Hands,enabledsomeoftheparticipatingfostercarerstoarticulatetheirpractice(n=13:22%).Theresultwasaproportionoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewhofeltmoreassuredintheirownskills,andthereforemoreconfidentliaisingwithchildren’ssocialcarestaffandadvocatingforthechild.Whileathirdofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthattheprovisionofaframeworkforunderstandingpracticewashighlyvalued,thisviewwasnotfoundacrosstheentiresample.Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereoftheviewthattrainingwentintotoomuchdepth,wasrepetitiveattimesandreliedtoomuchonthetheoreticalaspectsofsocialpedagogy(n=14:25%).Threeofthesefostercarersexpressedfrustrationsthatthecoursesdidnotsufficientlyexplorehowtoimplementtheapproachesinpractice,ortakeintoaccountthecomplexitiesoftheirchildren’sneeds.Whilethesefostercarerswereintheminorityofthosewhoparticipatedintheevaluation,theirexperiencessuggestthatsitesexploringintroducingsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromsupportingcarersinnotonlyunderstandingtheprinciplesoftheapproach,butinimplementingthemaswell.Whilemanyofthefostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsamplewerehighlypositiveaboutsocialpedagogy,theviewsofsome(albeitasmallnumber)intheinterviewsamplesuggestthattheapproachmaynotbeappropriateforeveryone.Aroundafifthofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthattheprogrammeenabledthemtoreflectontheinfluencethattheirpersonalandprivateexperienceshadontheirownfostering(andparenting)(n=11:19%).Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedreflectionhadreducedprolongedperiodsofstress,throughprovidingframeworksbywhichtheycouldcriticallyassesschallengingperiods,totakeaccountofpersonalfeelingsofguilt,whilenotbeingdictatedtobythem.AlmosthalfofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthatmeetingotherfostercarersanddevelopingsupportivepeernetworkstoshareideaswasthebestthingabouttheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(n=20:47%).Similarly,almostaquarterofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthataspectsoftheprogrammedesignhadenabledthemtodevelopsupportiverelationshipswithotherfostercarers(n=14:24%).ThelengthoftheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourse(eightdays)andtheexperientialandinteractivestylewerereportedtohaveenabledfostercarersinthesamecoursecohorttogettoknowoneanotherandtoformbondsthat

16

hadlasteduntiltheendoftheprogramme.ThosefostercarerswhoattendedHead,Heart,HandseventsfollowingtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,suchasmomentumgroups,wereabletocontinuetomeettogethertomaintainthosesupportiverelationships.However,itshouldbenotedthatotherevaluationreportshavehighlightedthatthesegroupsweretypicallyattendedbythemostenthusiasticofcarers(GhateandMcDermid,2016),suggestingonceagainthata“virtuouscycle”maybeatplayAsmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadresultedinagreaterawarenessofcommunicationbeingatwowayprocesswherebyonepartycommunicatessomethingandanotherpartyinterpretsit(n=9:16%).Seventypercentofthesurveyrespondents(n=33)reportedthattherehadbeena“greatdealofpositivechange”inthewaythattheydealtwithconflictordifficultsituations.NearlyhalfofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses,theyhadbecomemuchlessquicktoreacttocircumstancesastheyarose(n=26:46%).Anumberofchildrenandyoungpeopleinthesamplealsodescribedthepositiveimpactthatacalmer,lessreactiveapproachhadontheirrelationshipswiththeirfostercarersandtheirownbehaviours.Thehighlypositiveperspectiveofthoseweinterviewedmayreflecttheparticularnatureofthesample.Moreover,whileonlythreefostercarerscouldnotidentifyanychangesinpracticesincethecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands,otherswerereticenttostatethatanychangesintheirpracticeweresolelydowntotheprogramme(n=9:16%)andreportedthatitwasdifficulttoseparatethechangesinapproachfromothercontributingfactorssuchasbecomingmoreconfidentandexperiencedinfosteringgenerally,orthattheyhadsimplygottoknowthechildrenandyoungpeoplebetteroverthecourseoftheevaluationtimeframe.TherelationshipbetweenHead,Heart,HandsandthewidersystemTwofifthsoffostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviewsduringWave3(n=25:43%)reportedthattheirrelationshipwithsupervisingsocialworkershadimprovedsinceHead,Heart,Hands,includingthreewhoreportedthattherelationshiphadbeenchallengingatthestartoftheprogramme.Twothirdsofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerhadimproved“agreatdeal”sinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Similarly,participatingfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromallofthesitesreportedthattheprogrammehadpositivelyimpactedontheirrelationshipwithfostercarersinsomeway.ParticipatingfostercarersandsocialworkersalikereportedthatthedeliveryoftheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestofostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaffsimultaneouslyhadhadapositiveimpactonrelationshipsoverallandinparticularwherefostercarershadcompletedthetrainingwiththeirsupervisingsocialworker.Almostathirdofthefostercarersurveyrespondents(n=13:30%)notedthatthejointtrainingapproachprovidedthemwithopportunitiestogettoknowchildren’ssocialcarestaffandasaresultfeelmorepartoftheteamaroundthechild.AnumberoffostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handsfacilitatedasharedapproachandasharedlanguagebetweenfostercarersandthesocialworkerwhosupportsthem.ElevenofthefostercarerswhotookpartininterviewsatWave3

17

reportedthattheybelievedthattheirstatusamongprofessionalshadimprovedsinceHead,Heart,Hands,includingtwoofthosewhohadfeltundervaluedbytheirservicepreviously.Anumberoffostercarers(n=8:14%)andfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromallofthesitesnotedthatmoresupervisingsocialworkersshouldhaveaccessedtheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestoensuregreatercongruencebetweentheapproachusedbythefostercarersandthesupervisingsocialworkers.Overathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatawarenessandpracticeofsocialpedagogyamongsomechildren’ssocialcarestaff,andthosefromotheragencieswaspatchyatbest(n=21:37%).Ofparticularnote,werechildren’ssocialworkers,whowerecharacterisedbysomeofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewasunengagedwiththeprogrammeandunsupportiveofsocialpedagogicapproaches.Itispossiblethatthereportedlackofengagementfromsomechildren’ssocialcarestaffwasaconsequenceoftheprogrammedesign,whichlimitedthenumberofplacesavailabletostaffattheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Children’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromfivesitesnotedthatalthoughtheywouldhavelikedtohaveattendedmoreoftheHeart,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses,workloadandtimeconstraintsmeantthatthiswasnotalwayspossible,eveniftheywantedto.Thiswascompoundedbythehighturnoverofchildren’ssocialworkers.Threechildrenandyoungpeoplereportedthattheyhadfrequentchangesofsocialworkers,withonereportingthatshecouldnotrememberthenameofhercurrentworkerbecausetheychangedsofrequently.Indeed,theimpactoffrequentchangesinsocialworkersontheoutcomesofchildrenincarehasbeendocumentedelsewhere.(Hemmelgarnetal.,2006;Morgan,2006;Leeson,2007;McLeod,2007).Thelackofcongruenceofapproachwasparticularlyacutewhenfostercarersexperiencedchallengingperiodssuchasinthecaseofallegationsorplacementdisruptions,wherefostercarersreportedthatthewaythattheservicehadaddressedthosedifficultieshadbeenatoddswithwhattheyhadlearntthroughHead,Heart,Hands.OneareaofparticularfrustrationidentifiedbyaproportionofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3wastheapplicationofamorerisksensibleapproach.AsmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=7:12%)reportedthatsinceHead,Heart,Hands,theyweremorelikelytoallowthechildrenandyoungpeopletoparticipateinactivitiesthattheypreviouslywouldnothaveallowedthemtodo.However,theactivitiesanddecisionsmadebythesefostercarerswiththeirchildrenandyoungpeoplehadbeenover-ruledbytheirsocialworkerinoverhalfofthesecases(n=4).Placementpurpose,patternsandexperienceAnexplorationoftheneedsandcircumstancesofthesampleofchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarershighlightedaconsiderabledegreeofheterogeneity.AnalysisofthelengthofHead,Heart,Handsplacementshighlightedavastrangeinplacementlengthsandalsohighnumbersofplacementslastingforlessthanonemonth.Incontrast,22placementslastedformorethanfiveyearsandallstartedpriortothecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands.TherewasvariabilitybothwithinandacrosssitesintermsofthenumbersofchildrenwhowereplacedwiththeirHead,Heart,HandscarersatthecommencementoftheprogrammeandthosethatmovedintotheplacementfollowingthecompletionoftheLearningandDevelopmentCourses.TherewasalsovariabilitybetweenthesitesintermsofthenumberofplacementsthatcommencedpriortotheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursesandthenumberofchildrenthatwereplaced

18

aftertheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.TherewasacohortofchildrenwhoremainedwiththeirHead,Heart,Handscarersthroughtotheendoftheprogramme.Thenumberofchildrenwhoremainedwiththeircarersattheendofourdatacollectiontimeperiodwassmallandrangedbetweenfourand17persite.TounderstandmoreabouttheexperienceofHead,Heart,HandsandtheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsepisodeforthechildrenplaced,casefileswereexaminedforindicationsofthenatureoftherelationshipbetweentheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.Encouragingly,nearlytwo-thirdofcasesweredescribedinpositiveterms(64%),aminoritywerenegative(10%)andtherestweredescribedinmixedterms(25%).Atotalof125negativestatementswereidentifiedin79cases.Themostfrequentlycitedwaschallengeintheplacementrelatingtoavarietyoffactors,whichwereindicatedtohaveadetrimentalimpactonthefosteringhouseholdrelationship(n=70:28%).ThedatasuggestthattheaveragenumberofplacementsexperiencedbythechildreninthesamplewashigherfollowingplacementwithaHead,Heart,HandscarerwhencomparedtotheaveragenumberofplacementspriortotheirHead,Heart,Handsepisode.Inaddition,theaveragedaysperplacementwerelowerafterHead,Heart,Hands.ThepatternthatemergesisofacohortofchildrenwithinthesampleofwhoexperiencedHead,Heart,HandswhohadhigherlevelsofinstabilitypriortoHead,Heart,Hands,comparedtootherswhowereplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers,andthatthesechildrenalsoexperiencedhigherlevelsofinstabilityfollowingHead,Heart,Hands.ItshouldalsobenotedthatthesechildrentendedtoexperienceashorterHead,HeartHandsepisodecomparedtoothersinthesample.Inthisway,itispossibletoquestiontheextenttowhichthesechildrenmightbenefitfromthesocialpedagogicpractices,whenonlyplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarersforashortperiodoftime.InlightofthevariableuseofHead,Heart,Handsplacements,andtheheterogeneityofthesampleofchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem,ameaningfulanalysisofoutcomesatanaggregatelevelisnotviablebecauseitwouldnotbepossibletodirectlyattributechangesinoutcomestotheHead,Heart,Handscareepisode,especiallyforthosechildrenwhoseplacementwasparticularlyshort.Thefindingsdoindicatethatinthreeofthefoursitesearlysignsofplacementstabilityweredetectedtowardsthelatterstagesoftheprogramme.Giventheheterogeneityofthechildrenandtheircareexperienceitwouldnotbeappropriatetoattribute(atanaggregatelevel)placement(in)stabilitytotheprogramme.SevenfostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Hands,includingTheFourFsandThreePshadprovidedthemaframeworkbywhichtheycouldreflectonplacementdisruptions.Thesefostercarersreportedfeelingmoreabletorecoverfromtheemotionalimpactofthosedisruptions,toreviewwhattheycoulddodifferentlynexttime,andcrucially,relinquishthemselvesfromasenseofsoleresponsibilityfortheplacementbreakingdownasaresult.ThereissomeevidenceinthecasefilesofHead,Heart,Handscarerssupportingchildrenandyoungpeoplewithallaspectsoftheirlives,includingemotionalwellbeingandeducationalsupport.Asnotedinpreviouschapters,acohortoffostercarersreportedthatsinceundertakingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursestheyfeltmoreconfidentinadvocatingfortheneedsofthechildrenplacedwiththem.Thisfindingiscorroboratedinthecasefileanalysis,whichidentifiedevidenceofHead,

19

Heart,Handsfostercarersassistingwiththereferralprocessforadditionalsupportservices,forexampleChildandAdolescentMentalHealthServices.ThecostsandvalueofHead,Heart,HandsThecoreprogrammeinputsforHead,Heart,Handswereidentifiedtobe:theLearningandDevelopmentcourses;theembeddingoftrainedSocialPedagoguesandtheprovisionofexternalsupporttosites.AunitcostfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehasbeenestimatedandrangedfrom£1,919to£3,012,perannumforafosteringhousehold.Variationsinunitcostswereattributabletoarangeoffactors,theseinclude:thedifferentlevelofsupportprovidedtothesitesbytheSPC;thesalarypaidtotheSocialPedagoguesandalsothenumberoffostercarersthatparticipatedintheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Toexplorethevalueoftheprogramme,organisationalandchildleveloutcomeswereexaminedtodeterminewhethertheycouldbedirectlyattributedtotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Itwasevidentthatvalueformoneyanalysesatanaggregatelevelmasktheheterogeneityoftheprogrammeandassuchareopentomisinterpretation.Individualcostcasestudiesprovidesomeillustrativeexamplesofpotentialcostsavoidedatacaselevel.However,therewerealsosomecaseswheretherewasnoevidenceofcostsavoided.Head,Heart,Handsnolongerexistsintheformdescribedinthisreport,althoughfourofthesevensiteshaddevelopedclearplanstocontinuewithsocialpedagogybeyondthelifetimeoftheprogramme.Toinformfuturedebatesaboutsocialpedagogicpracticeandwhetheritprovidesvalueformoney,thepotentialcostinputsforfutureprogrammeshavebeenestimated,alongwithkeyconsiderationsforhowtheinformationcanandshouldbeinterpreted.Evaluationparticipants’viewsoftheprogrammedesignTheinitialHead,Heart,Handscorecourseswereidentifiedbypreviousevaluationreportsasacorecomponentoftheprogrammeandforsomeitwasthehighpointoftheentireventure(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thegeneralconsensusamongtheinterviewsamplewasthattheexperientialandparticipatoryapproachtolearningwaspositive(n=13:23%)enablingfostercarerstoengagewiththematerialandtogettoknoweachotherasagroup.Thesessionsthemselveswerecharacterisedasengagingandfun.Onlytwofostercarersreportedtheydidnotenjoythisstyleoflearning.Onereportedthattheyfoundtheparticipatorymethods“uncomfortable”,whiletheotherreportedthatthereflectiveelementstookuptoomuchtimewhichcouldhavebeendedicatedtothematerial.Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereoftheviewthattrainingwentintotoomuchdepth,wasrepetitiveattimesandreliedtoomuchonthetheoreticalaspectsofsocialpedagogy(n=14:25%).Threeofthesefostercarersexpressedfrustrationsthatthecoursesdidnotsufficientlyexplorehowtoimplementtheapproachesinpractice,ortakeintoaccountthecomplexitiesoftheirchildren’sneeds.Themajorityoffostercarersintheinterviewsampleacknowledgedthatcontinuouslearningofsomekindwasvitaltoensurethattheycontinuedwiththeapproachandwereabletoexpandtheirunderstandingofsocialpedagogy(n=37:65%).Almosthalfofthefostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsampleattendedoneofthecontinuouslearninggroupsatleastonce,andthemajorityfoundthesehelpful.ExplorationoftheimplementationofHead,Heart,Hands,howeverfoundthat

20

smallgroupworktendedtostartwellbutattendanceweakenedovertime(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thehighproportionoffostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsamplewhoengagedintheseactivities,maysuggestthattheevaluationinterviewsampleconsistedofparticularlyengagedfostercarers,whomaynotbetypicalofthewiderfostercarerpopulationinthesites.Itisperhapssurprisingthatonlyathirdofthefostercarers(n=21:36)andsixchildrenandyoungpeoplewhowereinterviewedatWave3mentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviews.Onthewhole,thosefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhomentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviewswerecomplementary.ImplementationinsightsandtheirinfluenceontheimpactoftheHead,Heart,HandsProgrammeAlongsidethemodulesofresearchdesignedtoassessthefinalresultsofHead,Heart,Handsoncarersandonyoungpeople(inotherwords,theimpactoftheprogramme),theevaluationofHead,Heart,Handsincludedasubstantialmoduleoflongitudinalresearchontheimplementationoftheprogramme(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thisworkwasdesignedtodescribehowtheprogrammewasputintopracticeatsitelevel,identifythecorefeaturesoftheprogrammeasimplemented,andevaluatetheweaknessesandstrengthsthatemergedovertimeintheimplementationmodelandtheimplementationprocess6.TheresearchontheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,liketheimplementationresearch,hasrevealedmixedresults.Thecontentwaswell-received:no-onearguedwiththeprinciplesandgeneralideasofsocialpedagogy.Aspectsofthedesignwerealsowellreceivedintheimpactresearch,withtheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcoursesinparticularmuchpraisedandfelttohavebeenwell-delivered.Butitisclearfromtheimpactresearch,andisfurtherilluminatedbytheimplementationresearch,thatthemagnitudeofdisturbanceofthisprogramme,bothattheleveloffostercarers,andatthelevelofsitesandthewidersystemofcare,wasnotasgreataswasoriginallyhoped(GhateandMcDermid,2016:138-139).SocialPedagogues,thoughcorecomponentswhenviewedthroughanorganisationallens,forexample,appearedtobelessprominentaschangeagentswhenviewedthroughthelensofindividualcarers,andofindividualcasefiles.Therealsoremainedasmallbutdistinctgroupoffostercarerswhocouldnotisolatehowsocialpedagogicfosteringwasdifferenttogeneralgoodpractice,andwhowerescepticalaboutitslikelyimpactintheirownpracticeevenwhilstendorsingthegeneralvaluesandprinciples.Staffintheimplementationstudymadesimilarpointsandhadsimilarreservations.Itwasalsostrikingthatoverhalfthefosteringcasefilesmadenomentionoftheprogrammeorthefactthatthefamilywastakingpartinit;andcritically,mostcarers–eventhosewhoweredefinitelyenthusedbysocialpedagogy–stillfeltbytheendoftheprogrammethatthewidersystemwithinwhichtheyofferedcaretoyoungpeoplewasnotwell-informedaboutsocialpedagogyandnotalwayssupportivetoattemptstoprovidecarethatwassocialpedagogicallyinformed.Ofcourse,thesetypesofeffectstaketimetofilterthroughasystem;nevertheless,therewasasenseinsomesitesthatmorehadbeenhopedforinthisregard.

6Afulldescriptioniscontainedinthefinalreportonimplementation:(http://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf);andasummaryofkeyfindingsisalsoavailableathttp://cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Summary.pdf.

21

Itmaybethatthecostsanalysis,initsfindingofthehighspendonprogrammeadministrationandprocessstructuresandactivities,givessomedeeperinsightintothereasonsforthelimitedreachandlimitedlevelofpositivedisturbancecreatedbytheprogrammeasawhole.Combinedwiththeinsightsfromtheimplementationresearch,whichnotedthatSiteProjectLeadsandpedagoguesallspentsubstantialtimeonservicingtherequirementsofthecentralprogramme,thereisastrongsuggestionherethatperhapsnotenoughofthesubstantialprogrammeeffortwasdeployedon“front-line”developmentofsocialpedagogy;thatis,indirectworkandfacetofacecontactwithfostercarersandwithstaffintheteamsaroundfosterchildren.Itmayalsobe,aswenotedintheimplementationresearch,thatthedecisiontolimittrainingtojust40carersandaroundeightstaffineachsitewassimplytoosmallanumbertohavesubstantiallyandpositivelydisturbedbusinessasusualinthelargersites.CombinedwiththelowlevelofmatchingachievedontheHead,Heart,Handscoursesbetweencarersandsupervisingsocialworkerssothattheycouldengageinco-learning(thoughverypowerful,whereithappened),thelowlevelsofreachtootherpersonnelinteamsaroundthechild(forexample,children’ssocialworkers)meantthatthethree“pointsofthetriangle”(thefostercarers,supervisingsocialworkerandchild’ssocialworker)werenotreachedwithequaleffect,andthelevelofdiffusiontothewidersystemsofcarewaslow.ConclusionTheanalysisoftheimpactdatasuggeststhatHead,Heart,Handsenabledasmallandparticularlycommittedgroupoffostercarerstomakesmallchangeswhichhadabigimpactonindividualfosteringhouseholds.Thefindingsoutlinedintheevaluationareencouragingregardingthecontributionthatsocialpedagogymadetoincreasingtheparticipatingfostercarers’knowledgeoffosteringpracticeandconfidence.ParticipantsinWave3reportedthattheymaynothavedramaticallychangedwhattheyweredoingwiththechildrenandyoungpeopleonadaytodaybasis,theyweremorereflective,thoughtfulandintentionalintheiractions.Inthisway,Head,Heart,Handswasdescribedbysomefostercarersintheinterviewsampleasenhancingtotheirpractice,enablingthemtoapplyprofessionalknowledgeandskillsasdifferentcircumstancesarose.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthatputtinglabelsonthingstheywerealreadydoingwasinitselfhelpfulinmakingthemmoremindfuloftheirexistingbehaviours.Twoareasthatwerehighlightedasbenefittingfromamorereflectiveapproachwerecommunicationanddealingwithdifficultsituationsandconflict.Anumberoffostercarers,whoparticipatedininterviews,reportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadassistedthemtobemorereflectiveabouthowtheycommunicatedwiththechildoryoungpersontheycaredfor.Fostercarersoperateinauniquespacebetweentheprofessionalandthepersonal:theyhavea“professional”roleincaringforsomeofthemostvulnerablechildrenwithinaregulatedandstructuredorganisationalcontextofChildren’sSocialCare,whilstofferingahighly“personal”defactofamilyenvironmentinwhichthosechildrenandyoungpeoplecanbenurtured.AsmallnumberoffostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviewsreportedthattheyhadbeenencouragedtosharemorepersonalinformationwiththeirfosteredchildrenasaresultofHead,Heart,Handsandtousetheirpersonalrelationshipwiththechildtohelpthemtogrowanddevelop.ModelssuchastheThreePswerereportedtohaveassistedfostercarersinestablishingwheretheboundariesbetweentheprofessional,personalandprivatemightbeforeachindividualchild,andforeachindividualfostercarer.Thefindingsofthisevaluationsuggestthatsocialpedagogymaymakeaparticularcontributiontoassistfostercarerstonavigatetheirwaythroughthisuniquespaceof

22

theprofessionalandthepersonal.Inadditiontotheenhancementoffostercarerpracticeoutlinedabove,theemphasisplacedontheuseofselfor“Haltung”withinsocialpedagogyappearedtospeaktothoseparticularcircumstancesthatfostercarersfindthemselvesin.Siteslookingtointroducesocialpedagogymaywishtoemphasisehowthisparticularaspectofsocialpedagogymaymakeauniquecontributiontothefieldoffostercare.Theseimpactsmaybefurtherrealisedoncemoretimehaselapsed.ourquantitativeanalysishighlightedtheheterogeneityofthesampleofchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,HandscarersandthevariabilityinwhichtheHead,Heart,Handsplacementswerebeingused.Thevariablelengthoftheplacement,withmanyofthembeingshortterm,resultedincomplexitiesinattributingsubsequentcareplacements,trajectoriesandoutcomestoHead,Heart,Hands.Inlightofthediscussionaboveaboutthereachoftheprogramme,theanalysissuggeststhattheoverallimpactoftheprogrammewasdeepratherthanwide.Arelativelysmallproportionoffosteringhouseholdsreportedthattheprogrammehadreapedsubstantialbenefits,butfromthewiderperspectivethesebenefitsarelessevidentfromthequantitativeorcostanalyses.GiventhepositivefindingsregardingtheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonaproportionfostercarers,thefindingsregardingtheimpactoftheprogrammeonthewidersystemaredisappointing.Shouldasimilarprogrammetointroducesocialpedagogicpracticesbeundertakengreaterattentionmustbepaidtoensuringthatgreaterdiffusionoftheapproachisachieved.Thecoreprogrammeactivitieswereprimarilyundertakenwithfostercarers.Whileworkwascarriedoutwithsocialcarestaff,prioritywasgiventofostercarersontheLearningandDevelopmentCourses.Socialcarestaffthemselvesnotedthattheywouldhaveliketohavemoreopportunitytoengagewiththeprogramme,butworkloadandotherpressuresmadethatdifficultattimes.Inthisway,fostercarersweretheprimary“unitofinfluence”fortheprogramme.Thesignificanceofenhancingfostercarers’practiceshouldnotbeunderplayed.Fostercarersareavitalresourcesupportingcountlessvulnerablechildrenandyoungpeople.Thefindingsalsosuggestthataspectsofsocialpedagogymayofferauniquecontributiontoassistfostercarersinidentifyinganddevelopingtheirdistinctiveroleintheteamaroundachildinfostercare.Howeveritwasalsoclearthatsiteswishingtointroducesocialpedagogymaybenefitfromexploringhowthemaximumnumberoffostercarersmightbenefitfromthemostpositivelearningfromtheprogramme(includinglearningrelatedtobothitscontentanditsdesign).Theywouldalsoneedtopaycloserattentiontoensuringthatthesystemsareinplacetosupportthemandtoensurethatchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedinfostercareareabletothriveandflourish.RecommendationsSitescontinuingwith,orexploringtheintroductionofsocialpedagogymaywishtoconsider:• Howtoreachtheoptimumproportionofteamaroundthechildpersonnelincludingfoster

carersandthosewhomakedecisionsaboutthechild’splacementandpathways.• Waystoensurethatallchildren’ssocialcarestaffworkingwithfosteringhouseholdsareaware

andsupportiveofsocialpedagogicprinciples.

23

• Acleararticulationoftheuniquecontributionthatsocialpedagogycouldmaketofostercareandwiderpractice.Itmaybeofbenefittoexplorethesynergiesbetweensocialpedagogyandexistingpractice,aswellasemphasisingtheareaswhichmaybeenhancedthroughanadoptionoftheapproach.

• Waystoreassurefostercarersandothersoftheservice’scommitmenttosocialpedagogy.Itmayalsobeofbenefittoensurethatallpartieshavearealisticviewofwhatmightbeachievedwithinagiventimeframe.

• Siteswhohaveparticipatedintheprogrammemayalsobenefitfromensuringthatfostercarersareawareofcontinuationandsustainabilityplans,toavoidunnecessarydisengagement.

• Thatfostercarers,andsocialcarestaffareproficientinnotonlyunderstandingtheprinciplesoftheapproach,butinimplementingthemaswell.Anexplorationofhowdifferentprinciplesmaytranslateintodifferentcircumstancesmayalsobeofbenefit.

• Toinformthevalueformoneydebates,itwouldbenecessarytocontrolsomeoftheheterogeneityhighlightedinthisreportinfuturesimilarprogrammes.

Sitesexploringprogrammestoenhancepracticeforlookedafterchildrenmaybenefitfrom:• AclearlydevelopedTheoryofChangeattheoutsetoftheimplementationofanynewpractice,

orinnovationwithdefinedandmeasurableoutcomesandassociatedindicators.• Theinvolvementoffostercarers(andotherrecipients)withkeyaspectsofprogrammes,

includingacontributiontotrainingandgivingpresentationsatawarenessraisingevents.Thismayincreasefostercarersandothersconfidenceinthemselves,helptodevelopfurtherskills,andreassurethemoftheirvaluetotheservice.

• Thedevelopmentofprogrammesthatincludeanelementofco-learningbetweenmembersoftheteamaroundthechild.

• Opportunitiesfortrainingandotherprogrammestofacilitatepeersupportbetweenfostercarers.

• Explorehowexperientialandparticipatorymethodsmightbeintroducedtotraining,whileensuringthosewithamoretechnicalmind-setareofferedpracticalandimplementablestrategiesandsolutions.

24

PART1:Settingthescene:BackgroundandintroductionInthissectionweprovidecontextualinformationabouttheHead,Heart,Handsevaluation.Thisincludesanoverviewoftheaimsandparametersoftheevaluation,alongwiththeevaluationmethodsandsample.WealsogiveasummaryintroductiontotheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeandsocialpedagogyanditsrelevancetochildren’ssocialcareintheUK.

1. Introduction

ThisisthefinalreportoftheevaluationofHead,Heart,Hands.ItispartofasuiteofreportsproducedbytheindependentevaluationteamledbytheCentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity,inpartnershipwiththeColebrookCentreforEvidenceandImplementation.Theoverallevaluationwasdesignedinmodularform,withseparatecomponentsforaddressingeachofthethreeover-archingresearchquestionsoutlinedbelow.Theevaluationwassegmentedintothreetimepoints:“Wave1”atthecommencementoftheprogrammeandattwosubsequentintervalsthroughouttheevaluationperiod(“Waves2and3”),toexaminetheextentoftheshort,mediumandlongertermimpactsoftheprogramme.Datawereanalysed(andreportsproduced)ateachofthesetimepoints.Inthisway,longitudinalapproacheswereintroducedtotheevaluationdesign.ThesepreviousreportshaveexploredtheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleinthefirsttwoyearsoftheprogramme(McDermid,etal.,2014;2015),theeconomicimpactofHead,Heart,Hands,alongwithanin-depthanalysisofhowtheprogrammewasimplemented(GhateandMcDermid,2016)7,8.InthisfinalreportwebringtogetherdatapresentedelsewherewiththefinalanalysisoftheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonthosefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedintheprogramme.Wealsoexaminethelinkagesbetweenthewaythattheprogrammeunfoldedandtheoutcomesithasachieved.TheaimoftheevaluationwastoascertainhowfartheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeachievedtheaimsandobjectivesoutlinedinBox1,byaddressingthefollowingover-archingresearchquestions:




ThedetailedresearchquestionsarelistedinAppendixA.

7ReportsontheevaluationofHead,Heart,Handsthathavebeenpublishedtodateareavailableathttp://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/research/exploring/project---head-heart-hands.html8Afulldescriptioniscontainedinthemainreport:(http://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf);andasummaryofkeyfindingsisalsoavailableathttp://cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Summary.pdf.

25

StructureofthereportThisreportisstructuredinfourparts:InPart1weprovideanoverviewoftheprogramme,includinganintroductiontosocialpedagogyanditsapplicationintheUKfosteringcontext.Anoverviewofthestructureofthecentralprogrammeteam,thefosteringserviceswhoparticipatedintheprogrammeandasummaryofthewaythatsocialpedagogicpracticeswereintroducedintothefosteringservicesisalsogiven.Wealsoprovideasummaryofhowtheevaluationwasundertaken,andsomeoftheparticularchallengesofevaluatingtheimpactofaprogrammeofthisnature.Part2exploresthemainfindingsoftheevaluationandstartswithanexplorationoftheevaluationparticipants’receptivenesstosocialpedagogyandgoesontoexaminethefindingswithregardstotheimpactthatHead,Heart,Handshadonfostercarers,childrenandyoungpeopleandthosethatsupportthem.Weexaminetheimpactoftheprogrammeontherelationshipsbetweentheparticipatingfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycarefor,includinganassessmentoftheimpactoftheprogrammeonplacementpatterns,purposeandexperience.Anexplorationoftheviewsoffostercarersandtheirsupervisingsocialworkersonrelationshipbetweensocialpedagogicapproachesandthecurrentsystem(s)ofcareintheUKispresented.Anoverviewoftheviewsandexperiencesoftheparticipatingfostercarersontheprogrammedesign,alongwithananalysisofthecostsandpotentialvalueoftheprogrammearealsopresented.InPart3weprovideanexplorationofhowselectedimplementationfindingsmayhelpustounderstandtheimpactoftheprogrammeforchildrenandyoungpeopleandtheirfostercarers.Weexploretwosetsoffactorsthatbearonthesuccessoftheprogrammefromtheperspectiveoftheseintendedultimatebeneficiaries;thedesignoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,andthesocialpedagogiccontentthatwasdeliveredaspartoftheprogrammeandinPart4webringtogethertheoverallmessagespresentedinthisreportwiththefindingsfromtheimplementationevaluationofHead,Heart,Handstodiscusstheimplicationsandrecommendationsforfuturesimilarendeavours.

2. WhatisHead,HeartHands?

Head,Heart,Handscommencedin2012asanambitiousdemonstrationprogrammewithinUKfostercare,directlyinvolvingbothfostercarersandstaffinfosteringservicesandagencies.Itsstatedoverarchingaimwasto“developasocialpedagogicapproachwithinUKfostercare,therebyincreasingthenumbersofyoungpeopleinfostercarewhoachievetheirpotentialandmakeapositivecontributiontosociety”.Toachievethis,TheFosteringNetworkidentifiedthefollowingobjectives(SeeBox1).

26

Box1:TheobjectivesofHead,Heart,Hands

Box2:Head,Heart,HandsandSocialPedagogy

Whatissocialpedagogy?Socialpedagogyisbothatheoreticaldisciplineandaprofessionalfield.Drawingonarangeofsocialsciencedisciplines,itisprincipallyconcernedwithpracticesthatfacilitate“theintegrationofindividualsintoasociety,andthefulfilmentoftheirpotential”(Cameron,2016).Socialpedagogyhasbeendescribedas“educationinitsbroadestsense”(Petrieetal.,2006)whereby“education”inthis

• Todevelopaprofessional,confidentgroupoffostercarerswhowillbeableto

demonstratethatbyusingasocialpedagogicapproach,theywilldevelopthecapacityto

significantlyimprovethedaytodaylivesofthechildrenintheircare.

• Todevelopsocialpedagogiccharacteristicsinfostercarers.Fostercarerswillhavean

integrationof‘head,handsandheart’todevelopstrongrelationshipswiththechildren

theylookafter.

• Toimplementsystemicchangeandaculturalshiftwhichwillsupportsocialpedagogic

practiceandrecognisethecentralroleoffostercarersinshapingthelivesofchildren

withintheircare.

• Toprovideaplatformfortransformationoftherolethatfostercarersplayaspartofthe

child’snetwork.

Source:TheFosteringNetwork(2011)Head,HandsandHeartBringingupChildreninFoster

Care:ASocialPedagogicApproach:FundingProposal.London:theFosteringNetwork.

“TheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammereferstosocialpedagogyasablendofacademicknowledgeandresearch(head),anunderstandingofemotions(heart),andpracticalskillsandactivity(hands)tohelpfosteredchildrenthrive.Itputsfostercarersattheheartofthechildcareteam,andaimstoempowerthemtohelpfosteredchildrenbuildrelationshipsandmakesenseoftheirworldinawaythatleadstostability,betteroutcomesandlongtermwellbeing.Atthesametimetheprogrammerecognisesthatinordertodevelopasocialpedagogicapproachtofostercare,changesareneededinthewidersystemthatinfluencesthewayfostercarersviewandrelatetotheirfosteredchildren–boththeimmediatesystemofthefosteringserviceandconnectedchildren’sservices,andalsothewiderpoliticalandsocietalsystem.SocialpedagogyisanoverarchingframeworkforsocialcareinmanycontinentalEuropeanandScandinaviancountries.However,theframeworkissociallyconstructed,reflectingthevaluesofsociety,andthereforetheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeandevaluationisexploringhowtheframeworkcanbeappliedintheUK,ratherthan‘importing’amodelofcare.”EvaluationTeam,2013

27

contextreferstothedevelopmentofthewholeperson,includingtheiracademicandpsycho-socialdevelopmentandtheirpositionasacitizenwithinasociety.Inthis,andpartlyreflectingthediscipline’sdevelopmentinpost-warGermany,therehasbeenastrongunderpinningemphasisonrights-basedanddemocratisingapproacheswithinsocialpedagogictheoryandpractice,includingthedemocratisationofeverydaylife(c.f.Sünker,2006).Socialpedagogyispredicatedonaseriesofkeyethicalandmoralunderpinningsandisbasedonphilosophicalconsiderationsabouttheinherentvalueofhumanbeings(EichstellerandHolthoff,2011).SocialpedagogicpracticescanbedescribedasthebringingtogetheroftheHead,Heart,andHandsforthetaskofworkingwithpeople:Anamalgamationofprofessionalknowledge,drawingonarangeofsocialsciencedisciplines,andcriticalself-reflection(Head),empathyandtheuseofone’sownexperiencesandpersonality(Heart),andpracticalactionsandactivities(Hands)(CameronandMoss,2011).Authorsagreethatsocialpedagogicpracticescanbedescribedasawayofthinkingorawayofbeing,ratherthansolelyasamethodorasetoftoolsthatcanbeappliedtoaspecifictask(Petrie,2007;Hämäläinen,2012).Inthissensesocialpedagogicpracticesare“notsomuchaboutwhatisdone,butmoreabouthowsomethingisdone”(EichstellerandHolthoff,2011:33).InmanyEuropeancountriesSocialPedagoguesarerecognisedasaspecificprofessionaldesignation.FollowingprofessionalBachelorstrainingofbetweenthreeandfouryears,andsometimesafterfurtherpostgraduatestudy,SocialPedagoguesareemployedtoworkinarangeofsocialwelfarecontexts,includingadultsocialcare,youthwork,thejusticeandprobationservice,inadditiontochildwelfare,freetimeandearlychildhoodservices.Inrecognitionofthis,throughoutthisreportwemakeadistinctionbetweenSocialPedagogues,todenotethosewiththeaforementionedprofessionaldesignation,andsocialpedagogicpractitioners,todenotepractitionersofanykind(includingfostercarers,socialworkersandothersocialcarepersonnel)whohaveintegratedsocialpedagogicprinciplesintotheirpracticetodifferingdegrees.Thereisconsiderableheterogeneityacrossthedisciplineofsocialpedagogy,asisthecaseforanyestablishedtheoreticaldiscipline,suchaspsychologyorsociology(Berridgeetal.,2011;Hämäläinen,2012).Differenttraditionshavedevelopedacrossdifferentcountriesandcontexts,wherebysomeprinciplesareemphasisedoverothers,ordifferentinterpretationsofthemodelsandconceptsareemployed.Whilstithasbeenpossibletoidentifysomeunifyingfeaturesofsocialpedagogyforfostercarers(exploredinAppendixB),Petrie(2007)notesthatitmaybemorevaluabletoreferto“pedagogies”thansocialpedagogyasasingleentity.IntheevaluationofHead,Heart,Hands,weregularlyobservedthisdiversityamongstaculturallymixedgroupofstakeholders,andinstancesofdebateabouthowsocialpedagogycouldbeexemplifiedinthefieldwerereportedascommonbyevaluationparticipants(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Itisnotuncommontoobservearangeofpracticesamongprofessionalswithinanyfield.Nevertheless,theheterogeneityofthefieldofsocialpedagogyisofparticularnotetotheevaluation.Socialpedagogyisnotasetoftechniquesofpracticesthatareapplied.Ratherpractitionersareencouragedtoadaptandarriveatdifferentconclusionsfordifferentcircumstancesindifferentcontexts.Socialpedagogycannotthereforebedefinedasan“intervention”inthetraditionalsense.Ratheritisaphilosophyoranapproachtoworkingwithpeoplethatbringstheoryandpracticetogether.

28

Therefore,theparticularelementsofsocialpedagogythathavebeenemphasisedfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(asoutlinedinBox3below)wereinfluencedbytheparticularperspectivesandbackgroundsoftheCentralDeliveryPartners.Box3:WhatissocialpedagogyasdefinedbytheSocialPedagogyConsortium

SocialpedagogyintheUKWhilesocialpedagogyiscommonacrosscontinentalEurope,itislesswellunderstoodintheUK.Interesthasgrownsincethe1990s(Cameron,2016).However,theadoptionofsocialpedagogyasanapproachorasaprofessionintheUKremainsembryonic.Someuniversitieshavestartedtoincludesocialpedagogyintosocialworktrainingcourses,andasmallernumberhaveintroduceddegreeandmastersprogrammesonsocialpedagogy,alongsideothercomplementarysubjects(Hatton,2013).Somelocalauthoritieshavestartedtointroducetrainingprogrammesonsocialpedagogyacrossdifferentserviceareas.Regionaldevelopmentnetworkshavebeguntoemerge,suchastheSocialPedagogyDevelopmentNetwork9,whichbringsadvocatesfortheapproachfromarangeoffieldstogether.AsaparalleldevelopmenttoHead,Heart,Hands,aproposedSocialPedagogyProfessionalAssociationaimstosupporttherecognitionandqualityassuresocialpedagogicpracticesintheUK(seeAppendixC).Untilrecently,attemptstointroducesocialpedagogyintoUKpracticehavepredominantlyfocusedonresidentialcare(Berridgeetal.,2011;EichstellerandHolthoff,2012),oronmultipleserviceareas(Milligan,2009;Mooreetal.,2013).Inthisway,Head,Heart,Handswasdistinctiveinitsattemptstointroducetheapproachexclusivelytofostercare.Thefieldoffosteringpresentssomeuniquefeatures.Whilemanyfostercarersarehighlyskilledpractitionerswhocareforchildrenandyoung

9Formoreinformationseehttp://www.thempra.org.uk/spdn/

“Socialpedagogywasdefinedintheearlynineteenthcenturyasafieldfortheory,policyandpractice.Itissometimesreferredtoaseducationinitsbroadestsenseinthat,unlikemuchformaleducation,ittakesaholisticview,seekingtosupportphysical,emotional,intellectualandsocialwellbeing,andtopromotesocialagencyandresilience.ThephraseHead,HeartandHandssignifiesthisholisticapproach.Inpublicpolicy,socialpedagogyreferstomeasuresthattakesuchabroadlyeducationalapproachtosocialissues.Itisalsoanacademicfieldinitsownright,withitsowntheoriesaswellasdrawingonthosefromdisciplinessuchaspsychologyandsociology.

SocialpedagogyisarecognisedprofessioninmuchofEurope,withsocialpedagoguesworkingacrossawideagerange.Theethicsoftoday’ssocialpedagogyarebasedindemocraticandemancipatoryvaluesanditprizesopportunitiesforcooperation.Socialpedagogue’spracticecentresonbuildingrelationshipsofteninthecourseofeverydayactivities,butalsoviacreativeandout-doorpursuits.Reflection,leadingtopracticaloutcomesisseenasessential.TheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammesetouttodelivermodelsandtheoriesthatfosteredreflectionandwouldputsocialpedagogyprinciplesintoaction.”SocialPedagogyConsortium,2016

29

peoplewhotypicallypresentwithmorecomplexneedsthanarefoundinthewiderpopulation,theyarenotprofessionalsinthesensethat“fostercarer”isnotrecognisedasadistinctiveprofessionaldesignation.Fostercarersaresubjecttoanumberofstatutoryregulations,theyarenot,however,employeesofanyonefosteringservice.Whiletheyreceiveagreatdealoftrainingandsupport,therearenoformalisedtrainingandqualificationframeworksthatfostercarersarerequiredtoobtainpriortobeingapproved.Someauthorsadvocatefortheprofessionalisationoffostercare,whereasotherstudieshighlightconcernsregardingtheimpactthatprofessionalisationwouldhaveonfosterchildren’sperceptionoffostercarers’motivations(McDermidetal.,2012).Fostercarers’practiceislocatedwithinthefamilysetting,takesplacewithinthefamilyhome,andinsomecasesfostercarersactasdefactoparents(CourtneyandThoburn,2009).Whilefosteringcanbehighlyrewarding,thechallengesofcaringforsomechildrenandyoungpeoplecanextendbeyondnormativeexperiencesofparenting(Murray,Tarren-SweenyandFrance,2011).Researchhasfoundthatfostercarerscanexperienceagreatdealofemotionalstressthrougheventsandcircumstancessuchasplacementdisruptions,difficultrelationshipswithbirthparentsandcasesinwhichtheChildren’sSocialCareemployeesandfostercarersdisagreeaboutwhereachildshouldlive(Wilson,SinclairandGibbs,2000).Insummary,fostercarersoperateinauniquespacebetweentheprofessionalandthepersonal.Thisevaluation,therefore,examinestheparticularcontributionHead,Heart,Handsmadetothatmostdistinctiveoffields.SocialpedagogyintheUK:TheevidencebaseTheevidencebaseontheimpactofsocialpedagogyonchildren’sservicesintheUKremainsinitsinfancy.Arecentoverviewidentifiedtenstudies(includinginterimfindingsfromtheevaluationofHead,Heart,Hands)thathaveevaluatedtheimpactofsocialpedagogictraining(Cameron,2016).Theoverviewsuggeststhatsocialpedagogictrainingmightprovideattendeeswithatheoreticalframeworkforpractice;acommonlanguageacrossdifferentsectionsoftheworkforce;appreciationofteamsandteamworking;newskills(orare-evaluationofexistingones);understandingofcriticalreflection;andadifferentappreciationofassessingrisk.Twostudiesalsofoundareductioninthenumberofcriticalincidentsfollowingsocialpedagogictraininginresidentialcare(SkinnerandSmith,2013;Mooreetal.,2013),whileanotherstudyfoundthatintroducingsocialpedagogicpracticesintoresidentialsettingshadlimitedimpactonthechildrenandyoungpeople(Berridgeetal.,2011).Mostsubstantially,Cameronnotesthereisalackofevidencethatsocialpedagogictrainingimpactswiderorganisationalcontexts.However,differencesinmethodologiesacrosslargelysmallscalestudiesorstudiesundertakeninashorttimescale,andthehighlycontextspecificnatureofsocialpedagogicpractices,makesitdifficulttodrawnationallygeneralisableconclusions.ThestructureoftheprogrammeHead,Heart,HandswascarriedoutbetweenSeptember2012andJune2016.AsshowninFigure1theprogrammecanbeseparatedintothenationalprogramme,whichconsistedoftheCentralDeliveryPartnersandFundersandthelocalsiteswithinwhichtheprogrammewasdelivered.

30

Figure1Funding,leadership,managementanddeliverystructureofHead,Heart,Hands+

+GhateandMcDermid,2016.Theprogrammeatanationallevel10TheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammewasco-fundedbyaconsortiumofsevenphilanthropicdonors.Eachcontributedaportionofa£3.7milliongrantoverfouryearsfrom2012to2016.Operationally,theprogrammewasdesignedandledbyTheFosteringNetwork,anationalchildren’scharityworkingwithfostercarersandfosteringservices.Tosupportthedeliveryoftheprogramme,theFosteringNetworkcontracteda‘deliverypartner’,theSocialPedagogyConsortium(SPC),agroupofpracticeandacademicspecialistsinsocialpedagogy,consistingofJacarandaRecruitmentLtd,PatPetrie,ProfessorattheUCLInstituteofEducationandThemPraSocialPedagogyCIC.TheconsortiumadvisedandguidedTheFosteringNetworkonprogrammestrategy.TheSPCalsowrotethebaseresources(includingtheprogramme’s“referencetool”),anddesignedandledthe“LearningandDevelopment”coursesforfostercarersandstaff.JacarandaandThempraalsogavesupporttosites(oneortwodesignated“SiteSupportLeads”persite).Inadditiontothisbasicstructure,therewereavarietyofreferenceandadvisorygroupsattachedtotheproject.ThestructureoftheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeatalocallevelSevenlocalsites,threeinScotlandandfourinEngland,participated,co-fundingtheworkthroughsalarycontributionsandwithdirectandin-kindresourcesincludingseniorstafftime.Thesitesincludedtwoindependentfostercareproviders(IFP’s),oneprivate,onevoluntary;andfivelocalauthorities.TwositesinScotlandweretreatedasasingleentityforsomepurposesoftheprogramme,althoughthesesitesweretreatedbytheevaluationasindependentprojectsitessincetheyfunctionedassuch.Thesiteswereselectedthroughcompetitiveapplicationandwerespecificallychosentoofferarangeofdifferentcontextsinwhichtoexplorehowtheprogrammecouldwork.Allbutonesitehadsomepriorexposuretosocialpedagogyortosocialpedagogues,althoughthisvariedinintensity.Toprotectconfidentialitythesitesareidentifiedbycoloursthroughoutthisreport.ThecharacteristicsofthesitesaresummarisedinAppendixD.Whiletheprogrammeinit’sentirelyspannedaperiodbetweenSeptember2012andJune2016,theprincipalactivitiesinthelocalsiteswereundertakenbetweenJanuary2013andDecember2015.Thistimeframeallowedforpreparatory,andconsolidationactivitiestobeundertakenpriortoandfollowingthesitework.

10AdaptedfromGhateandMcDermid,2016

31

EachsitehadanoperationalSiteProjectLeadfortheprogramme,apersonatserviceorteammanagerlevel,whowaspivotalinlocalimplementation.Siteleadswereaccountableforthelocalprojectwork,usuallyline-managedthesocialpedagogue(s),andledonreportinganddaytodayliaisonwithTheFosteringNetwork.SiteleadsweresupportedbyProjectStrategicLeads,usuallyatHeadofServiceorAssistantDirectorlevel.Thesepeopleapprovedthesite’sinvolvementandwerekeptsightedontheproject’sactivities,theyusuallysatontheprojectsteeringgroup,butwerenotnormallyinvolvedindaytodayoperationaldecisions.Asaconditionoftakingpartintheprogramme,siteswereintendedtoemploytwoSocialPedagogueseach,andweregivenfundingtocover50%ofthesalaryoftwofulltimestaff.TheSocialPedagogueswereappointedtoworkapproximatelyhalftimeonHead,Heart,Handsandhalftimeonotherduties,includinginsomesitesasSupervisingSocialWorkerswithstatutoryduties,wheretheywerequalifiedtopracticeintheUK.Inreality,thetwosmallestsitesemployedoneSocialPedagogueeach,andinanothersiteitwasagreedthatthreeSocialPedagogueswouldeachspend33%oftheirtimeonHead,Heart,HandstoallowanincumbentSocialPedagoguetosupporttheprogrammealongsidethetworecruitedspecificallyfortheprogramme.TheSocialPedagoguesprovidedarangeofexpertinputstodevelopsites’socialpedagogiclearningandactivities,aswellassupervisingfostercareplacementsincasesorholdingothersocialworkroles.TherolethattheSocialPedagoguesplayedintheprogrammeisexploredextensivelyintheimplementationevaluation(GhateandMcDermid,2016).DescribingtheprogrammeTheactivitiesandinputsthatformedtheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammevariedconsiderablyacrossthesites.ThisvariabilityisexploredingreaterdetailinGhateandMcDermid(2016).Therewererelativelyfewfixedparametersthatweredefinedattheoutsetandtheexpressedintentionwastoleteachsitedevelopitsownmodelwithinanexploratoryframework.Indeed,flexibilityatthelocallevelhasbeenshowntobeanessentialelementinotherlargescaleprogrammes(Dayetal.,2016).Theimplicationsofthishighlyflexibleapproachontheevaluationareexploredfurtherbelow.InFigure2wedescribeourownanalysis,asevaluators,ofwhatwehaveassessedtohaveemergedasthebasicoperationaldesigncomponentsofHead,Heart,Handsatanationallevel.OnecommoncomponentwasasetofLearningandDevelopmentcoursesthatwereprovidedbytheSPCineachofthesites,startingwitha“Taster”day,atwoday“Orientation”courseanda“Core”courseconsistingofeightdays.TheOrientationcoursewasdesignedtobeastand-alonecourse,orthefirsttwodaysoftheCorecourse.Thesecourseswereprimarilyattendedbyfostercarers,butsomeplacesweremadeavailabletoothersocialcarepersonnelincludingsocialworkers.AsdeterminedbytheprogrammedesignerstheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourseswereintendedtobedeliveredtocohortof40fostercarers(upto20eachinthetwosmallersites),anduptoeightstafffromavarietyofbackgroundsandlevelsofseniority.InactualitytheLearningandDevelopmentcourseattendeesvariedacrossthesites.ThenumberandtypeofattendeesaredetailedinAppendixE.TheLearningandDevelopmentcoursesweredesignedtodrawonarangeoflearningstyles,inparticularexperientialanddiscursivetechniques.Socialpedagogyplacesastrongemphasisontheuseofthegroupasaresource(beitafamily,orattendeesofatrainingcourse).Therefore,theLearningandDevelopmentcoursesweredesignedtoencouragegroupworking,trustandrelationships.Asetofcoresocialpedagogicprinciples,appliedthroughtheuseoftoolsand

32

models,wereexploredaspartoftheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Thesemodelsareindicatedbyboldtext,andaredefinedthroughoutthisreport.AllparticipantsoftheCorecoursewereprovidedwithaHead,HeartHands“ReferenceTool”.FollowingtheLearningandDevelopmentcoursesthesitesprovidedarangeofcontinuouslearningopportunitiestocementthelearningforthecohortwhoattendedtheCorecourses,andaswaytospreadsomeofthelearningtootherfostercarersandstaffwhohadnotbeenabletoparticipate.Theparticularwaytheseactivitieswereundertakenacrossthesitesvariedconsiderably.Inaddition,allofthesitesdevelopedfurtherLearningandDevelopmentactivities.Allofthesitesdeliveredadditionaloneortwodaysessionsthroughoutthedurationoftheprogramme,andthreeofthesiteshadbeguntodelivereightdaycoursesbytheendoftheevaluationtimeperiod.UnliketheinitialLearningandDevelopmentprogrammeadditionalactivitieswereprimarilydeliveredbytheSocialPedagogues,andothers,includinginonesite,fostercarers,albeitwithconsiderablesupportandguidancefromSPCcolleagues.AwealthofotherLearningandDevelopmentactivitieswerealsoundertaken,andincludedsocialworkteamtraining,lunchtimeseminarsandworkshops.Arangeofreferencematerialswerealsodeveloped,includingbookletsaboutsocialpedagogy.

33

Figure2Thecoreoperationalcomponents

Figure7coreoperationalcomponentsofHead,Heart,Handsatlocalsitelevel

1site:combinedSPLandstrategiclead1site:nostrategicleadafterYr2

1site:combinedSPLandstrategicleadrole1site:2co-leads

2sites(small):onepedagogueeach1site:threepedagogues

2sites:2co-leads

astrategicleadusuallyatheadofserviceorassistantdirectorlevel

asiteprojectlead(SPL),usuallyatoperationalservicemanagerlevel

twotrainedandprofessionallyqualifiedsocialpedagogues,funded50/50bytheprogrammeandthesite,theirtimetobeusedasthesitedecided

onesocialpedagogyconsortiumlead(SPClead)

Resources(Inputs)

COREoperationaldesignfeaturesofHead,Heart

Hands

Basic(core)designcomponents‘asintended’

Flexibilitiesimplementedinpractice(seecasestudiesfor

details)

Totalattendancerangedfrom32-62

Fostercarerattendancerangedfrom26-47

Staffattendancerangedfrom6-18

1site:basedinvirtualschoolProjectbasedinfosteringservice

Anidentifiedcohortoffostercarersstaff,whoparticipatedincorelearninganddevelopmentcomprisedof:Approx.40fostercarersApprox.10stafffromavarietyofbackgroundsandlevelsofseniority

Targetpopulation:fostercarersandstaff

Totalattendancerangedfrom31-245

Attendancerangedwidely(seeabove);manypedagoguesdid‘catch-up’sessionswithcarersandstaffwhomissedsessions

Variablyused(seebelow)

1site:nosupervisionarrangementstakenup1site:partialsupervisiontakeup

1site:strategyboard1site:discontinuedinYr3

Variableformsinallsites;Somesitesextendedtocarers,staffandotherswhohadnotattendedthecorecourses

Variableengagementbysitesindifferentaspectsoftheseastime/resource/preferencesuggested

deliveryduringtheearlypartofYr1bytheSPCof2xone-day‘taster’daysand4xtwo-day‘orientation’day,intendedasintroductionstosocialpedagogyforfostercarersandprofessionalsinandaroundthesite

deliveryduringthefirstyearoftheprojectbytheSPCofan8-day‘corelearninganddevelopmentcourse’totheidentifiedcohort

supporttostrategicleadsandSPLsprovidedbytheSPCsitesupportleads

supporttopedagogues(‘supervision’)providedbytheSPCplus6monthlyindependentsupervision

Formationofaprojectsteeringgroupwithrangeofstakeholders

‘Momentum’activitiesinsites(furtherlearninganddevelopmentactivities)todeepenandwidenlearning

Nationalprogrammeactivitiestoaddressissuesarisingandco-constructwaysforward:multiplestructures,groups,meetings,events

Resources(Inputs)

34

3. Methodsandmethodologicalconsiderationsandlimitations

Withinthischapterweoutlinethekeymethodsusedandthesampleofevaluationparticipantsincludedinthisreport.Wealsoexploretheethicalandmethodologicalconsiderationsandlimitationsofthisevaluation.Thisinformationhasbeenincludedtoensuretransparencyofourapproachandtofacilitatereplicationofthemethods,asandwhenrequired.AccompanyingtablesareprovidedinAppendixF.FurthermethodologicalconsiderationsregardingthedesignoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,andsocialpedagogyitself,areexploredintheimplementationevaluation(GhateandMcDermid,2016)11.OverallevaluationapproachInrecognitionofthecomplexitieshighlightedabovetheevaluationsetsouttoestablish:

• thewaysinwhichtheprinciplesandphilosophyofsocialpedagogyhavebeenunderstoodwithintheprogramme;

• howthathasimpactedonpractice;• thewayinwhichthosechangesinpracticeimpactedonthelivesofchildrenandyoung

people.TheaimoftheevaluationwastoascertainhowfartheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeachievedtheaimsandobjectivesoutlinedinBox1,byaddressingthefollowingover-archingresearchquestions:




Themethodsweredesignedtoidentifyandanalysethesevariouscomponentsinarobustandrealisableway.Afterconsiderationoftherequirementsoftheprojectandtheresourcesavailable,wechosealongitudinal,mixedmethodapproach,withoutanexternalcomparisongroup.ParametersoftheevaluationOurpreviousevaluationreports(McDermid,HolmesandTrivedi,2015)havehighlightedtheneedtodistinguishbetweensocialpedagogyperse:theapproach,philosophy,framework,orsetofvaluesunderpinningpractice,andtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme:theprogrammedesignedtointroducethatapproachtosevenfosteringservicesintheUK.Throughoutthisreportwerefertoboththesocialpedagogiccontentthatwasdeliveredaspartoftheprogramme,andthedesignoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.“Head,Heart,Hands”referstoboth“theprogramme”,and“theapproachbeingdevelopedwithintheparticipatingfosteringservices”.Tothisend,whileitisnotpossibletohaveHead,Heart,Handswithoutsocialpedagogy,itispossibletohavesocialpedagogywithoutHead,Heart,Hands.

11Afulldescriptioniscontainedinthemainreport:(http://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf)

35

Inthisway,thisevaluationcannotbedefinedasanevaluationofsocialpedagogyperse,butananalysisoftheapproachasithasbeenarticulatedthroughtheparticularlensoftheprogramme. Moreover,giventheheterogeneityofthefieldnotedinChapter2,whatispresentedthroughoutthisreportaretheviewsofsocialpedagogicpracticesasarticulatedbytheevaluationparticipants,ratherthantheauthors’owninterpretationsofsocialpedagogictheoriesandpractice. However,giventherelationshipbetweentheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeandsocialpedagogy,itisexpectedthatthisreportwillcontributetoabetterunderstandingofthepotentialimpactoffutureroutesintosocialpedagogy,andthewiderexplorationoftheuseofsocialpedagogyintheUK.Moreover,thesiteshavereportedtheintentiontocontinuetoembedsocialpedagogicapproaches(albeitindifferentways)beyondtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.TheevaluationthereforeconsiderstheimplicationsforboththesiteswhoparticipatedinHead,Heart,Handsastheycontinuebeyondthetimeframeoftheprogramme,andforotherservicesthatmaybeconsideringtheintroductionofsocialpedagogyintotheirownpracticeapproaches.EvaluationdesignTheevaluationwasseparatedintothreedistinct,butinter-relatedmodulestoaddressthethreesetsofresearchquestionsidentifiedabove:

Module1: TheimpactonchildrenandyoungpeopleModule2: TheimpactonfostercarersModule3: Theimpacton(andof)thesystem

Asexploredinmoredetailbelow,attheanalysisstage,Modules1and2werebroughttogethertoshiftthefocusoftheevaluationawayfromfostercarersandthechildrenplacedwiththemasdistinctgroups,towardsanunderstandingofthefosteringhousehold.Theevaluationwasundertakenoverfouryears(48months)commencingon1October2012.Theevaluationwasdesignedtoencompassprojectsetup,followedbythreedatacollectionperiodsandanalysisandwriteupofthese.Theimplementationevaluation(“Module3”)wasdesignedtodescribehowtheprogrammewasputintopracticeatsitelevel,andtoevaluatethestrengthsandweaknessesintheimplementationmodelthatemergedovertime.Theimplementationresearchinvolvedallsevensitesinthreewavesofdatacollectionbetween2013and2016,with234individualscontributingdataatthedifferenttimepoints.TheimplementationresearchincludedtheparticipationofSiteProjectLeads,theSocialPedagogyConsortiumSiteSupportLeads,theprogrammeSocialPedagogues,children’ssocialworkersandchildren’ssocialcaremanagers,strategicdecisionmakersinlocalauthoritiesandalsostaffatTheFosteringNetworkandfromtheFunders’board.ThemethodsutilisedforModule3,areoutlinedindetailinGhateandMcDermid(2016).Intheremainderofthischapterweoutlinethemethods,andmethodologicalconsiderationsandlimitations,usedforModules1and2,whicharethemainfocusofthisreport.TheevaluationcohortAsshowninFigure2above,thetargetpopulationforHead,Heart,HandswasanidentifiedcohortoffostercarersandstaffwhoparticipatedintheCoreLearningandDevelopmentactivitiesdeliveredatthecommencementoftheprogramme.Weconsequentlyidentifiedthosefostercarersandsocial

36

carestaffastheevaluationcohort.ThroughoutthisreporttheyarereferredtoastheHead,Heart,HandsfostercarersandHead,Heart,Handssocialcarestaff.Werecognisethatasubstantiverangeofadditionalactivitieswereundertakenwithfostercarers,childrenandyoungpeopleandsocialcarestaffandthosefromotheragencieswhomay,ormaynothave,participatedinthoseLearningandDevelopmentcourses.TheseactivitiesincludeddirectinterventionswithotherfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleundertakenbytheSocialPedagogues,socialpedagogyactivitydays,theadditionalLearningandDevelopmentactivities,reflectiveactivitiesandreviewofpoliciesandprocedurestoreflectasocialpedagogicapproach.Theseactivitiesdevelopedandunfoldedovertime.However,ourevaluationwascommissionedspecificallytofocusonthecohortoffostercarerswhoattendedtheinitialsetofLearningandDevelopmentcoursesdeliveredbetweenJanuary2013andMay2014ineachoftheparticipatingsites.ThereforethisreportcapturesthelearningandimpactfromtheirexperiencesofHead,Heart,Hands.ComparisongroupAsstatedintheinvitationtotenderdocument(TheFosteringNetwork,2011)thecommissionersandfundersofthisevaluationdidnotwanttocommissionarandomisedcontroltrialandfurthermoreindicatedthattheevaluationfundsshouldbeusedtofocusonfostercarersandyoungpeopleinvolvedintheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Assuch,theoverallevaluationapproachcanbedescribedasalongitudinal,pre-post-testmethod,withoutanexternalcomparisongroup.FocusonfosteringhouseholdsTheanalysisandpresentationofthefindingsofthequalitativedatahavebeenstructuredaroundtheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeonfosteringhouseholdsratherthanseparatingtheimpactonchildrenandyoungpeopleandtheirfostercarers.Ourrationalefortakingthisapproachisasfollows:

• Afocusonthe“fosteringhousehold”reflectsanumberofkeysocialpedagogicprinciples,suchasthecentralityofrelationships,andtheconceptsofthelife-spaceandofaneverydayworldorientation(“Alltagsorientierung”).Thisapproachallowedustobothanalyseandpresentthefindingsthroughasocialpedagogiclens.

• TheseparationoftheimpacttoanindividualchildisartificialgiventhatthefostercarersweretheprimaryunitofinfluenceforthevastmajorityoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.FostercarersweregivenpriorityforattendanceattheprogrammeofLearningandDevelopmentcourses,andgiventhattheirtraininginfluencesthehouseholdlifespaceandtherelationshipsandpracticeswithinthatlifespace.

• Areductionofduplicationinreporting:manyofthefindingsresonateforboththechildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewedandtheirfostercarers.Separationoutoftheimpactoneachindividual,throughhavingseparatesectionsfocusedoneitherthefostercarers,orthechildrenandyoungpeople,wouldhaveresultedinduplicationacrossthereport,andconstrainourabilitytoidentify(dis)connectionsbetweenimpactorinfluenceontheparticipatingcarersandchildren.

• Similarly,afocusonfostercarehouseholdsfacilitatedanexplorationoftheimpactonotherfamilymembers,suchasthesonsanddaughtersoffostercarers.

37

• Inthisway,thereportingisintendedtoreflectthedataanalyticapproach,whichutilisesthetriangulationofdatafromfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleintheircare.DuringadetailedtwodayanalysissessionheldatLoughboroughUniversityon18and19Maywefounditparticularlybeneficialtoanalysetheinterviewtranscriptsfromthefostercarer,thechildplacedwiththemandthechild’slifemap,andtriangulatethekeymessages.Thiswasfurtherstrengthenedwhenwewereabletoanalysedatafrommultipletimepointsforaspecificfostercarehousehold,includinghouseholdsthathaveexperiencedplacementchanges.Thiscase-basedapproach,withanemphasisonanalysisacross(aswellaswithin)datasourcescorrespondstootherresearchwhichutilisesmultipledatapointswithinahousehold(e.g.Boddyetal.,2016;McDermidetal.,forthcoming).

• WeconsiderthistobeanecessaryapproachtoincorporatethefindingsfromModule3andinparticularthesphereofinfluenceofHead,Heart,Handswithinthefosteringhousehold,andthe“widersystem”.Thissystemicframingallowsattentiontothepotentialbenefitsofthechildtobecontextualised,includingbringingtogetherfostercarers’experienceofwhethertheyperceivethemselvestobepartofortobeworkingalongside(orintensionwith)the“system”.

Whererelevanttheinclusionofquantitativeanalysesofchildleveloutcomeshasbeenintegratedthroughoutthereport.InterviewswithfosteringhouseholdsFostercarerswhohadattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsOrientationand/orCoreLearningandDevelopmentcoursesbetweenJanuary2013andMay2014,andthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththemwereinvitedtoparticipateinaninterview.InformationpacksweresenttoallfostercarersparticipatingintheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammewhichincludeddetailsforbothfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththemabouttheevaluationandinvitingthemtoparticipate.Tomaintaindataconfidentialitythepackswerepreparedbytheevaluationteam,anddistributedbythesites.Thisensuredthatthenamesandaddressesoffostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewerenotpassedtouswithouttheirpermission.Afreepostreplycardwasincludedinthepacks.Thosefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhowereinterestedinfindingmoreoutabouttheevaluationcompletedthiscardandreturnedittotheevaluationteam.Inordertomaximisethesampleoffosteringhouseholds,wealsoattendedanumberofHead,Heart,Handseventstopromotetheevaluationandtoencouragefostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththemtoparticipate.Priortotheinterviewswediscussedtheprocesswithparticipatingfostercarers,andwhereappropriatethechildoryoungperson.Thisensuredthatinterviewparticipantswerefullyinformedaboutthepurposeoftheevaluationandwhattakingpartinvolved.Thisalsoenabledtheresearchertohavesomebackgroundknowledgeofthechildoryoungpersontotailorthetechniquesandmethodstobeusedaspartoftheinterview.Forinstance,youngerchildrenwereinvitedtodraworplaywithLegoduringtheinterviewtomakeitfeelmorerelaxed.Attheendofthisdiscussionweconfirmedwiththeintervieweethattheywerestillhappytotakepartintheevaluation.Signedconsentwasalsoobtainedatthebeginningofeachinterview.Ageappropriateconsentformsweredevelopedforthechildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipated.Thechildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinaninterviewweregivena£15giftvoucherasathankyoufortheirtime.

38

Theinterviewswereprimarilyconductedfacetoface,althoughsomewereconductedoverthephoneorviaSkypeattherequestoftheparticipant.Theinterviewsweresemi-structuredandexplored:

• Informationaboutthefostercarerandthechildand/oryoungpersonplacedwiththem.• Thefostercarer’sviewsontheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeincluding:

o TheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.o Otheractivitiesassociatedwiththeprogramme.

• Theimpactsocialpedagogyhadonthefostercarersownpractice.• Thefostercarer’srelationshipwiththechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.• Thefostercarer’sviewsontheimpactofsocialpedagogyonthewidersystem.

Theinterviewswiththechildrenandyoungpeoplealsoexplored:

• Thepeoplewhoareintheyoungperson’slifeandtherelationshiptheyhavewiththem.• Theroutineandactivitiestheyoungpersondoes,andhowthedecisionsarereached.• Whattheyoungpersonenjoysandfindsdifficultaboutthethingsabove.• Whatchoices(agency)doestheyoungpersonhavedaytoday,intheircare,andinfuture?

Thechildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinaninterviewwerealsoinvitedtodrawa“lifemap”tofacilitateadiscussionofhowtheyperceivetheirlife-worldandtohelpthemfeelmorerelaxedduringtheinterview.Thechildoryoungpersondrewthepeopleandplacesthatwereimportanttohimorheraswellasthedifferentactivitiestheyenjoyeddoing.Inthecourseofdrawingthemaptheintervieweraskedquestionsaboutwhydifferentpeopleandplaceswereimportant,whattheylikedaboutthemandotherquestionsrelatedtothoseshownabove.

Interviewswereaudio-recordedwithpermissionandtranscribedverbatim.Transcriptsofinterviewswereread,codedandsummarisedusingastandardisedthematicframework,basedonkeythemes.Verbatimquotationsareusedthroughoutthisreport,presentingindividualparticipants’perspectivestoillustratepointsofanalysis.FosteringHouseholdsampleOverthecourseoftheentireevaluation126interviewswerecarriedoutwith76Head,Heart,Handsfostercarersand64Interviewswerecarriedoutwith52childrenandyoungpeople.Intotal76Head,Heart,Handshouseholdsparticipatedintheevaluation,whichisanoverallresponserateof34%.ThenumberofhouseholdswhoparticipatedacrossthewholeevaluationbysiteisshowninAppendixFSome,butnotallofthehouseholdsparticipatedacrossmultipletimepointsacrosstheevaluation.Table1showsthenumberofhouseholdswhoparticipatedatdifferenttimepointsandTableF.2inAppendixFshowsthenumberoffostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedateachtimepoint.

39

Table1Participationofhouseholdateachevaluationtimepoint

WhileasTable1aboveshows,somefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleparticipatedinmultipletimepoints,thiswasnotthecaseforthewholesample.Whileallfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewerefollowedupateachtimepoint(whentheyhadgivenpermissiontodoso),andinvitedtoparticipateinasecondorthirdinterview,somedeclinedtoparticipateinsubsequentinterviews.Arangeofreasonswereprovidedfordecliningtoparticipateinafollowupinterview,includingpersonalorfamilialcircumstances,orreportingthatthey“hadnothingmoretoadd”.Duetothevarianceinthesampleitisnotpossibletomakedirectcomparisonsbetweeneachtimepoint. Thesamplesateachtimepointincludeddifferentparticipants,andhavebeentreatedasdistinctratherthantrackingthesameparticipantsoverthewholeevaluationtimeperiod.Thisreportprimarilydrawsoninterviewswith57Head,Heart,Handsfostercarersand37interviewswithchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.ThefindingsfrominterviewsconductedduringWaves1and2canbefoundinpreviousevaluationreports(McDermidetal.,2014;2015).ThreeofthechildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinaninterviewduringWave3wereidentifiedasbeingformallydiagnosedwithaspecialeducationalneedordisability.Themajorityofthechildrenwereagedbetween11and13yearsandwereplacedwithlongtermfostercarers.OfthesampleofHead,Heart,HandsfostercarerswhoparticipatedinWave3oftheevaluation,threebeganfosteringatthestartoftheprogrammeandafurthersixhadbeenfosteringfortwoyearsorlessatthestart.Sevenfostercarershad20yearsormoreexperiencefostering.Theaveragelengthoftimeasafostercarerwas11.5years.OfthosefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3,eighthadnochildinplacementatthetimeoftheinterview.Thelargestproportionofcarershadonechildplaced(n=23)atthetimeoftheinterview.FurtherdetailabouttheinterviewsampleisgiveninAppendixF.TherepresentativenessofthesampleoffosteringhouseholdsThesampleoffosteringhouseholdswhoparticipatedintheevaluationshouldbenotconsideredtoberepresentativeoftheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersasawhole.Thereaderisencouragedtoexercisesomecautionwhengeneralisingthefindingsofthisevaluationforawiderpopulation,duetothepossiblesamplebiasprecipitatedbyboththeprogrammedesignandthewaythatfostercarerswererecruitedintotheevaluation.Firstlywhilst,inthreesites,allfostercarerswithintheservice,orwithinaspecificteamattendedtheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses,intheremainingfoursitesfostercarerswereinvitedtoattendtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,andthereforeself-selectedtoparticipateintheprogramme.Whilstinthesesites,somefostercarers

EvaluationtimepointNumberofhouseholds

ParticipatedinWave1only 6ParticipatedinWave1andWave2 2ParticipatedinallthreeWaves 17ParticipatedinWave2only 10ParticipatedinWave2andWave3 12ParticipatedinWave3only 29

Total 76

40

weretargetedorstronglyencouragedtoattend,othersself-selectedintotheprogrammeonthebasisthatitinterestedthem.Inthisway,inthesesiteswemightexpectthatthosewhochosetoattendthecourseshadapredisposedinterestoraffinitywiththeidealsadvocatedbytheprogramme.Itisimportanttohighlight,thatotherreasonsfornotattendingthecoursemaybeatplay.Forinstance,thosewithaninterestinsocialpedagogymayhavebeenunabletoattendforpracticalreasons.However,self-selectionofanykindmayhaveintroducedsomesamplingbiastothetypeoffostercarerswhowereincludedintheevaluationcohort.ThisisexploredfurtherinChapter4.Secondly,theHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleself-selectedtoparticipateintheevaluation.Thiswasinpartduetoethicalconsiderations:itwasnotethicalforustohavethenamesoftheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerswithouttheirexpresspermissionandsoitwasnotpossiblewithindataprotectionlawstorandomlyselectandcontactfostercarerstoinvitethemtoparticipateintheevaluation.ConsequentlyitislikelythattheinterviewswereconductedwiththemostpositiveoftheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarers,selectedfromamongstthemostreceptiveacrossthesite.Asaresultthefindingsoftheinterviewswiththefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplecannotbereliedonasrepresentativeofeveryonewhowastrained,norasanindicationofwhatmighthappeniftheapproachwasscaledup.Wehaveattemptedtomitigatetheinherentsamplebiaswithintheevaluationbythecollectionandanalysisofcasefileandmanagementinformationdata.Neverthelesscautionshouldbeexercisedwhengeneralisingsomeofthefindingstoawiderpopulation.ThefostercarersurveyAsurveywascirculatedtoallfostercarerswhohadattendedeithertheHead,Heart,HandsOrientationorCorecoursesineachofthedemonstrationsitesduringWaves1and3.Thesurveywasmadeavailablebothonlineandonpaper.Theresearchteamworkedalongsidethesitestoensurethesurveywasavailableinthemostappropriateformatfortheirfostercarers.InresponsetofeedbackonearlieriterationsofthesurveycompletedinWave1,thesurveycirculatedduringWave3wasdesignedtobebriefandconcise.Itwasdesignedtocollectquantitativedataandfostercarers’viewson:

• TheimpactthatHead,Heart,Handshadon:o Theirpracticeo Theirrelationshipwiththeirfosteredchildorchildreno Theirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerandtheirchildorchildren’s

socialworker• Thedifferentelementsofsocialpedagogythathadbeenofparticularbenefit• TheirviewsontheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme

Wherepossible,responsesweresoughtusingaLikertscaletoprovidequantifiablemeasures.ThesurveyalsoinvitedrespondentstocommentonwhattheythoughtwasthebestthingaboutHead,Heart,Hands.Fortythreerespondentscompletedthisquestionwithawiderangeofcomments.

41

Itwasinitiallyintendedthatacomparisonbetweentheresponsesbetweendifferenttimeframeswouldbecarriedout.However,inlightofthechangesmadetothesurveybetweenthetimeframesadirectcomparisonwasnotviable.Somecomparisonsbetweentheresponsesfromsurveyshavebeenmade,butthesearelimitedinscope.Thesurveysweredesignedtobeanonymoustoensurethemostaccurateviewsweregatheredfromfostercarers.Asaresult,itwasnotpossibletolinkindividualsurveyresponsestoeitherpreviousdatacollectiontimepoints,ortointerviewdata.Eachsub-sampleistreatedasdistinctandcomparedasawhole,ratherthantrackingindividual’sresponsesovertime.Toachieveabroadviewofthesurveydatasetandfindings,thedatawereanalysedusingamixoftestsinStatisticalPackageforSocialSciences(SPSS),includingdescriptivestatistics,frequencies,correlationsandanalysisofvariance.Whereappropriate,measuresofstatisticalsignificancewerealsocarriedout.Commentswereanalysedusingbasiccontentanddiscourseanalysis.Measuresofsignificanceweremadeusingtheappropriatetests.ThefostercarersurveysampleInWave1atotalof108surveyresponseswerereceivedfromfostercarers,tenofwhichwereexcludedfromtheanalysiswheretherewasaninsufficientproportionofthesurveycompleted.Analysiswasconductedon98surveys.MoreinformationabouttheWave1surveycanbefoundinMcDermidetal.(2014).InWave365respondentsaccessedthesurvey.Oneduplicateentrywasidentifiedandexcluded,alongwithoneresponsefromasocialworkteamleader.Inaddition,16respondentshadnotengagedintheinitialHeadHeart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursescompletedbetweenJanuary2013andMay2014,andwerethereforenotpartoftheevaluationcohort.Theserespondentswerealsoexcludedfromtheanalysis.Theanalysiswasconductedon47surveys.Anoverallresponserateof20%wasobtainedacrossallsites.Thisvariedbetweenthesiteshowever,andrangedbetween5–50%acrossthesample.NoresponseswerereceivedfromtheYellowSite.ThebreakdownofrespondentsisshowninAppendixF.Ofthose,thevastmajorityhadcompletedthecorecoursesandonlyonerespondent(fromthePinkSite)hadcompletedtheOrientationcourseandhadnotcontinuedontotheCoreCourse.Itwasoriginallyintendedthatananalysisofresponsesbytypeofcourseandbysitewouldbeconducted.However,onlyonerespondenthadcompletedtheOrientationcourseandhadnotcontinuedtoattendtheCorecourse.Moreover,averylowresponseratewasobtainedinsomesitesanditwasthereforenotstatisticallyviabletocarryoutameaningfulcomparisonofresponsesbetweensites.FocusgroupsandinterviewswithsocialcarestaffAtotalof33frontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffparticipatedintheevaluationdatacollectionaspartoftheimplementationevaluationatWave3.Twentyeightstaffmembersparticipatedinaseriesofeightfocusgroupsandtheremainingfivestaffparticipatedinafacetofaceinterview.Themajorityofthesocialcarestaffparticipantsweresupervisingsocialworkers(n=27)andsixwerefamilysupportworkers.Ofthosewhoparticipatedintheevaluation10hadattendedtheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcoursesandhalfofthosehadattendedwithatleastonefostercareron

42

theircaseload.FourhadattendedthetwodayOrientationdaysandnottheCorecourse.TheremainingstaffmemberswereeitherinateamwithoneoftheSocialPedagoguesorhadattendedoneofthevariousothereventsassociatedwiththeprogramme.Semi-structured,thematicguideswereusedtoascertainfrontlineworkers’viewsontheimpactofsocialpedagogyontheirownpractice,andthepracticeofthefostercarerstheysupervise,alongwiththeirimpressionsoftheimplementationprocess.Groupsandinterviewsgenerallylastedforaroundoneandhalfhours.Interviewsandfocusgroupswereaudio-recordedwithpermissionandtranscribedverbatim.Whiletheinterviewsandgroupswereconductedaspartoftheimplementationevaluation,itbecameevidentthatthediscussionsshedlightonkeyissuesexploredinthisfinalreportabouttheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeople.Transcriptsofinterviewsandthefocusgroupswerere-read,codedandsummarisedwithinandacrosssitesusingastandardisedthematicframework,basedonkeythemestoinformthefindingspresentedinthisreport.SurveytosocialcarepersonnelThesecondwaveofdatacollectionincludedanonlinesurveytobedistributedtosocialcarepersonnelacrosseachsite.Thesurveywasdesignedtomeasurethefollowingaspects:

• TheawarenessandunderstandingoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme• AttitudestowardstheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme• Differencesofthisprogrammefrom“fostercareasusual”• Implicationsforpolicystrategyandpractice• Identifiedchangesasaresultoftheprogramme• Theimplicationofchangesforthesystem

Thelinktoasite-specificsurveywassenttoeachsitetodistributeamongtheirsocialcarepersonnel.Thesurveywasdesignedtobecompletedbythefollowingpersonnel:

• Supervisingsocialworkers• Children’ssocialworkers• Familysupportworkers• Independentreviewingofficers• Operationalandstrategicmanagers

Thedemonstrationsitesdistributedthesurveytotheirsocialcarepersonnelonbehalfoftheevaluationteam.ThePurpleandGreensitesalsodistributedthesurveylinkamongtheirfostercarers.Theseresponseswerenotincludedinthefinalanalysis.ExclusionswerealsoappliedtoSocialPedagogues,becausetheytookpartinaninterview,andthosewhostartedthesurveybutdidnotansweranyquestionswerealsoremoved.Intotal,analysiswasconductedin48socialcarestaffsurveys12whichwasapproximatelya15%returnrate.

12Duetothewaythequestionswerefilteredsomeofthequestionsreceivedverylowresponserates.

43

ThesocialcarestaffsurveysampleAftertheexclusioncriterionwasappliedtherewere48respondentsincludedinanalysis13(approximately15%returnrate).AppendixFshowsthenumberofresponsesreceivedandincludedintheanalysis,byjobrole.CasefileanalysisAretrospectiveanalysisoftheelectroniccasefilesofchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerswascarriedoutattheendoftheprogramme.Theaimofthecasefileanalysiswastounderstandmoreaboutthefosteringhousehold,tobuildacontextualviewaboutthechildrensupportedinHead,Heart,Handsplacementsandtoexplorefurthertheimpactoftheprogrammeonthefosteringhouseholds,withafocusonfamilyintegrationandreportedchangeswithinthefosteringhouseholdovertime.Atemplatewasdevised(andpilotedwithasampleofcasesinoneofthesites)toextractthecasefiledataandincludedthefollowingareas:

• Evidenceinthecasefileoffostercarer(s)usingsocialpedagogicapproaches14;• Informationonfostercarerconfidence;• Informationonqualityofcareandchangestothecareprovidedbyfostercarers;• Detailsonplacementstabilityandtransitionsfromplacements;• Informationon“socialpedagogicinterventions15”;• Viewsofthechild;• Informationontheneeds,additionalservicesreceivedandoutcomesforthechildas

recordedinthecasefile.ThetimeperiodforexaminingdocumentswasfromthestartoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammetotheendofthedatacollectionfortheevaluation(September2012toMarch2016).Documentsfromdifferenttimepointswerereviewed.Therecordsoflookedafterorpathwayplanreviewforthechildwasthemostcommondatasource,followedbytheannualfostercarerreview.Othertypesofinformationreviewedincluded:casesummarynotes;fostercarermonthlydiaryorweeklyrecordingsubmissions;fosteringteamminutes;children’sconsultationquestionnaires;endofplacementquestionnaire;supervisionnotes;complaintlettersandfostercarerprofileinformation.CasefileanalysissampleDatawerecollectedfromcasefilesinfiveofthesevensites.Eachofthesitesprovidedinformationtotheevaluationteamonthefostercarers16whohadattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsOrientation

13Duetothewaythequestionswerefilteredsomeofthequestionsreceivedverylowresponserates.14Thecasefileinformationaboutcarer'spracticewasreviewedbasedontheHead,Heart,Handsattributes(SeeAppendixB)andwhether,onbalance,therewasevidencetoshowfostercarer(s)usingsocialpedagogicapproaches.Theresultsofthisanalysiswerecross-checkedbetweentheteamofresearchers.15‘Socialpedagogicinterventions’weredefinedas:a.)specificpiecesofdirectworkwithindividualcarers,youngpeopleorfamilies;b.)groupsaimedatenhancingsocialpedagogicpractice(variouslynamed‘momentumgroups,actionslearningsetsetc.);c.)socialpedagogyactivitydayandholidayeventsrunandorganisedbySocialPedagogues;d.)SocialPedagogueassupervisingsocialworkerforthecase.16Informationprovidedbysites:fostercarer’sfirstname;typeofplacementfostercarerapprovedfor;datethecoretrainingforfostercarerexpectedtofinish.

44

and/orCoreLearningandDevelopmentcoursesalongwithdetailsonthechildrenplacedwiththemforthedurationoftheevaluation17.TwositesonlyprovidedinformationonthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersatthecommencementoftheprogramme.Theinformationprovidedbythesitesformedthesampleforthecasefiledatacollection.Table2Numberofchildrenandfosteringhouseholdsincludedinthecasefileanalysis

Site

Potentialnumberofchildren

Actualnumberofchildren’s

filesincludedinanalysis

Potentialnumberoffosteringhouseholds

Actualnumberoffosteringhouseholdsincludedinanalysis

Green 23 19 21 15Blue 40 40 28 25Orange 79 66 43 38Purple 141 120 39 39Yellow 194 87 42 40Total 477 332(70%) 173 157(91%)

Intotal,casefiledatafrom332childrenandyoungpeopleplacedin157Head,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholdswereincludedintheanalysis.Casefileswereexaminedfor70%(n=332)ofchildrenknowntohavebeenplacedinHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholdand91%ofthefosteringhouseholds(n=157).Thisrepresents85%oftheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersinthefivesiteswherethecasefileanalysiswasconductedand67%ofthetotalnumberofcarersfromacrossallofthesites.TwoofthesitesdidnotprovideinformationonadditionalchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers.ThefindingspresentedinPart2arebasedon334recordsastwoofthechildrenincludedappearedtwiceastheywereplacedwithtwodifferentHead,Heart,Handscarers.Notallofthepotentialcasefileswereincludedinthedatacollection,caseswereexcludedfromtheanalysiswhen:

• thechildwasplacedwiththeHead,Heart,Handscarerforlessthanonemonth;• theplacementwasprimarilyarespitearrangement;• thefostercarerdidnotcompletetheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses.

CasefiledatacollectionThedatacollectiontemplatewasusedforeachcaseandinformationsoughtfromthetimeperiodthechildwaslivingwiththeHead,Heart,Handscarer.Inaddition,wherepossible,aspecificsearchforkeywords:“socialpedagogy”or“Head,Heart,Hands”wasconducted.Relevantdatafromthecasefilewasinputteddirecttothetemplate,whichwaspasswordprotectedandheldonasecure(encrypted)storagedevice.Asfoundelsewhere,thenatureandavailabilityofdatainthecasefilesvariedacrossthesites,particularlyinrelationtooutcomesandservicesreceived(McDermid,2008;Ward,Holmesand

17Informationprovidedbysites:child’sdateofbirthorage;informationonhowlongthechildhadbeenlookedafter;startdateoftheplacement;placingauthority(forfosteringagencysites).

45

Soper,2008;Holmesetal.,2010;HolmesandMcDermid,2012).Theamountandqualityofinformationavailablepercasefilevariedandwasinfluencedbyanumberoffactorssuchas:

• Allofthesiteshaddifferentcomputersystemsformanagingcasefileinformation.Insomesitessomeoftheinformationrequiredpre-datedthecurrentclientinformationsystemandwasarchivedandthereforenotavailable,whichmeantthatitwasnotpossibletoaccessthefullrangeofdocumentsforsomechildren.

• Insomecasefilesaccesswasdeniedandsolimitedinformationwascollected.• Inasmallnumberofcasestherecordwasnotfound(childidentificationnumbersupplied

wasinaccurate).• Asmallnumberoffosteringhouseholdsincludedintheinformationfromsiteswereactually

carersforadifferentagencyandsotheirinformationwasnotavailableonthesystem.• Insomesitesthechildhadleftthecareofthesitesonofollowupdatawasavailable.

ItislikelythatthenatureanddetailofrecordinginrelationtoHead,Heart,Handsandreferencestosocialpedagogywasaffectedbynumberoffactorssuchas:

• Thedegreetowhichthecasefileauthorhadbeenexposedtosocialpedagogy.• Thedegreetowhichthecarerwasengagedwithsocialpedagogyislikelytoinfluencehow

muchisrecordedinthecasefile.• Thedegreetowhichtheclientinformationsystemhadbeenadaptedtocapturerecording

aboutHead,Heart,Handsorsocialpedagogy.Onesite(Blue)hadintroducedthreespecificdataentryfieldstotheircasefilerecordingsystemrelatingtosocialpedagogytorecordsocialpedagogyevents;socialpedagogyinterventionsandsocialpedagogycasediscussion.

• Thetypeofdocumentaccessed,whichmayhaveaffectedtheamountofinformationcollectedonHead,Heart,Hands.

• Thetypeofsite.Forexampleintheindependentfosteringagencysiteschildren’slookedafterreviewswerenotalwaysavailablebutinformationonthefostercarerwasmorelikelytobeavailable.

Thedatawereread,codedandsummarisedandkeythemesemerged.ThedatawereanalysedusingamixoftestsinStatisticalPackageforSocialSciences(SPSS),includingdescriptivestatistics,frequenciesandcorrelations.Commentswereanalysedusingcontentanalysis.Thismethodprovidedananalysisofwhatisrecorded,whichwillvaryinqualityandcompleteness,ratherthanacompletepictureofalloftheexperiencesoffosteringhouseholds.Itisalsorestrictedtowhatisaccessedfromthefiles,andgiventhelargesampleofchildren,andvolumeofdocumentscontainedwithincases,thecasefileanalysisrepresentsasnapshotofthepotentialinformationonchildrenandfosteringhouseholds.However,thecasefileanalysisprovidedvitalinsightsintoawidersampleoffosteringhouseholds,andwaslessimpactedbythepotentialsamplebiasthatwasinherentinthequalitativedataelements.

46

SecondaryanalysisofnationaldatasetsThequantitativecomponentofourevaluationincludedthesecondaryanalysisofnationaldatasets(SSDA903inEnglandandCLASinScotland;DepartmentforEducation,2014;Scotxed,2015).ThesedataarerecordedandcollatedatalocalauthoritylevelandthensubmittedtotheDepartmentforEducation(England)andtheScottishGovernment(Scotland)onanannualbasisaspartoftheirmandatoryrecordingandrecordingrequirements.Thesamerequirementsarenotapplicabletoindependentandvoluntaryproviders;assuchSSDA903andCLASdatawerenotavailableforinclusionfromthetwoindependentandvoluntaryfosteringproviders.Dataarerecordedonthekeycharacteristicsandneedsofallchildrenlookedafterduringthefinancialyearperiod(spanningfrom1stApriltothe31stMarch),alongwiththetypesofplacementsandkeyeventssuchaschangesinplacement,legalstatusorareturnhomefromcare.Thedataarelongitudinalandgatheredatachildlevelandthereforeprovideavitalresourcewhichcanbeaggregatedandanalysedinarangeofways(McDermid,2008).Datawereprovidedbyfoursites(Pink,Yellow,OrangeandPurple)forthetwofinancialyearspriortothecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands(2010-11and2011-12).Twositesprovideddataforthefouryearsoverwhichtheprogrammewasundertaken(2012-13,2013-14,2014-15,2015-16).InthePinkandPurplesitesdatawerenotavailableforthefinalyear(2015-16).TheinformationprovidedfortheidentificationofthefosteringhouseholdsforthecasefiledatacollectionwereusedtomarkthechildrenwhowereplacedinHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholdsatanypointduringtheevaluationperiod.Theuniquechildidentifierandthedateofbirthwereusedtolocatetheindividualchildinthedataset.OnesiteonlyprovidedinformationonthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersatthecommencementoftheprogramme.ThesitesprovidedinformationaboutthestartandenddatesoftheplacementwiththeHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholdtoensurethatitwaspossibletoidentifywhenthechildwas“in”theprogramme.However,somechallengeswereencounteredinthematchingprocess.Ofthepossible513childrenidentifiedbythesites,336werefoundintheSSDA903orCLASdatasets.In46instancesthechildwasnotfoundamongthenationalreturndata.In173casesthechildwaslocatedbutnoneofthedatesoftheirplacementsinthedatamatchedthedatesprovidedbythesite.ConsequentlyitwasnotpossibletobeconfidentwhichoftheirplacementswerewiththeHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerandthesechildrenwerenotincludedintheanalysis.Anumberofpossiblereasonswhythecaseswereunabletobematchedwereidentified:

• AsmallnumberofchildrenwerelivingwiththeHead,Heart,HandsfostercarersundercircumstanceswhicharenotincludedintheSSDA903orCLASdata,suchasSpecialGuardianshipOrders,orStayingPutarrangements,orthechildbecameadopted.

• Asmallnumberoffostercarersincludedintheinformationfromsiteswereactuallycarersforadifferentagency,orhadachildplacedwiththemfromanotherlocalauthorityandsothechildoryoungpersonwasincludedinthenationalreturndata.

• Childreninreceiptofrespitecarewerefrequentlynotidentifiableinthedata.Thisisbecauseofthewaythatrespiteplacementsarehandledinthereturndata.Respiteisregularlyrecordedasaseparateplacement.Therefore,inclusionofrespiteintheanalysiswouldskewthedata,suggestingahigherfrequencyofplacementchanges.

47

• Errorsinthedata,suchasmissingvariables.Thesechallengesarenotuniquetothisevaluationandsimilarstudieshaveencounteredcomparabledifficultieswithmatchingdataacrossdatasets,andmissingdata(Bazalgette,RahillyandTrevelyan,2015;Sebbaetal.,2015).Intotal65%ofthepossiblechildrenwhowereplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarersinthefoursiteswherenationaldatasetswereavailablewerematched.Thesechildren(n=326)experienced854placementsoverthesixyearperiod.TheanalysiswascarriedoutusingtheCostCalculatorforChildren’sServices(CCfCS),purposedesignedsoftwaredevelopedbytheCentreforChildandFamily(CCFR)evaluationteam(Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008).AppendixGprovidesanoverviewoftheCCfCStool,methodsandunderpinningconceptualframework.Figure3Evaluationtimelineagainstimplementationstages

Year1 Year2 Year3September

2012 December

2013 December

2014 December

2015

Wave1(Jan2013–May2014)

FCInterviews=26CYPInterviews=7FCSurvey=98

Wave2(June2014–July2015)

FCInterviews=40CYPInterviews=11Socialcarestaffsurveyn=48

Wave3(Aug2015–Aug2016)

FCInterviews=57CYPInterviews=35FCSurvey=47SW=35

FirstInterimReport

June2014

SecondInterimReportJuly2015

FinalReportNovember

2016

Exploration Installation InitialImplementation FullImplementation SustainedImplementation

Managementinformationdataonalllookedafterchildreninfoursitesfrom1stApril2010–31stMarch2016

48

Box4:Glossaryofkeyterms

• TheFunders:aconsortiumofsevenphilanthropicdonors

• Leadfunder:TheKPMGFoundation,whooriginatedtheprogramme,chairedtheconsortium,and

engagedactivelyinvariousactivitiesduringthewholecourseoftheprogramme.

• Centralleadershipteam:theseniorexecutiveleadershipteamofTheFosteringNetwork,then

theOperationsDirector(newinpostfromlate2014).

• Centralmanagementteam:smallteamofstaffatTheFosteringNetworkwhoprovided

programmemanagementandsupport,includingtheprogrammemanager,theprogramme

officer,andvariousadministrativeassistants.

• Centralprogrammeteam:jointly,theleadershipandmanagementteamsatTheFostering

Network).

• TheSocialPedagogyConsortium(SPC):agroupofpracticeandacademicspecialistsinsocial

pedagogycontractedbyTheFosteringNetwork.

• CentralDeliveryPartners:jointly,TheFosteringNetworkteamsandtheSPCteam.

• Sites:thesevenfosteringagenciesinlocationsreceivingfundingtoimplementHead,Heart,

Handsintheirfosteringservice.

• SiteProjectLeads:theindividualsresponsibleforlocalHead,Heart,Handsprojectmanagement

andteamleadershipineachofsevensites.

• SPCSiteSupportLeads:membersoftheSPCassignedtospecificsitestosupporttheSPLandthe

pedagogue(s)inthatsite.

• SiteStrategicLeads:authorisingseniorindividualswithinthesites,usuallyAssistantDirector,

BoardorHeadofServicelevel.

• SocialPedagogues:professionals,allwithdegree-levelqualificationsinsocialpedagogyobtained

inavarietyofcountriesoutsidetheUK.

• Socialpedagogytrainedpractitioners:practitionersofanykind(includingfostercarersandsocial

carepersonnel)whohaveintegratedsocialpedagogicprinciplesintotheirpracticetodiffering

degrees.

• Head,Heart,Handsfostercarers:thosefostercarerswhoattendedtheCoreHead,Heart,Hands

LearningandDevelopmentcourses.

49

PART2:ImpactofHead,Heart,HandsInthissectionweexploretheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarers,childrenandyoungpeopleandthechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhosupportedthem.Wedrawontheanalysisoftheinterviewswithfosteringhouseholds,surveystoHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaff,casefileanalysis,secondaryanalysisofstatutorydatasets(SSDA903inEnglandandCLASinScotland)andinterviewsandfocusgroupswithchildren’ssocialcarestaff.Wealsoprovideananalysisofthecostsandpotentialvalueoftheprogramme.Throughoutthissectionofthereportweprovideverbatimquotesandanumberofcasestudiestoillustratethekeyfindings.Topreservetheanonymityoftheevaluationparticipantswehavechangedidentifiabledetailsandgivenparticipantspseudonyms.Boldtexthasbeenusedtohighlightkeythemesorfindings,orwherethefindingsrelatetokeysocialpedagogicmodels,orcharacteristicsofsocialpedagogiccarers.

4.Receptivenesstosocialpedagogy

Throughouttheevaluationatypologyhasbeenusedtoexploretheextenttowhichthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogicpractices,thefactorsthatmayinfluencefostercarer’sreceptivenesstoHead,Heart,Handsandwhetherthislevelofreceptivenesshaschangedoverthetimeframeoftheevaluation.ThegroupingsareshowninBox5.Thesecategoriesshouldnotbeconceptualisedasmutuallyexclusiveorclearlydefinedgroups.Rathertheyarethreecategorisationswithinaspectrum,alongwhichsomeparticipantshavemovedthroughoutthedurationoftheevaluation.ThesecategoriesareintendedtobeillustrativeofthedifferinglevelsofenthusiasmandreceptivenessfortheparticularformofsocialpedagogyintroducedthroughHead,Heart,Hands.Whiletheygosomewaytodemonstratethedifferingdegreesofenthusiasmforsocialpedagogicprinciplesidentifiedinthesample,theyalsomasksomeofthenuancesinthedata,whichwillbeexploredthroughouttheremainderofthisreport.Box5:Head,Heart,Handsgroups

50

Broadlyspeaking,theEngagedAdopterswerethemostenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogy.Thisgroupwashighlypositiveaboutsocialpedagogyperseandclaimedthattheywereincorporatingitintotheirownpractice.Typically,EngagedAdoptersreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadledtosubstantiallypositivechanges,eitherintheirownpractice,orforthechildoryoungpersontheycaredfor.Althoughcommentedonlessfrequently,someEngagedAdoptersalsoreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadledtochangesatthesiteitself.AttheotherendofthespectrumtheDefendedScepticswerethemostambivalentaboutHead,Heart,Hands.Theydidnotreporttobenegativeaboutthenotionofsocialpedagogyperse.Indeed,onlyoneoftheintervieweesacrossthewholeevaluation(interviewedduringWave1)statedthattheydidnotliketheapproach.Rather,theDefendedScepticsreportedthattheywerenotconvincedaboutthe“novelty”ofsocialpedagogyortheimpactthatitwouldhaveontheirownpractice.Thefostercarersinthisgroupdidagreethatitmaybevaluableforothers.TheCautiousOptimistsweresomewhereinthemiddleofthesetwogroups,reportingtobereceptiveoverall,buttendedtodescribeelementsofsocialpedagogyorspecifictoolsthatcouldbeappliedtoparticularcircumstances,orwithparticularchildren,ratherthanconceptualisingitasanunderpinningframeworkwhichcouldbeappliedtoallareasofworkwithpeople.CautiousOptimistswerealsomorelikelytohighlightlimitationsineithersocialpedagogicapproachesorthemannerinwhichithadbeenimplementedwithintheirsite.Followingeachinterview,thefostercarersweregroupedintooneofthesethreecategoriesonthebasisoftheirresponses.Table3showsthedistributionoffostercarersacrossthegroupsateachtimepoint.Encouragingly,overhalfoftheinterviewsampleinWaves1and3describedthemselvesasEngagedAdopters,peakingat70%inWave2.TheDefendedScepticsrepresentedthesmallestproportionoffostercarersineachtimepoint.However,somecautioniswarrantedwhencomparingthesamplesoffostercarersateachtimepoint.Asnotedabovethesamplesateachtimepointincludeddifferentparticipants,andhavebeentreatedasdistinctratherthantrackingthesameparticipantsoverthewholeevaluationtimeperiod.Ofthesampleoffostercarerswhodidparticipateinaninterviewatmultipleevaluationtimepoints,40%(n=13)changedtheirlevelofreceptivenessduringtheprogramme,twooftheseinWave2,and11inWave3.Threeofthesefostercarersbecamemorepositiveabouttheapproach,astheyreportedtobemoreconfidentinpracticingsocialpedagogyandabletomoreclearlyarticulatetheimpactthatithadoneitherthemselvesand/orthechildtheycaredfor.Theremainingfostercarersintheinterviewsample(n=10:13%)becamelessenthusiasticabouttheapproach.Overwhelmingly,thesefostercarersreportedthatdisappointingexperiencesinhowtheprogrammehadbeenimplementedastheirreasonforbecominglessenthusiasticabouttheapproach(thisisexploredfurtherinChapter7).Table3Distributionoffostercarersacrossthegroupsateachevaluationtimepoint

Type

NumberandpercentageoffostercarersineachtypeA

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

n % n % n %

EngagedAdopter 14 53 28 70 32 56

CautiousOptimists 7 27 9 22 19 33

DefendedSceptics 5 19 3 7.5 6 11 APercentageshavebeenrounded,andmaythereforenottotal100.

51

ThedatafromWave3suggestthattherewassomevarianceintheproportionoffostercarersineachcategoryacrossthesites.TheOrangesitehadthehighestproportionofEngagedAdopters,andthePurplesitehadthehighestproportionofDefendedSceptics,wherebyhalfoftheDefendedScepticswerefromthissite.NoDefendedScepticswereidentifiedamongthosefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3fromtheBlue,GreenandPinksites.Whiledifferingproportionsofthetypeswereidentifiedacrosseachofthesites,thesedifferenceswerenotfoundtobestatisticallysignificant.WhenconsideringthedifferentimplementationstrategiesandcharacteristicsofthosesiteswithahigherproportionofEngagedAdoptersorDefendedSceptics,nosignificantpatternsemerged.Thedatawereanalysedtoexplorewhetherarangeoffactors,includingtypeofplacementandlengthoftimeasafostercarer,influencedtheextenttowhichthefostercarersinterviewedwerereceptivetotheprogramme.ItisofnotethatfiveofthesixDefendedScepticshadbeenfosteringforovertenyears.However,itshouldalsobenotedthatonefifthoftheEngagedAdoptershadalsobeenfosteringfortenyearsormore.Theanalysisalsofoundnostatisticallysignificantrelationships.Thissuggeststhatfactorsotherthansitecharacteristicsandfostercarerdemographicsarelikelytoinfluencetheextenttowhichfostercarersmaybereceptivetosocialpedagogy.DuringWave3,frontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationwereinvitedtoidentifywhichofthethreeidealtypesmostcloselyrepresentedtheirownviewsandexperiencesofHead,Heart,Hands.Ofthosewhodid(n=29),almosttwothirds(69%)identifiedthemselvesasCautiousOptimistsandtheremainingthird(31%)reportedthattheywereEngagedAdopters.Positively,noDefendedScepticswereidentifiedandnoneoftheparticipatingfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffexpressedexplicitrejectionofsocialpedagogyandtherewasgeneralsupportfortheapproach.Frontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffweremorelikelytodescribesocialpedagogyasoneapproachamongaplethoraofdifferentprogrammesandinterventionswhencomparedtothecohortoffostercarers.Thisfindingisperhapsunsurprisinggiventhatallofthesiteswereutilisingothertrainingprogrammesandapproaches,tosupportlookedafterchildren,duringtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(suchasDialecticBehaviourTherapy,Multi-dimensionalTreatmentFosterCare,KEEPandothertherapeuticapproaches).Itislikelythatthefrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaff(bothsupervisingsocialworkersandchildren’ssocialworkers)wouldhavebeensupportingfostercarerswhowereapplyingarangeofapproaches,makingitdifficultorunrealisticforthemtopreferenceoneapproachoveranother18.Whereconcernshavebeenraisedregardingthenumbersofsocialworkerswhohavebeenengagedintheprogramme(seeChapter7andGhateandMcDermid,2016),itisencouragingtonotethatthosewhohavebeenengaged,expressedgeneralsupportfortheapproach.ArticulatingthedistinctionbetweensocialpedagogicfosteringfromfosteringasusualPreviousevaluationreportshavehighlightedvariancesintheextenttowhichpriorfamiliaritywithsocialpedagogyinhibitedorfacilitatedengagementandenthusiasmwiththeprogrammeamongchildren’ssocialcarestaff(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Priorawarenessofsocialpedagogywasfoundtobea“doubleedgedsword”amongchildren’ssocialcarestaffintheimplementationevaluation,wherebyasenseoffamiliaritywiththeapproachcreatedaprecedentforsocialpedagogicworkinsomesites,itmayalsohavedecreasedtheexpectationthattherewouldbenewlearningfromtheprojectinothers.

18ThefitbetweensocialpedagogyandotherapproachesisexploredfurtherinGhateandMcDermid(2016).

52

Similarchallengesinestablishingwhetheraffinityorpriorknowledgeofsocialpedagogyhelpedorhinderedengagementamongthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationhavebeenidentifiedthroughoutthestudy.ForasmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheWave3evaluation,thelackofacleararticulationoftheuniquecontributionHead,Heart,Handsmadetoexistingapproachestocare,reducedtheextenttowhichtheywantedtoengagewiththeprogramme,andtheimpactthattheybelievedittohavemadeonthemandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem(n=6).Incontrast,twothirdsofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3reportedthatthesimilaritiesofHead,Heart,Handstotheirownapproachwasamotivatingfactortoengagewiththeprogramme.Throughouttheevaluationitwasevidentthatparticipantsidentifiedresonancesbetweentheirexistingapproachestofosteringandtheprinciplesandvaluesthatunderpinsocialpedagogy.Forexample,duringWave1,fostercarersurveyrespondentswereaskedwhethertheywoulddescribethemselvesasfosteringinasocialpedagogicwaypriortoHand,Heart,Hands.Mostofthesurveyrespondentswhoansweredthisquestion(n=89:87%,)wereoftheviewthattheywerealreadyfosteringinasocialpedagogicwaybeforeattendingtheLearningandDevelopmentsessions.AlmosthalfoffostercarersinterviewedatWave1(n=10:45%)reportedthattheywerealreadypracticinginasocialpedagogicwaypriortothecommencementoftheprogramme.Likewise,respondentstothechildren’ssocialcarestaffsurveyinWave2wereaskedwhethertheywerealreadyapplyingtheapproachbeforeHead,Heart,Handswasintroduced.Intotaloverhalf(n=27:56%)ofrespondentsindicatedtheywereusingsocialpedagogicapproachesintheirworkatleast“insomeways”;and11selected“agreatdeal”.Followingthegeneraltrend,twothirdsofthefostercarersinterviewedatWave3reportedthatsocialpedagogy,oraspectsoftheapproach,alignedwiththeirownpracticeandethos.OnlytwofostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatthesocialpedagogicapproachthatHead,Heart,Handsprovidedwasentirelynew.TheextenttowhichHead,Heart,Handsbuiltonandenhancedexistingapproachestofostering,andtheimpactthatthishad,willbeexploredinmoredetailthroughoutthisreport.However,thesynergiesbetweensocialpedagogyandwhatcanbetermed“fosteringasusual”,raisestwoimportantquestionsregardingtheparticularsampleoffostercarerswho,firstlyparticipatedintheprogramme,andsecondly,participatedintheevaluation.Giventhereportedpre-existingresonanceswithsocialpedagogyfoundamonganumberoffostercarersinthesample,itispossibletoquestiontheextenttowhichHead,Heart,Handsbuiltonalreadystrongfoundations.Toaddressthisquestion,theevaluationattemptedtoengagefostercarerswhohadattendedthetasterandorientationdays,butnotthecorecourses,withlittlesuccess.Furthermore,itispertinenttoquestionwhetherthosefostercarerswhodidparticipateintheevaluationweremorelikelytobereceptivetosocialpedagogyandmorepositiveabouttheprogramme.Inthisway,cautioniswarrantedwhengeneralisingthefindingsofthequalitativeinterviewswithfostercarerstoawiderpopulation.

53

Box6:Summaryofkeyfindings:Receptivenesstosocialpedagogy

• Throughouttheevaluationatypologyhasbeenusedtoexploretheextenttowhichthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogicpractices,thefactorsthatmayinfluencefostercarer’sreceptivenesstoHead,Heart,Handsandwhetherthislevelofreceptivenesshaschangedoverthetimeframeoftheevaluation.ThetypologyisoutlinedinBox5.

• Encouragingly,overhalfofthefostercarerinterviewsampleinWaves1and3describedthemselvesasEngagedAdopters,peakingat70%inWave2.

• TheDefendedScepticsrepresentedthesmallestproportionoffostercarersineachtimepoint,representing19%ofthesampleinWave1,7.5%ofthesampleinWave2,and11%ofthesampleinWave3.

• Ofthesampleoffostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatmultipleevaluationtimepoints,40%(n=13)changedtheirlevelofreceptivenessoverthecourseoftheprogramme.Threeofthesefostercarersbecamemorepositiveabouttheapproach,astheyreportedtobemoreconfidentinpracticingsocialpedagogyandabletomoreclearlyarticulatetheimpactthatithadoneitherthemselvesand/orthechildtheycaredfor.Theremainingfostercarers(n=10:13%)becamelessenthusiasticabouttheapproach,duetodisappointingexperiencesinhowtheprogrammehadbeenimplemented.

• AlmosttwothirdsofthechildrensocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationatWave3identifiedthemselvesasCautiousOptimists(69%)andtheremainingthird(31%)reportedthattheywereEngagedAdopters.

• Frontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffweremorelikelytodescribesocialpedagogyasoneapproachamongaplethoraofdifferentprogrammesandinterventionswhencomparedtothecohortoffostercarers.Thisfindingisperhapsunsurprisinggiventhatallofthesiteswereutilisingothertrainingprogrammesandapproaches,tosupportlookedafterchildren,duringtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Itislikelythatthefrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaff(bothsupervisingsocialworkersandchildren’ssocialworkers)wouldhavebeensupportingfostercarerswhowereapplyingarangeofapproaches,makingitdifficultorunrealisticforthemtopreferenceoneapproachoveranother.

• Throughouttheevaluationitwasevidentthatparticipantsidentifiedresonancesbetweentheirexistingapproachestofosteringandtheprinciplesandvaluesthatunderpinsocialpedagogy.Previousevaluationreportshavehighlightedvariancesintheextenttowhichpriorfamiliaritywithsocialpedagogyinhibitedorfacilitatedengagementandenthusiasmwiththeprogrammeamongchildren’ssocialcarestaff.

• ForasmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheWave3evaluation,thelackofacleararticulationoftheuniquecontributionHead,Heart,Handsmadetoexistingapproachestocare,reducedtheextenttowhichtheywantedtoengagewiththeprogramme,andtheimpactthattheybelievedittohavemadeonthemandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem(n=6).

• Incontrast,twothirdsofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3reportedthatthesimilaritiesofHead,Heart,Handstotheirownapproachwasamotivatingfactortoengagewiththeprogramme.

54

5.Relationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold

Inlightofrecentconcernsregardingthequalityofsupportprovidedtolookedafterchildren,greateremphasishasbeenplacedontheneedtoreturntorelationshipbasedapproachestocaringforvulnerablechildrenacrosspolicy,practiceandresearcharenas(c.f.Ruch,TurneyandWard,2010;Munro,2011;Murphy,DugganandJoseph,2012).In2009,theChildrenSchoolsandFamiliesSelectCommitteereportonlookedafterchildren,statedthatrelationshipsshouldbeplacedattheheartofthecaresystem(HouseofCommons,2009).Morerecently,TheMunroReviewofChildProtection(Munro,2011)andtheCareInquiry(TheCareInquiry,2013)havebroughttogetherfindingsfromarangeofsourcestohighlighttheimportanceofstrongandstablechild-adultrelationshipstosafeguardingchildrenwhoareatriskofabuseandneglect.Researchhassuggestedthatoutcomesforchildreninpubliccareareenhancedwhentheyareintrusting,stablerelationships.Suchrelationshipsalsopromoteresilienceandencourageparticipationinciviclife(SinclairandWilson,2003;Cameron,2013).Previousstudieshavealsohighlightedtheemphasisthatchildrenandyoungpeopleincareplaceonknowingthatthereissomeone“thereforyou”(SinclairandWilson,2003;CashmoreandPaxman,2006;Cameron,McQuailandPetrie,2007;SchofieldandBeek,2009;FernandezandBarth,2010;Boddy,2013).Otherstudieshavefoundthatknowingthatcarershavetheirbestinterestsatheartandhaveaffectionforthemprovidesastableframeworkforyoungpeopleincare,throughwhichtheyareabletointerpretotheraspectsofcare,forexamplepunishmentsandsanctions(Cameron,McQuailandPetrie,2007).Thedevelopmentofauthentic,nurturingrelationshipsisatthecoreofsocialpedagogy,andconsequentlytheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.ArangeofprinciplesandconceptscoveredbytheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourseswereintendedtostrengthentherelationshipbetweenthefostercarerandthechild.Inturn,forpractitionerssocialpedagogicrelationshipsarecentraltoallowingthechildtogrowanddeveloparangeofskills,competenciesandpersonalattributes(Petrieetal.,2006;CameronandMoss,2011).Inthiswaysocialpedagogicpracticesareintendedtobothnurturegenuinerelationshipsbetweenindividuals,andarethesourcethroughwhichnurturingoftheindividualcantakeplace.AsEichstellerandHolthoffnote:“Socialpedagogyisbroughttolifethroughtherelationshipbetweentheprofessionalandthesubject”(2011:42).Inthissectionofthereportweexplorehowtherelationshipsbetweenmembersofthefosteringhouseholdwerecharacterised,theimpactthatHead,Heart,Handshadhadonthoserelationships,andthewaysinwhichthoserelationshipshadimpactedontheinterviewees.Thenurturingofrelationships:TheimpactofHead,Heart,HandsonrelationshipsOverall,evaluationparticipantsreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadhadapositiveimpactonrelationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold.Twothirdsoffostercarersurveyrespondents(n=31:66%)reportedthattheirrelationshipswiththeirfosteredchildhadchangedagreatdealsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,Hands,LearningandDevelopmentcourses.Moreover,toexploretheaspectsthatrespondentsmostcloselyassociatedwithsocialpedagogy,thefostercarersurveydisplayed23differentterms.Respondentswereinvitedtoselectwhichofthesetermstheythoughtwerethekeyprinciplesoftheapproach.Fourofthetermsareconsideredasnotbeingassociatedwithsocialpedagogy,theremaining19wereeitherdirectly,orindirectlyassociatedwithsocialpedagogy.ThedatasuggestthatevaluationparticipantsplacedagreatdealofemphasisonthecentralityofrelationshipswithinHead,Heart,Hands.Themostfrequentlyselectedtermswere:child

55

centredness(n=39:83%),honestrelationships(n=37:79%)anddoingactivitiestogether(n=36:76%).ThemajorityofthefostercarersinterviewedduringWave3(n=40:70%)andonequarterofthechildrenandyoungpeople(n=9:25%)interviewedalsoreportedthatHead,HeartHandshadresultedinapositiveimpactontheirrelationship,albeittodifferingdegrees.Socialpedagogyemphasisestheinterplaybetweentheoryandpractice,anditisintheareaofrelationshipsthatthisinterplayismostevidentacrosstheevaluationsample.GenuinepositiveregardAllsocialpedagogicpracticeispredicatedontheinherentvalueofallhumanbeings(EichstellerandHolthoff,2011:36).Inthisway,socialpedagogystressesthatrelationshipsbetweenthesocialpedagogicpractitionerandthechildshouldbeauthenticandincludeagenuineemotionalconnection.Almostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewed(n=18:32%)reportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadempoweredandencouragedthemtoexpresswarmth,respectandgenuineaffectionfortheyoungperson.ItwasnotedthatthefostercarersinterviewedexpressedaffectionforthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredforpriortoHead,Heart,Hands,andmuchofwhatwasdiscussedaspartoftheLearningandDevelopmentcourseswasnotentirelynew.Rather,theLearningandDevelopmentcoursesaimedtoenabletheattendeestocriticallyreflectontheirrelationshipsandtodrawonsocialpedagogictheoriestofurtherenhancerelationalwork.Asnotedinpreviousevaluationreports,evaluationparticipantsdescribethesesocialpedagogictheoriesas“hooks”uponwhichfamiliargoodpracticeprincipleswerehung(McDermid,etal.,2015;GhateandMcDermid,2016).Assuch,fostercarersinterviewedinWave3reportedthatwhiletheyhadnotnecessarilychangedtheirbehaviourstowardsthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredfor,theyhadbeenreminded,andthereforebecomemoreconsciousofthesignificanceofthecarer-childrelationship,sinceHead,Heart,Hands.Thisemphasisongenuineaffectionwasreflectedinthechildrenandyoungpeopleinterviews.Theinterviewdatasuggestthattherewasagreatdealofaffectionbetweenfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewed.Childrendescribedtheirfostercarersas“nice,kind,people”,whotheycouldtalktoiftheywereworriedaboutanything,whosupportedthemandtookcareofthem.Itwasevidentthat,onthewhole,thechildrenandyoungpeoplefeltaffectiontowardstheirfostercarers.Forinstanceonechildreportedthattheyfelt“happy”livingwiththeirfostercarers“becauseIlove[myfostercarers]”.Existingresearchhasfoundthatchildrenandyoungpeopleincareoftenwanttobetreatedinthesamewayasbirthchildrenwithinthefosteringhouseholds,anddifficultiescanarisewhentheyfeeldifferentiatedfromafostercarer’sownsonsanddaughters(CashmoreandPaxman,2006;Cameron,McQuailandPetrie,2007).Languageassociatedwithfamilialwarmth,respectandgenuinepositiveregardwasusedfrequentlybyfostercarerstodescribethechildren.Onefostercarercapturedtheviewsofmanywhensheremarkedthatherfosteredchildwas“likeadaughtertome”.Likewise,thechildrenandyoungpeopleusedwarmandfrequentlyfamiliallanguagetodescribetheirfostercarers.Almosthalfofthechildreninterviewednotedthattheirfosterhome,was,inessence,adefactofamily(n=18:49%).Thesechildrenreferredtotheirfostercarersas“mumanddad”,andbirthchildrenandotherfosteredchildrenastheir“brothersandsisters”.Thechildrenandyoungpeople’slifemapsshowedanetworkofrelationshipsassociatedwiththefosterfamilyincludingfostergrandparentsandthefostercarer’sownbirthchildren,andfamilypets.Oftheeight

56

childrenwhocompletedalifemap,onlyoneincludedherbirthfamilyonhermap.However,thischildonlydrewapictureofherbirthfamily,whichmayhavebeenanexpressionofherdesiretoreturntothem.ExamplesofhowsomeofthechildrenandyoungpeopledescribedtheirfostercarersareshowninBox7.Box7:Childrenandyoungpeople’sdescriptionsoftheirfostercarers

Thesefindingswerecorroboratedbythecasefileanalysiswhichsuggestedthatlanguageassociatedwithfamilialwarmth,respectandgenuineregardwasusedfrequentlyinthechildren’scasefilestodescribehowthecarersperceivedthefosteringhouseholdrelationships.Anumberofchildren(n=23,9%)wererecordedinthecasefilesasreferringtotheircarersinfamilialtermssuchas“mumanddad”.However,asmallnumberofthecasefilessuggestedthattheuseoffamilialtermsmaybeselectiveandlinkedtochildren’sdesiretofeelasenseofbelonging.Whileitwasnotanexpressaimoftheprogrammeforchildrenandyoungpeopletobecomefamiliarwithsocialpedagogy,somechildrendiddescribetheirunderstandingoftheapproach.AsnotedinBox8,thechildrenandyoungpeopletendedtoemphasisetherelationalelements.

“[This]ismyfamilynow,[…]Isee[otherfosteredchild]asasisternow,whichisreallynice.Ineverhadasisterandwegetalonglikeahouseonfire.[…]Hereitiscompletelydifferent,theyaremorefamily,[…].Inotherplacementstheyjustsortof[say],‘Dowhatyouwant’,theydon’tcare.Here[...]Ijustfeelathome,[…]Beforetheywere[fostercarers’names]andnowIamcallingthemMumand[...]Dad.Andyouknowitisreallynicethatoneoftheirfriends,[name]thatlivesjustdowntheroad,heislikenowlikeagranddadanditisreallynicethatIhaveactuallygotafamilyyouknowwhatImean?Itisreallylovely."(YoungpersonInterviewee)"Itisnotlikeanormalfostercarer’shouse,itismoreofafamilyenvironment.IfeelmorecomfortableherethanIdoatmyproperparents’house[…]Itfeelslikeafamily,notajob.Itisnotliketheyhavetookonajob,theyhavetookonafamily."(YoungpersonInterviewee)"Ilikelivingherealot,[…]Imean,Idon’tknowwheretostart.[…]It’skindoflikethelittlethingsreally,youknow,justsittingtalking,havingalaugh,justgeneralstufflikethatreally.[…]Especiallywhen,beinginfostercare,theimportant[thingis]tryingtomakeitanormallife.Idon’tfeelanydifferentlytreatedtowhenIsee[fostercarers]withtheirownchildren.Youknow,obviously,there’smeetingsandstuffthatcomeintoplay.But,onadailybasis,[…]youdon’tfeelalienatedinanyway.I’malwaysincludedinthefamilydiscussion,etcetera.[…]Well,tobefair,I’veseenitfromtheotherendofthescaleaswellbecauseIwasinafosterplacementbeforehere,andIchosetomovebecause,well,theoppositeendofthescale,Ididn’treallyfeelthatwelcome,Ididn’tfeelhappylivingthere"(YoungpersonInterviewee)

57

Box8:Childrenandyoungpeople’sdescriptionsofsocialpedagogy

OtherfostercarersreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadencouragedthemfurthertoinvesttimeandeffortintonurturingtheirrelationshipwiththeyoungpersonandhadgiventhemtheoreticalandpracticaltoolstodoso.Inthisway,theprogrammehadprovidedalanguageandaframeworkinwhichtothinkaboutthatrelationship.Asmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviews(n=7:8%)reportedthattheyhaddevelopedtheabilitytoreflectontheirrelationshipwiththechildandonincidentsandexchangesintheirshareddaytodaylives.TheyreportedthatsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,Handstrainingtheytooktimeattheendoftheeachdaytoreflectontheirrelationshipwiththeirchildandtoconsiderwhetheranythingcouldbechanged.

“[Head,Heart,Hands]didhelpmetobecomemuchmore[…]reflectiveintermsofthe[…]theinteractionsthathappen.Youknowifthingshavegonewell,haven’tgonewellorwhatever,anykindofmiscommunicationgoingon.[…]Soithasbeenusefulintermsofjustthinkingthrough[…]whatmayhavehappenedorwhatever,soIthinkintermsofmyreflectionsIthinkithasbeenquiteuseful.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

TheDiamondModelwasnotedbyoveraquarterofthefostercarersinterviewed(n=15:26asbeingahelpfultoolinwhichtoconceptualiseandtalkaboutthenurturingpotentialofrelationships.Itwasevidentthatthemodelhadbeenparticularlymeaningfulforsomehouseholds,andfourchildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewedmadeexplicitreferencetotheDiamondModelthemselves.Forinstance,onechildcommentedthat“theDiamondModelmakesyoufeelspecial”.Otherfostercarers(n=12:21%)reportedthattheLifeworldOrientationmodel,remindedthemtounderstandtheuniquecharacteristicsoftheindividualchildrenandyoungpeople.

Weaskedthechildrenandyoungpeopleweinterviewedwhattheyknewaboutsocialpedagogy.Thisiswhattheysaid:

“Iknowthatsocialpedagogyitisabout,Ithink,bringingoutourdiamondwithin,thatiswhat[myfostercarer]saidanditistheretohelpus[…]Itishowtoconductyourselfaroundchildrenandhowyouneedtohelpchildrentobethebestoftheirabilities.”“Ithinkthereissomethingwherethegrownuphastoletthechilddomostofthethingswhentheyaredoingthingswiththechild.Idon’tknow,itissomethinglikethatbecauseIwastoldbyour[fostercarer]thatyouusuallyletthechilddomostofthethingswhenyou’rewiththemandjustgo“thatisgood“or“youaredoingwell”andthingslikethat.”“Itishowtheviewsofchildren,howyouliketreatthemandthingslikethatIthink.”“Itislikenotsayingnostraightawayandthenyouhavegottothinkaboutitandthenyoudowiththehandsanditcomesfromtheheart.”

58

Box9:Definition–TheDiamondmodel

Box10:Definition-LifeworldOrientation

TheimpactofHHHonotherrelationshipsinthefosteringhouseholdOurpreviousinterimreportshavehighlightedthatfostercarers,mostnotably,EngagedAdopters,statedthatsocialpedagogyhadnotonlyimpactedontheirrelationshipswiththeirfosteredchildrenbuthadinfluencedallaspectsoftheirlife.WhileHead,Heart,Handswasdesignedtodevelopfostercarers’skillsandcharacteristicsinrelationtotheirfosteredchildren,theimpactthattheprogrammehadonthewiderfosteringhouseholdsintheinterviewsamplewasevenmoreprominentatWave3.Eight(12%)fostercarersreportedthattheconceptsandapproacheslearntthroughHead,Heart,Hands,hadapositiveimpactontheirrelationshipwithothermembersoftheirfosteringhousehold.Theynotedthatthetoolsandstrategiesfordeepeningrelationshipswithfosteredchildrenareasreadilyapplicabletosonsanddaughters,andwereoftheviewthattheseapproacheshadpositiveresults.OfparticularnotewastheLifeworldOrientation,whichhadenabledthesefostercarerstobetterunderstandandappreciatetheirownsonsanddaughters(includingbirthandadoptedchildren).Unlikeotherformsofchildren’ssocialcareintervention,fosteringoccursinthefamilyhome.Moreover,socialpedagogyisanapproachtoworkingwithothersthatisnotuniquetofostercare,

ThemPra’sDiamondModelsymbolisesoneofthemostfundamentalunderpinningprinciplesofsocialpedagogy:thereisadiamondwithinallofus.Ashumanbeingsweareallpreciousandhavearichvarietyofknowledge,skillsandabilities.Notalldiamondsarepolishedandsparkly,butallhavethepotentialtobe.Similarly,everypersonhasthepotentialtoshineout–andsocialpedagogyisaboutsupportingtheminthis.Therefore,socialpedagogyhasfourcoreaimsthatarecloselylinked:well-beingandhappiness,holisticlearning,relationship,andempowerment.Eichsteller,G.,andHolthoff,S.,(2011)Conceptualfoundationsofsocialpedagogy:atransnationalperspectivefromGermanyIn:Cameron,C.,andMoss,P.(eds.).SocialPedagogyandworkingwithchildrenandyoungpeople:wherecareandeducationmeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Thelife-worldorientationstartsfromthepremisethatsocialpedagogicpracticecanonlybesuccessfulwhereitmeetsindividualsintheireverydayreality,focusingontheir“directexperiences,theirlivingcontexts,theirlifeskillsandthestrengthoftheirself-responsibility”(GrunwaldandThiersch,2009:132).Takingtheeverydaylife-worldasastartingpointforpracticerequiresaHaltungunderpinnedbyrespect–unconditionalappreciationofwhotheotherpersonis–andbytact–toknowwhentorespectfullychallengeapersontoleavetheircomfortzoneandentertheirlearningzone.

Eichsteller,G.,andHolthoff,S.,(2011)Conceptualfoundationsofsocialpedagogy:atransnationalperspectivefromGermanyIn:Cameron,C.,andMoss,P.(eds.).SocialPedagogyandworkingwithchildrenandyoungpeople:wherecareandeducationmeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

59

and,asinmanycontinentalEuropeancountries,canbeappliedtoarangeofsectorsandrelationships.Itistherefore,perhapsunsurprisingthatforsomefosteringhouseholds,albeitasmallproportion,Head,Heart,Handswasreportedtohavehadanimpactacrossthelifespace.Indeed,asmallnumberoffostercarersreportedthattheyhavereconceptualisedfosteringasawholefamilyactivity,placinggreateremphasisonwholefamilyreflectionanddecisionmaking.Asonefostercarernoted:

“[Head,Heart,Hands]madeusthinkdifferentlyabouttheimpactonthewholefamily,andalso,todiscussitwiththewholefamily[...]whichwemaynothavedoneifIhadn’thavebeenontheprogramme.[…]ItisasaresultoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,[…]thatwe’reabletodiscuss[situations]more[withourownchildren]andbringeverythingoutmoreintotheopen.[...]WhereasIthink,before,itmightnothavegotdiscussedabouthowtheyfeltorhowwewerefeeling,particularly.ButIthink,asaresultoftheprogrammeandthetrainingthatI’vehad,thatwe’vehadtodiscussthingsthat,havebeenissuesbecausetheydohavesuchabigimpactonthewholefamily.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Inonesite(Orange)somefostercareprofiles19hadbeenremodelledtoincorporateHead,Heart,Handsattributes.Intheinstanceswherethisre-modelledprofilehadbeenused,thecasefileanalysisidentifiedasenseofthewholefosteringhouseholdapproachandethos.Previousresearchhasexploredtheimpactthatfosteringcanhaveonthesonsanddaughtersoffostercarters(Höjer,SebbaandLuke,2013).Evidencesuggeststhatincludingsonsanddaughtersinthedecisiontofoster,informingthemabouttheindividualchildrenandyoungpeoplethatmightlivewiththem,andensuringthatbirthchildrenhaveprotectedtimewiththeirparents,mayreducedetrimentalimpactthatfosteringcanhaveonsome(butnotall)birthchildren.Researchalsosuggeststhattheconcernsabouttheimpactthatfosteringhasonbirthchildrenisonefactorthatmayleadtosomefostercarersceasingfosteringandplacementbreakdown(Wilson,SinclairandGibbs,2000;McDermidetal.,2012).Theevidenceinthisevaluationistentativeandbasedonasmallnumberoffostercarers.However,forthosefostercarerswhoreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadapositiveimpactontheirwiderfamily,itispossibletohypothesisethatmorestableandstrongrelationshipsbetweenallmembersofthefosteringhousehold,maycreatemorestableandsecureenvironmentsinwhichfosteredchildrencanflourish.Fosteringservicesexploringintroducingsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromconsideringhowsocialpedagogymaybeusedtoinformthedevelopmentoftherelationshipsacrossthewholehousehold.TheCommonThirdInsocialpedagogicpractice,everydayactionsandactivitiesareseenasmeaningfulandanopportunitytofurtherdevelopthecarer-childrelationship(Cameron,McQuailandPetrie,2007;CameronandMoss,2011).Asmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviews(n=5:8%)reportedthattheyhadbecomemoreconsciousoftheimportanceofseeminglysmall,everydayactionsthathelpthechildfeelcaredforandnurtured.Forexample,followingaHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentsessiononefostercarerreportedaskingherfosteredson19Afostercarerprofileprovidesinformationaboutafostercarer,includingthetypeofplacementstheyareapprovedfor,alongwithsomepersonalinformationaboutthem,theirhomeandtheirfamily.

60

(aged11)whathevaluedabouttheirrelationship.Tohersurprisehereplied“goodfoodandthestuffthatyoujusttakeforgranted”.Box11:Definition-TheCommonThird

ManymorefostercarerswhowereinterviewedhighlightedthattheCommonThirdenabledthemtobemoreconsciousofhowsharingactivitiestogethercancreateasharedspaceinwhichbothpartieslearntogetheranddeepentheirrelationship.AlmostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheCommonThirdencouragedthemtoreconsiderhoweverydayactivitieswereusedtodeveloptheirrelationshipwiththeirfosteredchild(n=16:28%).TheCommonThirdwasfrequentlycitedininterviewswithfostercarersconductedthroughouttheevaluation.DuringWave1oftheevaluationitwasnotedthattherewassomedisparitybetweenthefostercarers’conceptoftheCommonThird.Themajorityofexamples,describedtheCommonThirdasawaytouseaneverydayactivityinordertoteachthechildsomethingandonlyfourexamplesemphasisedthewayinwhichtheCommonThirdmightbeusedtoenhancerelationships.Incontrast,duringWave3onlythreementionsoftheCommonThirdcouldbedescribedaspurelydesignedtoteachthechildsomething(asopposedtodeepeningtheirrelationships).ThedatagatheredatWave3suggestthatconceptualisationsoftheCommonThirdhaveshiftedawayfrommoreinstrumentaldefinitionsthatfocusonthetask,toatoolthatisclosertothearticulationofthecommonthirdinsocialpedagogictheory,primarilyfocusedontherelationship.Thesecarersreportedbeingmoreintentionalaboutspendingtimetogether,andmoreconsciousofhowthechildseemedtobeengagingwiththemduringthoseactivities.AsonefostercarernotedsinceHead,Heart,Handshehadbeen:

“Doingmorealongsideandtogetherwiththechild,makingthatconsciousefforttotryandbeincludedineachother’sactivities[...]Soifamgoingoutforarunorsomething,beforeIwouldhavethoughtIamgoingoutforarun.NowIthinkisthereanybodywhoisnotinschool,whoisaroundinthedaywouldtheywanttobeincludedinthat?Shouldwedoittogether?AnditmightnotbethetypeofrunthatIwouldgoonmyownbutcouldIchangeitslightlytobeanexperiencethatwouldsuitusboth."(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Thisconceptexploreshowaneverydayactivity,suchaspreparingameal,canbecomethecatalystfordevelopmentbeyond,forexample,learningtocook,oreatinganicelunch.HolthoffandJunkerHarbo(2011)notethat“theCommonThirdhighlightsthatdoing‘something’togetherisabrilliantopportunitytogettoknoweachother,todevelopstrongrelationships.Theimportantthinghereistheprocess,nottheproduct”.Essentialtothecommonthirdistheenvironmentwithinwhichsuchactivitiesareundertaken,emphasisingthatallpartiesareequal.Anactivitythatcanbejointlysharedenablesthepedagoguetobringtheirownpersonally(likesanddislikes!)intotherelationship,helpingthatrelationshiptodevelopinarealandauthenticway.Thempra(nodate,a)SocialPedagogy–trainingpack:SocialPedagogicconcepts.[online]http://www.socialpedagogy.co.uk/downloads/Social%20Pedagogic%20Concepts.pdf

61

Itwasevidentthatthechildrenandyoungpeopleintheinterviewsampleparticularlyvaluedtheactivitiesthatfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopledotogetherperse.Whenaskedwhattheylikedaboutlivingwiththeirfostercarers,thefirstthingthatwasmentionedin40%ofthechildrenandyoungpeople’sinterviewswastheactivitiestheysharewiththeirfostercarers.Inoneexample,whenaskedwhatmadehimfeelsettledwithhisfostercarers,anotherchildsaid“Wedoactivitiestogethersometimes[…]walking,chattingandbikeriding”.Anumberofthechildrenandyoungpeoplereportedthatdoingactivitiestogetherhelpedthemtobuildtheirrelationshipwiththeirfostercarerandhelpedthemtofeelspecialandcaredfor(n=8:22%).Foronechild,thefactthatherpreviousfostercarersdidnotdoverymuchwithherwasreasonenoughtostatethatthey“weren’tverygood[…]wedidn'treallydomuch".Latersheexplainsthat,incontrast,hercurrentfostercarersmadetimetospendwithherspecifically:

“WhatIreallylikeissometimeswhen[…],meand[fostercarer]getaDVD,[...]andwewillgetsomesweetsinandatakeawaykindofmeal,quickoneinthemicrowaveandwewillwatchlikeaDVD[…]itisjustrelaxing”(Youngpersoninterviewee).

Theactivitiesmentionedbythefostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleintheinterviewsamplewerevariedandincludedsports,games,films,cookingandcleaning.WhatwasevidentfromtheinterviewswasthattheCommonThirdprovidedaframeworkforfostercarerstobemoreconsciousofcreatingopportunitiestoutiliseeverydaylife,andsomethingthatisalreadyimportanttothechild,tocreateadeeperandmorenurturingcarer-childrelationships.OneoftheaimsoftheCommonThirdistobuildtrustbetweenthesocialpedagogicpractitionerandthechild,throughthechild’sexperienceofengaginginactivities,andtherebycultivatingthechild’sself-confidenceandsenseofvalue(Petrie,2011).TheinterviewssuggestthattheCommonThirdwasbeingusedtodeveloptrustbetweenthemembersofthefosteringhouseholds,andprovidingopportunitiestobond.Althoughusefulforthefosteringhouseholdacrossthespectrum,theCommonThirdwasattimesusedearlyoninplacementsorwhererelationshipswereidentifiedasbeingchallenging.AnexampleofhowtheCommonThirdhelpedtobuildtrustbetweenayoungpersonandherfostercarersisgiveninBox12.ThefindingsoftheevaluationsuggestthattheCommonThirdinparticularhadassistedaproportionofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3toundertakepracticalactivitiesinandoutofthehomeandtounderstandhowdifferentactivitiescanbeusedtobuildarelationship.

62

Box12:CasestudyexampleuseoftheCommonThird

Emily,DuncanandLynnEmilywas19yearsoldwhensheparticipatedintheHead,Heart,Handsinterview.Shewaslivingindependentlywhenwespoketoher,buthadlivedwithDuncanandLynnfortheprevioustwoyears.Emilyexplainedthatinitiallyshehadnotbeenkeenonmovinginwithhernewfostercarers.Sheenjoyedherpreviousplacementbecausetherewereotheryoungpeoplethereandshesaidthat:

“WhenIfirstwent[tolivewithDuncanandLynn]Iwaskickingandscreaming,Iwaslike“Iamnotgoingto[livethere]”.[…]Iamnotgoingtolie,Iwasquiteresentful.Yesespeciallytowards[DuncanandLyn]buttowardsthesituation,[…]Andforthefirst,Idon’tknow,firstthreeweeksIdidn’twantanythingtodowiththem,Ijustsatinmyroom.”

DuncantoldusthattheCommonThirdisoneofthetoolscoveredontheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursesthathadparticularlystoodouttohim.Hetoldusthat:

“[The]CommonThird[isimportant]becauseIthinkIamlookingforaplacewhereIcanhaveahelpfulconversationwiththechild.Solet’sdiscoverwhatdoesthechildlikedoing?[…]Sotheywouldbeexcitedaboutthefactthatwearegoingtogoanddosomethingthattheyenjoydoingandthatthenprovidesthepotentiallynon-confrontationalkindofenvironmentwherewecanchat.Andperhapswhilewe’reskatingaroundorwhateveritisthatwe’redoingwecanactuallydiscoveralittlebitmoreabouttheirfeelings[…][TheCommonThird]getsthemdoingsomethingtheyreallyenjoysotheirmindislessfocusedontheiranxietiesbutthroughthatactivityhaveanopportunitytoperhapsallaysomeoftheiranxieties.”

Duncanusedtotakeregularwalks.Followingafalloutwithoneofherfriends,DuncaninvitedEmilytojoinhim.Duringthewalk,theytalkedaboutthefightEmilyhadhadwithherfriendandwhatshecoulddoaboutit.Afterthat,DuncanandEmilywentonregularwalks.Shesaid

“SoIjuststartedgoingwithhimanditbecame,honestlylikethebesttherapyIhaveeverhad.ImeanIusedtobereadytogoforawalkbeforehimafteracoupleofmonths,Iwasinthechair,[asking]“Comeonarewegoing?Arewegoing?”Lovedit.Andthatwaswhenyoujusttalkedabouteverything.IwouldtalkabouthowstupidschoolwasorcollegeoryouknowanditbecamethatIwassomuchmorechilledinmyotherlivesbecauseIknewrightifIjustmakeamentalnoteofthisandwaituntil[wewentonthewalk]andthenIask[Duncan’s]advice.”

LatershedescribedhowimportantDuncanandLynhadbecometoher,andshecontinuedtoseethemregularlyonceshehadmovedintoontolivingindependently.

“Honestlythereisnothingthattheywouldn’tdoforanyone,Ilovethemtopieces[…]youknowhonestlybest…probablyoneofthebestyearsofmylifewhenIlivedthere.”

63

NurturingequitablerelationshipsEqualityofrelationshipsisdescribedbyBoddy(2011)asacornerstoneofsocialpedagogy.Socialpedagogyrecognisesthatarelationshipbetweenanadultandchildisnonethelessarelationshipbetweentwopeople,andwhiletheadultmayhaveknowledgeandexperiencebeyondthatofthechild’s,thesocialpedagogicpractitioner’sroleistousethatknowledgetosupport(ratherthantohavepowerover)thechild(Boddy,2011).Whilealargenumberoffostercarersreportedthattheywerenaturallychildfocusedintheirapproach,theinterviewdatasuggestthatHead,Heart,Handsreinforcedthisview.AthirdofthefostercarersreportedthatthetoolscoveredontheLearningandDevelopmentcoursesenabledthemtobebothmoremindfulofthepowerdynamicsbetweenthecarerandthechild,andtoputpracticalstrategiesinplaceinordertoredressthosedynamics(n=19:33%).Whileanumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviewsreportedthattheyhadalwaysofferedfosteredchildrenachoiceofthekindsofactivitiestheywanttodo,fivereportedthattheyhadfurtherunderstoodtheempoweringimpactthatchoicehadonchildrensinceattendingtheHead,Heart,Hands,LearningandDevelopmentcourses.Thesefostercarershadsubsequentlymadeagreaterefforttoinvitethechildtochoosethekindofactivitiestheywishedtodo.AsBoddynotes“thisunderstandingofequalitymeansthattheconceptionoftheyoungperson’srightsinthatrelationshipgoesbeyondwhatisstipulatedinproceduresandlegislation.Theirparticipationin,andresponsibilityfor,decisionmakingisenabledbythepedagoguethroughdialogueandlistening–asonepersontoanother”(2011:117).Reflectingthisview,onefostercarernoted:

"Hehasgotachoice.[Itis]soempoweringthechild,that'ssomethinghugeinourhousenow.Thislittleboy'sneverhadanycontrol.Hewastakenintocare,he'sbeentakenawayfromhisfamily.Hehadnocontroloverit,nosayinit.Soyes,empoweringhimonadailybasisisahugethinginthishouse.Healwayshaschoices,evenwhenhedoesn'tlikethemhestillgetsachoice,andjusttomakehimfeellikeavalidperson.[…]Soit'simportantthathehasachoice,hehasasay".(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsample(n=8:14%)reportedthatlettingthechildoryoungpersontaketheleadduringCommonThirdactivitieswasvitaltoallowingthemtofeeladegreeofequality,inadditiontofeelingvalued,trustedandempowered.AsPetrienotesoneoftheaimsofthisconceptistocreateamutualfocusforthesocialpedagogicpractitionerandthechild,whocooperatetogetherwithasharedgoalorsharedtask.Thetaskneitherbelongstotheadultnorthechild,butcreatesanentityofthirdmutualownership(Petrie,2011:79).Inthisway,theCommonThirdenablestraditionalpowerdynamicsbetweentheadultandthechildtobeequalised(evenifitisjustfortheperiodofthetask),buildingtrustandmutualrespectbetweenthetwoparties.Suchexamplesfromthesampleoffostercarerswhoweinterviewedincludelettingachildnavigatearoute,beresponsibleforwalkingthedogs,andshowingthefostercarerhowtodothingsthatthechildknowshowtodo,butthefostercarerdoesnot.Onefostercarer,afterencouragingayoungpersontomapreadduringawalkremarkedthattheyoungperson“said:‘that[wasn’ta]walk.Thatwasanadventure!’Theydidseethefunindecidingforthemselves".AnexampleofallowingthechildtotaketheleadfromthecasefileanalysisisgiveninBox13.OtherfostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviewsatWave3reportedthatbydoingsomethingnew,wherebothcarerandchildwereequivalentintheirexperienceandunderstandingofataskoractivitycreatedanopportunitytobe

64

moreequalwiththechild(n=5:8%)Thesefostercarersreportedthattheywereabletodemonstratetothechildthateveryonefeelsoutoftheircomfortzoneattimes,andthisbroughtthemclosertogether,strengtheningthebondbetweenthem.AsmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=7:12%)reportedthatsinceHead,Heart,Hands,theyweremorelikelytoallowthechildrenandyoungpeopletoparticipateinactivitiesthattheypreviouslywouldnothaveallowedthemtodo.Examplesincludedwalkingtoschoolontheirown,assistingwithpreparingmealsbychoppingfood,andsportingactivities.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthatthattheseactivitieswereinthebestinterestofthechildandallowingtheirfosteredchildrentoundertaketheseactivitiesempoweredthem,taughtthemspecificskillsandletthechildrenandyoungpeoplefeeltrusted.Box13:Exampleoflettingthechildtakethelead

Beingofferedchoicewashighlightedasbeingextremelyimportantbyasmallnumberofchildrenandyoungpeopleintheinterviewsample(n=6:17%).Theseyoungpeoplereportedthatbeingofferedachoicemadethemfeelcaredfor,andempowered,bytheirfostercarers.Thetypesofchoicesbeingofferedwerebothlargeand(seemingly)small,butwereperceivedbytheyoungpeoplethemselvesashavingthesamelevelofimpact.Forinstance,oneoftheseyoungpeoplewasofferedtheopportunitytodecorateherroomwhenshefirstmovedinwithherfostercarers.Inresponseshesaidthat“Yes,therespectIget[here]isamazing".Anothernotedthat:

"Inaway,[beinggivenchoices]makesbondingalotbetter.Anditreducestheresentmentandrebellioninaperson.Like,ifasomeonesays,“Right,you’redoingthis”,andsay,you’renotquitehappywiththatdecision,then,you’reobviouslygoingtoautomatically,belike,“Hangonasecond,Idon’tlikethis”.Whereas,ifyoudiscussit,it’smorelike,“Okay,whatdoyouwanttodo?’”Andthen,you’llallworktogetheronthesameobjective.Which,intheendoftheday,kindofavoidsalotofproblems”(Youngpersoninterviewee).

ApersonalprofessionalpracticeAsEichstellerandHolthoffnote,aprofessionalsocialpedagogicrelationshipisinformedbythepersonalityofthepedagogue.Socialpedagogyproposesthatwhatenablesthatrelationshiptobenurturingtothechildistheabilityofthepractitionertobringinhisorherpersonalitytoenrichandauthenticatethatrelationshipwhileensuringthatpersonalexperienceisonlysharedorintroduced

“Whentakingyoungpersontoopticians,[thecarer]allowed[youngperson]toleadthewayandchoosewhichbustogeton.[The]youngpersonfeltreallygoodthattheywereabletodoitandcarerfeltgoodthattheyoungpersonwasabletodoit.Alsousedmodeltogetyoungpersontothinkaboutwhatwoulddoifbusbrokedownonwaytocollege;youngpersoncomeupwithsolutionthat[theywould]getonnextbusthatcamealong.Carersaid[Head,Heart,Hands]wasareallypositivetrainingexperienceasifsomethingdoesn'tworkyoudon'tgiveupyoujusttryanothermodelormethoduntilyoufindonethatworksforyou.[Carer]feltitgivescarersmoreauthoritytomakedecisionandmadeherfeelmoreempoweredaswasn'trelyingonotherstellingfostercarerswhattodo”.(Casefile).

65

intothatrelationshipwhenitwillenhancethechild’sownexperience(EichstellerandHolthoff,2011:42).Tofacilitatethebringingtogetherofthe‘Head,Heart,Hands’ofsocialpedagogicpractices,theprofessionalunderstandingandtheoreticalknowledge(thehead),mustbebroughttogetherwithtacitknowledgeandgenuinepositiveregards(theheart)throughpracticalaction(thehands).Socialpedagogicpractices,therefore,requireacarefulbalancebetweenthepersonalandtheprofessional.Thisbalanceis,perhaps,ofparticularconcernforfostercarers.Asonefostercarerintheinterviewsampleobserved:“whenpeoplearelivinginyourhome,there’squitealotthattheysee,[laughs][…]There’sthings,obviously,that’skindofpersonaltoyouandthenthere’smoreofaprofessionaltypeelement”.Boddynotesthat“Thekeytotherelationshipis,therefore,thecombinationofthepersonalandprofessionalintherelationship.Therecognitionthatbotharenecessary,butneitheraresufficient,becomescriticalinaddressingthechallengesofbringingupchildrenawayfromtheirfamiliesoforigin”(2011:115).Box14:Definition–TheThreePs

Alittleunderaquarterofthefostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviews(12:21%)reportedthattheyhadbeenencouragedtosharemorepersonalinformationwiththeirfosteredchildrenasaresultofHead,Heart,Handsandtousetheirpersonalrelationshipwiththechildtohelpthemtogrowanddevelop.Thesefostercarersreportedthattheyhadfounditusefultosharetheirownexperiencesandchallengesofchildhoodwiththechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredfortobuildpositiverelationships.Theyalsoreportedthatitenabledthemtoshareinformationandadvice,andreassuretheyoungpeoplethatothersexperiencechallenges.Otherparticipatingfostercarersreportedthathonestywasvitaltoensuringthatthechildoryoungpersontrustedthem.Inonesuch

The“ThreePs”isatoolforstructuredreflection.ThePsare:Professional(thepedagoguestraining,knowledge,theoreticalunderpinning),Personal(thepersonalrelationshipbetweenthepedagogueandthechildoryoungperson)andPrivate(howourthepedagogues’privateunderstandingand/orperspectiveaffectanyoneinteraction).Insocialpedagogyeachoftheseoverlap,andarealwayspresentinanysocialinteraction.Assuch,theyshouldbeconsideredinanyreflection.SocialPedagoguesareawareoftheinterplaybetweeneachPandusethe3Pmodelinsupervisionandontheirowntoreflectuponpractice,understandtheimpactthechildoryoungpersonmayhaveonthemandtoimprovepracticeandtherelationshipwiththechild.“AlthoughthePrivatePissomethingwhichSocialPedagoguesdonotsharewiththechildoryoungperson;itisimperativethatpractitionersare:

• abletorecognisewhentheirreactionstoachildmayhavesomethingtodowithwhatisprivatetothem,and

• ableandopentodiscussingthisinprofessionalsupervisionsothatadeeperunderstandingofselfisgainedandpracticeisimproved”

Thempra(nodate,b)SocialPedagogy–trainingpack:SocialPedagogicconcepts.[online]http://www.socialpedagogy.co.uk/downloads/Social%20Pedagogic%20Concepts.pdf

66

example,afostercarerreportedthathehadsharedthefactthathehimselfhadbeenfosteredwithhisyoungperson;somethingthathehadneverdonebefore.Henotedthat:

“Bysharingthatpartofme[…]thosebondsarebecomingcloserandactuallythisyoungpersonislearningthatIamnotthatmuchdifferentfromalotofotherpeople,[...]butactuallythereareotherpeopleinthesameboat".(Fostercarerinterviewee).

TheconceptoftheThreePswasmentionedbythesefostercarersandwasreportedtoassisttheminestablishingwheretheboundariesbetweentheprofessional,personalandprivatemightbeforeachindividualchild,andforeachindividualfostercarer.Thesefostercarersreportedthattheyusedthemodeltoreflectonwhetherenough,ortoomuchhadbeensharedwiththechildrenintheircare,andwhatshouldbekeptprivate.OtherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthattheThreePshelpedthemtoreflectonandregulatetheirownprivateemotions,ensuringthatonlywhatwashelpfulfortheirfosteredchildrenwasshared.Asonefostercarernoted:

“Thesekidswithquitecomplexneedscanevokequitestrongfeelingsinyouand,justthenatureofthework,[…]Itisreally,reallydifficult.[Head,Heart,Hands,hashelpedme]tobeawarethatactually,that’sokaytobe,[laughs]it’sokaytohavethosefeelingsyourselfandto,sometimes,whenyouthinkabouttheThreePs,itwaslike,reallyeasywayofworking,tohavethatprivateside."(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Oneyoungperson’sviewoftheimportanceoffostercarerssharingpersonalaspectswiththechildrenandyoungpeopletheycareforisshowninBox15.Likemanyofthefostercarersinterviewed,participatingfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromthreeofthesitesreportedthattheprogrammehadencouragedthemtobringmoreofthepersonaltotheirworkwiththefostercarers,allowingthemtodevelopmoreauthenticrelationshipswiththem.

67

Box15:Casestudy:Ayoungperson’sviewoftheimportanceofthepersonal

MatthewandJohnMatthewwas17whenhespoketous.HehadbeenlivingwithJohnforaboutsixmonthsbeforeJohnattendedtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.BeforemovinginwithJohn,MatthewhadbeeninseveralplacementsandhadstruggledtosettleinwithJohn.MatthewdescribedtoushowhekeptoutofJohn’swayatfirst.JohntoldushowhepurposelygaveMatthewhisownspace,butinvitedhimtoarangeofdifferentfamilyactivitiesincludinghisson’swedding.SlowlyMatthewstartedtoopenuptoJohnaboutdifferentchallengeshewasfacingandJohntalkedabouthisownexperienceandhowhehadhandledsimilardifficulties.MatthewsaidofJohn:

“[Whenfostercarersareopenwithyou]youstarttorealisethisisanactualhumanbeing,Ifoundthereisalotofmyfostercarersandalotofeveryoneelsetheyweren’thumantome.Theywerejustlikelittlerobots.Especiallysocialworkers,theyaretheworse.Ihaveneverknownmysocialworker’ssurnamenevermindiftheyhadchildrenoranything.Very,veryclosedoff,private,private,private.Buttheyalsowanttopryintoyourlifebecausetheyaresortofinchargeofyourlifeperse.Andassoonasyouopenupandstuff,youstarttohumanisethem,youstarttogo,doyouknowwhat,theyactuallyareproperpeople[…]andyourealise[myfostercarer]isanormalperson,[..]anditiswiththatconnectionwhichmademefeeldoyouknowwhat?Iamnotgoingtocuthimout,[…]ButIwasliketheconnectionwassomuchdeeperbecauseIrespectedhimasahumanaswellandtheminutehestartedshowinghisflaws,theminuteyouseethat,youarelikeohyouknowwhat?Youdon’thavetobeperfectallthetime.Youreallydon’tandthatiswhat,yesthatiswhatIloveabout[myfostercarers].

68

Box16:Summaryofkeyfindings:Relationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold

• Almostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewed(n=18:32%)reportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadempoweredandencouragedthemtoexpresswarmth,respectandgenuineaffectionfortheyoungperson.ItwasnotedthatthefostercarersinterviewedexpressedaffectionforthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredforpriortoHead,Heart,Hands.FostercarersinterviewedinWave3reportedthatwhiletheyhadnotnecessarilychangedtheirbehaviourstowardsthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredfor,theyhadbeenreminded,andthereforebecomemoreconsciousofthesignificanceofthecarer-childrelationships,sinceHead,HeartHands.

• OtherfostercarersreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadencouragedthemfurthertoinvesttimeandeffortintonurturingtheirrelationshipwiththeyoungpersonandhadgiventhemtheoreticalandpracticaltoolstodoso.ConceptssuchastheDiamondModel,theLifeworldOrientationandtheCommonThirdwereofparticularinterestinthisregard.Inthisway,theprogrammehadprovidedalanguageandaframeworkinwhichtothinkaboutthatrelationship.

• Twothirdsoffostercarersurveyrespondents(n=31:66%)reportedthattheirrelationshipswiththeirfosteredchildhadchangedagreatdealsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses.

• Thesefindingswerecorroboratedbythecasefileanalysiswhichsuggestedthatlanguageassociatedwithfamilialwarmth,respectandgenuineregardwasusedfrequentlyinthechildren’scasefilestodescribehowthecarersperceivedthefosteringhouseholdrelationships.Anumberofchildren(n=23,9%)wererecordedinthecasefilesasreferringtotheirfostercarersinfamilialtermssuchas“mumanddad”.However,asmallnumberofthecasefilessuggestedthattheuseoffamilialtermsmaybeselectiveandlinkedtochildren’sdesiretofeelasenseofbelonging.

• Asmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviews(n=5:8%)reportedthattheyhadbecomemoreconsciousoftheimportanceofseeminglysmall,everydayactionsthathelpthechildfeelcaredforandnurtured.ManymorefostercarerswhowereinterviewedhighlightedthattheCommonThirdenabledthemtobemoreconsciousofhowsharingactivitiestogethercancreateasharedspaceinwhichbothpartieslearntogetheranddeepentheirrelationship.AlmostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheCommonThirdencouragedthemtoreconsiderhoweverydayactivitieswereusedtodeveloptheirrelationshipwiththeirfosteredchild(n=16:28%).

• Eight(12%)fostercarersreportedthattheconceptsandapproacheslearntthroughHead,Heart,Handshadapositiveimpactontheirrelationshipwithothermembersoftheirfosteringhousehold.Asmallnumberoffostercarersreportedthattheyhavereconceptualisedfosteringasawholefamilyactivity,placinggreateremphasisonwholefamilyreflectionanddecisionmaking.

• AsmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=7:12%)reportedthatsinceHead,Heart,Handstheyweremorelikelytoallowthechildrenandyoungpeopletoparticipateinactivitiesthattheypreviouslywouldnothaveallowedthemtodo.However,frustrationsarosewhenthesedecisionswerenotsupportedbysocialcarestaff.

• Alittleunderaquarterofthefostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviews(12:21%)reportedthattheyhadbeenencouragedtosharemorepersonalinformationwiththeirfosteredchildrenasaresultofHead,Heart,Handsandtousetheirpersonalrelationshipwiththechildtohelpthemtogrowanddevelop.TheconceptoftheThreePswasmentionedbythesefostercarersandwasreportedtoassisttheminestablishingwheretheboundariesbetweentheprofessional,personalandprivatemightbeforeachindividualchild,andforeachindividualfostercarer.

69

6.TheimpactofHHHfostercarers:Thedevelopmentofthe“professionalheart”

CentraltotheaimsandobjectivesoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeisthedevelopmentofprofessional,confidentfostercarersusingsocialpedagogicapproachesandexhibitingthequalitiesandattributesdescribedinAppendixB.Asnotedabove,socialpedagogystressesthatpersonalexperienceandtacitknowledgearenecessaryforeffectivecare,butarenotsufficientalone.Theymustbebroughttogetherwithprofessionalknowledgeandunderstanding.ThisiswhatBoddyreferstoas“theprofessionalheart”(Boddy,2011).AsnotedinChapter2,socialpedagogyisbothatheoreticaldisciplineandafieldofpractice.Itisawayofthinkingthatinfluencesthewaythatpeoplebehave.Throughouttheevaluation,thefindingsoftheinterviewswithfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopletheysupportsuggestthatHead,Heart,Handsimpactedonboththewaythatparticipatingfostercarersthoughtabouttheirfostercarerpracticeandthethingsthattheydidwithchildrenandyoungpeople.OurfindingsontheimpactofHead,Heart,HandsonfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleinWaves1and2areexploredinpreviousevaluationreports(McDermidetal.,2014;2015).ByWave3themajorityoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereabletoidentifyatleastonewayinwhichHead,Heart,Handshadinfluencedthemasfostercarers(n=54:95%).Adegreeofvariationintheextentofthatinfluencewasidentifiedacrossthesample.Itisencouragingtonotethatonlythreeoutofthe57fostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadnotimpactedontheirpracticeinanyway.Anumberoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthatinthefinalyearoftheevaluationsocialpedagogicprincipleshadbeguntoembedintotheirwayofbeingasfostercarers.Theydescribedsocialpedagogicpracticesasbecomingnormalised(n=8:14%).WhenaskedwhatthebestthingaboutHead,Heart,Handswas,justunderhalfoftheWave3fostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheprogrammehadhadapositiveinfluenceontheirpractice(n=21:49%).TheWave3fostercarersurveyrespondentswerealsoaskediftheLearningandDevelopmentcourseshadpositivelyornegativelychangedtheirapproachtotheirworkbyratingonascaleofzerototen(withtenbeingthehighest)theextenttowhichachangehadoccurredacrossanumberoffactors.Thescoresweregroupedtoshowwhetherrespondentsreportedtohaveexperienceddifferentlevelsofchangeaccordingtothefollowingparameters:

• Scoreof10–8=agreatdealofchange• Scoreof7–5=somechange• Scoreof4orless=littleornochange

Theaverage(mean)wasalsocalculatedandisreferredtoasthe“changescore”.Thehigherthescore,themorelikelythesurveyrespondentsweretohaveexperiencedapositivechangeasaresultofHead,Heart,Hands.Thescoresbysitewerecalculated.However,asnotedinChapter3lowresponsesratesinsomesitesmeantthatitwasnotstatisticallyviabletocarryoutameaningfulcomparisonofresponsesbetweensites.ThefindingsaredetailedinTable4belowandnotedinrelevantsectionsthroughoutthisreport.

70

Table4ThelevelsofchangethathaveoccurredsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearning

andDevelopmentcourses

Littleornochange Somechange

Agreatdealofchange

Meanchangescore

n % n % n %

n

Yourselfconfidence 1 2.1 16 34 30 63.8 8.1 46

Knowledgeofcaringforfosterchildren 4 8 32.9 15 28 59.6 7.9 47Thewayyoudealwithconflictordifficultsituations 3 6 11 23.4 33 70.2 8.3 47

Thewayyoudealwithdifficultbehaviour 4 8.5 11 23.4 32 68.1 8 47Thewayyoumakedecisionsaboutdaytodayactivities 14 29.8 11 23.5 22 46.8 6.2 47Theactivitiesyoudowithyourfosteredchild 3 6.5 14 30.4 29 63 7.8 45

Yourrelationshipwithyourfosteredchild 5 10.6 11 23.4 31 66 7.6 47Yourrelationshipwithyoursupervisingsocialworker 8 17 8 17 31 66 7.4 47Yourrelationshipwithyourfosteredchild'ssocialworker 14 29.8 9 19.1 24 51.1 6.5 47Encouragingly,theWave3fostercarersurveyanalysisalsosuggestedthatHead,Heart,Handsresultedinchangestofostercarers’practice(albeittodifferingdegrees).Thesefindingsarecorroboratedbythecasefileanalysis,whichidentifiedthataproportionoftheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerscontinuedtousesocialpedagogicapproachesthroughoutthedurationoftheevaluation.Thecasefileinformationaboutcarer'spracticewasreviewedbasedontheHead,Heart,Handsattributes(AppendixB)andwhether,therewasevidencetoshowfostercarer(s)usingsocialpedagogicapproaches.ThisreviewtookintoaccountexplicitreferencestoHead,Heart,Handsmodels,andasecondorderanalysiswherespecificmodelswerenotexplicitlymentionedbythecasefileauthor,butitwassufficientlyclearfromthetextthatmodelsandsocialpedagogictheoriessuchasTheCommonThirdandReflectionwerebeingdrawnon.Theresultsofthisanalysiswerecross-checked(inter-raterreliability)betweentheteamofresearchers.Ouranalysisidentifiedatleastonewayinwhichthefostercarerswerepractisingsocialpedagogicallyinaroundhalfofthehouseholdsincludedinthecasefileanalysis(n=74:47%).TableH.1inAppendixHshowsthebreakdownofevidenceoftheuseofsocialpedagogicapproachesbysite.Therewere83fosteringhouseholds(53%)whereouranalysisofcaserecordsfoundnoexplicitorimplicitreferencetosocialpedagogicapproachesortheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsalthoughthisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheapproacheswerenotbeingused.AsnotedinChapter3,itislikelythatthenatureanddetailofrecordinginrelationtoHead,Heart,Handsandreferencestosocialpedagogywasaffectedbyanumberoffactors,includingthedegreetowhichthecasefileauthorhadbeenexposedto,andengagedwith,socialpedagogy.Therefore,whilethereisevidence

71

thataroundhalfofthechildrenincludedinthecasefileanalysishadbeenexposedtosocialpedagogicpractices,itispossiblethatthisfigurewashigher,buthadnotbeenrecordedwithinthecasefiles.Thecasefileanalysisexploredthelinksbetweenthedescriptionsoftherelationshipsbetweenthefosteringhouseholdandtheextenttowhichevidencewasfoundthatsocialpedagogywasbeingusedbythefostercarers.Therelationshipsinthefosteringhouseholdaredescribedaspositivein62%ofcasefilesofchildrenwheretherewasevidenceofasocialpedagogicapproachbeingused(n=84).Bycontrast,fosteringhouseholdrelationshipsweredescribedaspositivein43%ofcaseswheretherewasnoevidenceofasocialpedagogicapproach.Moreover,incaseswheretherewasevidenceofsocialpedagogicapproachesbeingusedbyfostercarersahigheraveragenumberofpositivethemeswereidentified.However,itisnotpossibletoconfidentlystatewhethersocialpedagogicpracticesledtobetterrelationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold,orwhetherfosteringhouseholdswithmoresecureandstablerelationshipsaremorelikelytobeabletoadoptsocialpedagogicapproaches.Encouragingly,theWave3fostercarersurveyanalysisandtheinterviewswithfostercarerssuggestedthatHead,Heart,Handsresultedinchangestofostercarers’practice(albeittodifferingdegrees).However,whileonlythreefostercarerscouldnotidentifyanychangesinpracticesincethecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands,otherswerereticenttostatethatanychangesintheirpracticeweresolelydowntotheprogramme(n=9:16%).Thesefostercarersreportedthatitwasdifficulttoseparatethechangesinapproachfromothercontributingfactorssuchasbecomingmoreconfidentandexperiencedinfosteringgenerally,orthattheyhadsimplygottoknowthechildrenandyoungpeoplebetteroverthecourseoftheevaluationtimeframe.Othersreportedthattheirmethodhadchangedmoreasaresultofachangeinplacement,asdifferentchildrenrequiredifferentapproaches.Nevertheless,thefindingsoftheevaluation,suggestthatformanyoftheparticipatingfostercarers,Head,Heart,Handshadbeenacontributingfactortoenhancingtheirpractice.Thepersonalandtheprivate:TheimpactofHead,Heart,HandsonthefostercarersthemselvesAroundafifthofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthattheprogrammeenabledthemtoreflectontheinfluencethattheirpersonalandprivateexperienceshadontheirownfostering(andparenting)(n=11:19%).AsmallnumberoffostercarersreportedthattheLifeworldOrientationandtheconceptofHaltunghadenabledthemtoexploretheimpactoftheirownchildhoodexperiencesonthempersonally,inadditiontohowitinformstheirfostering(n=6:11%).Asaresult,thesefostercarersreportedthattheyhadbeenabletomakesmalladjustmentstothewaythattheycarefortheirfosteredchild,andinsomeinstanceshadsharedtheseexperienceswiththechildtoenablethechild’sowndevelopment.

72

Box17:Definition-Haltung

Whilefosteringcanbehighlyrewarding,thechallengesofcaringforsomechildrenandyoungpeoplecanextendbeyondnormativeexperiencesofparenting(Murray,Tarren-SweenyandFrance,2011).Fosteringcanresultindistinctperiodsofstressandstrain.Reducingtheimpactofstrainmayhaveanimportantimpactonfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplealike.Previousresearchhasfoundthathigherdisruptionratesarefoundamongstrainedcarersandstressisonefactorinfluencingdecisionstoceasefostering(Farmer,LipscombeandMoyers,2005;Wilson,SinclairandGibbs,2000).OtherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthewaysinwhichHead,Heart,Handshadhighlightedtheneedforfostercarerstotakecareoftheirownwellbeing.Mostnotablyforthesecarersintheinterviewsample,reflectionwasreportedtohavereducedprolongedperiodsofstress,throughprovidingframeworksbywhichtheycouldcriticallyassesschallengingperiods,totakeaccountofpersonalfeelingsofguilt,whilenotbeingdictatedtobythem.Asonenoted:

“IthinkthebiggestthingformeisIamkindofmyselfandIreallyunderstandthatimportanceofmyownwellbeingtobewellandfitandhappysoIcanthenlookafterotherpeople.ThatisdefinitelysomethingIlackedbeforesocialpedagogy[…]IcanseehowthathasbenefitedthechildrenthatIlookafter,myhusband,mymum,variousdifferentrelationships.IamquitepassionateaboutthatandIreallydoseethedifferenceinmyself.Iamalothappierandcontent,andyesIthinkthatisthebiggestthingforme."(Fostercarerinterviewee).

PeersupportAsnotedabove,socialpedagogyplacesastrongemphasisontheuseofthegroupasaresourceandtheLearningandDevelopmentcoursesweredesignedtoencouragegroupworking,trustandrelationships.Itis,therefore,encouragingtonotethatthisemphasisongroupworkingwasidentifiedasapositiveelementoftheprogrammebyfostercarersfromboththeinterviewandsurveysamples.AlmosthalfofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthatmeetingotherfostercarersanddevelopingsupportivepeernetworkstoshareideaswasthebestthingabouttheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(n=20:47%).Thenotionofbringingtogetheragroupofcarerswitha

Haltungroughlytranslatesasattitude,mind-set,ethos.Haltungisbasedonourvalues,ourphilosophy,ournotionsaboutmoralityandourconceptofmankind.HaltungguidesouractionsandbyouractionsweliveoutourHaltung.Alloftheseaffecthowweconceptualisethepeopleweinteractwith,whichinturnaffectshowwebehavetowardsthemandcolourstheirbehaviourtowardsus.Insocialpedagogy,Haltungexpressesanemotionalconnectednesstootherpeopleandaprofoundrespectfortheirhumandignity.TheSwisspedagogue,JohannHeinrichPestalozzi(1746-1827)stated:“Iseekeducationtowardshumanity,andthisonlyemanatesthroughlove”(Pestalozzi,1964:226).ThepedagogictaskrequiresacongruentHaltungthatreinforcesthisaim,bringsittolifeandtranscendsallpedagogicpractices.Adaptedfrom:Eichsteller,G.,andHolthoff,S.,(2011)Conceptualfoundationsofsocialpedagogy:atransnationalperspectivefromGermanyIn:Cameron,C.,andMoss,P.(eds.).SocialPedagogyandworkingwithchildrenandyoungpeople:wherecareandeducationmeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.P.36-37

73

commongoalorethoswasalsohighlightedasbeingextremelyvaluablebysixofthosefostercarersurveyrespondents.Similarly,almostaquarterofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthataspectsoftheprogrammedesignhadenabledthemtodevelopsupportiverelationshipswithotherfostercarers(n=14:24%).ThelengthoftheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourse(eightdays)andtheexperientialandinteractivestylewerereportedtohaveenabledfostercarersinthesamecoursecohorttogettoknowoneanotherandtoformbondsthathadlasteduntiltheendoftheprogramme.ThosefostercarerswhoattendedHead,Heart,HandseventsfollowingtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,suchasmomentumgroups,wereabletocontinuetomeettogethertomaintainthosesupportiverelationships.However,itshouldbenotedthatotherevaluationreportshavehighlightedthatthesegroupsweretypicallyattendedbythemostenthusiasticofcarers(GhateandMcDermid,2016),suggestingonceagainthata“virtuouscycle”maybeatplay.Thesefostercarersreportedthatthepeersupportiverelationshipswereanimportantpartoftheirexperienceoftheprogramme,andexistingresearchsuggeststhatthesegroupsmayhavealastingimpact,ifthosepeerrelationshipsaremaintained.Peersupportbetweenfostercarershasbeenfoundtofacilitateemotionalandpracticalsupport,providingopportunitiesforcarerstolearnfromoneanother’sexperiences(IvanovaandBrown,2010),andbereassuredtodiscoverthatothershavefacedsimilarchallenges(Pallettetal.,2002).Studieshavehighlightedthebenefitofasharedunderstandingbetweenfostercarersandthevaluethatfostercarersplaceontalkingtosomeonewhoknowswhatitislike(Nutt,2006;McInerny,2009;Cavazzi,GuilfoyleandSims,2010;Blytheetal.,2011;Sebbaetal.,2016).Peersupporthasalsobeenlinkedtodecreasingfostercarers’stress,reducingdisruptionsinplacements,andimprovementstotheretentionoffostercarers(LukeandSebba,2013).Inthelightoftheevidenceoftheimpactofpeersupportfromthisandotherstudies,itmaybeadvantageousforsitestoconsiderhowthesesupportivenetworksthathavedevelopedbetweenparticipatingfostercarersmightbemaintained,andhowtoensurethatotherfostercarersmayengagewiththem.Moreover,fosteringservicesimplementingothersimilartrainingprogrammesmaybenefitfromexploringhowthesesupportivepeernetworksmaybedevelopedandencouragedthroughtheprogrammedesign.Theprofessionalheart:TheimpactoftheprogrammeonfostercarerpracticeAlmostaquarterofthefostercarersreportedthattheyhadlearntnewapproachesortools(n=10:24%),includingreflectivepractice,LifeworldOrientationandtheCommonThird,thattheyhadusedwithintheirownhousehold.Onesurveyrespondentwrote:“theadditionofotherstrategiessuchas"TheCommonThird"thatareamazinglysimpleandamazinglyeffective”wasthebestthingabouttheprogramme.SurveyrespondentsalsoreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadinfluencedthewaythattheydealwithdifficultbehaviours(n=32:68%)andtheactivitiesthatfostercarersdowiththeirfosteredchildren(n=29:63%).Similarly,asmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=9:16%)reportedthatthepracticaltoolsexploredontheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,includingtheCommonThird(exploredelsewhereinthisreport)providedthemnewwaysofworkingwiththechildren.Morecommonlycitedamongtheevaluationparticipants,however,wastheviewthatthetheoreticalapproachesexploredthroughHead,Heart,Handsprovidedaframeworkthroughwhichtoarticulateexistingknowledgeaboutgoodpractice.AroundathirdofthefostercarerswereinterviewedatWave3(n=20:35%),andfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromfiveofthesites

74

reportedthattheprovisionofaframeworkforexistingpracticewasakeyoutcomeoftheirparticipationintheprogramme.Theseevaluationparticipantsreportedthatasaresulttheyhadbecomemorereflectiveandconsciousoftheiractionsandhowtheymayormaynotbenurturingforthechild.Thesefostercarersnotedthattheymaynothavedramaticallychangedwhattheyweredoingwiththechildrenandyoungpeopleonadaytodaybasis,theyweremorethoughtfulandintentionalintheiractions.Asonefostercarerremarked:

“WhatIfoundwiththecourseisthatithasn’treallychangedwhatIdosomuchasdeepenedmyunderstandingofwhyIdoit.[...][It]hasmadememoreawareofthingsIwouldprobablyhavedoneinstinctively.AndIreflectonthemmore[…],I’mjustmoreawareofwhatI’mdoingandwhyI’mdoingit.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Inthisway,Head,Heart,Handswasdescribedbysomefostercarersintheinterviewsampleasenhancingtotheirpractice,enablingthemtoapplyprofessionalknowledgeandskillsasdifferentcircumstancesarose.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthatputtinglabelsonthingstheywerealreadydoingwasinitselfhelpfulinmakingthemmoremindfuloftheirexistingbehaviours:

“Having,labelsforthingsmakesyouabitmoreconsciousof,oh,thisiswhatIamdoingeventhoughyouweredoingitanyway"(Fostercarerinterviewee).

EvidencethattheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersweremoreintentionalintheiractionswasalsofoundinthecasefilesof24(15%)fosteringhouseholds.Similarly,aroundtwothirds(n=28:60%)ofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheprogrammehadimprovedtheirknowledgeofcaringforfosteredchildren.OfthosewhocommentedonthemostimpactfulorbestthingaboutHead,Heart,Hands,aroundathird(n=15:35%)reportedthattheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentCourseshadvalidatedtheirexistingapproaches,andprovidedalanguageorframeworkforthem.Onerespondentwrote:“Iwasalreadydoingthesethingswithourfosterchildren,butnowhaveanameforit”andanothercommentedthatHead,Heart,Handshadhelpedhim“realiseIamontherighttrackwithchildreninhelpingtobuildtheirconfidenceinthemselves”.Whileathirdofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthattheprovisionofaframeworkforunderstandingpracticewashighlyvalued,thisviewwasnotfoundacrosstheentiresample.Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereoftheviewthattrainingwentintotoomuchdepth,wasrepetitiveattimesandreliedtoomuchonthetheoreticalaspectsofsocialpedagogy(n=14:25%).Threeofthesefostercarersexpressedfrustrationsthatthecoursesdidnotsufficientlyexplorehowtoimplementtheapproachesinpractice,ortakeintoaccountthecomplexitiesoftheirchildren’sneeds.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthattheimplicationduringthetrainingwasthattheyjustneededtoimplementthestrategiesandtheywouldwork.Asonefostercarerdescribed:

“ItsortofhasmademefeelabitguiltysometimesorabitinadequateifIamhonestbecauseItotally[…]buyintowhat[Head,Heart,Hands]istryingtodoandsayandIthinktheyareallvery,youknow,reasonablegoodapproachesandthatiswhatIlikedaboutit.[…]Butwhentheyarenotworking,[...]thenyouthink,ohGod,wellIamtryingthesethingsthatare,youknow,onthecourse,fromthecourse,butitisgoingreally

75

badlywrongsoitmustbe[that]IamnotcommunicatingwellenoughorIamnotempoweringenoughorwhateverandyoustarttofeelabitinadequate[...]Itfeltasifyoushouldjustbeabletodoallofthesethingsandthenitwillbefine.Andifit’snotgoingrightthenyoumustbedoingsomethingwrong.Anditwasn'treallyacknowledgedhowdifficultitwasandtheydon’tnecessarilywork”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Whilethesefostercarerswereintheminorityofthosewhoparticipatedintheevaluation,theirexperiencessuggestthatsitesexploringintroducingsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromsupportingcarersinnotonlyunderstandingtheprinciplesoftheapproach,butinimplementingthemaswell.Furtheropportunitiesandsupporttofostercarerstoimplementthesestrategiesmayenablemorefostercarerstoengagewiththeprogramme.However,whilemanyofthefostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsamplewerehighlypositiveaboutsocialpedagogy,theviewsofsome(albeitasmallnumber)intheinterviewsamplesuggestthattheapproachmaynotbeappropriateforeveryone.CommunicationAsmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadresultedinagreaterawarenessofcommunicationbeingatwowayprocesswherebyonepartycommunicatessomethingandanotherpartyinterpretsit(n=9:16%).Non-violentcommunicationwasmentionedbyasmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterview,ashavingassistedthemnotonlytounderstandcommunicationwiththeirfosteredchildoryoungperson,buttobemorereflectiveabouthowtheycommunicatewiththem.ThisnotionwasenhancedthroughtheLifeworldOrientationmodel,wherebyfostercarersacknowledgedtheindividualchildren’sownexperiencesfromthefilterthroughwhichtheyinterpretanyinterpersonalcommunication.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthatasaresulttheyweremoreconsciousofnotonlywhatwasbeingsaidtochildrenandyoungpeopleandchildren’ssocialcarestaff,butalso,whatwasbeingheard(n=9:16%).Thesefostercarersreportedthinkingcarefullyabouthowandwhentheyraisedavarietyofsubjectswiththeirchildrenandyoungpeople.Onefostercarernoted:

“Iammoreawareofcommunication.[…],tryingtogaugewhatisgoingonintheirminds,beingmindfulofwhatthey’rethinkingandhowtheymaybeexperiencingsituations[…]ThatisthekindofareathatIthinkhelpedmewithifyoulike[…]Ihavegotgreaterawarenessofitthanbefore.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

AnawarenessofhowtheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerscommunicatedwiththechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredforwasalsoafeatureinthecasefilesreviewed.Justunderathirdofthefosteringhouseholdswheretheuseofsocialpedagogywasidentified,containedevidenceoffostercarers’awarenessofcommunication(n=24:32%).WhilstonlyaminorityofcasefilesexplicitlyreferencedspecificsocialpedagogicconceptssuchasWatzlawickcommunicationaxiomsorNon-violentcommunicationpractice,morecasefiles(n=22)containedinformationaboutthecarersgeneralapproachtocommunicationwhichresonatedwithsocialpedagogicprinciples.Evidenceinthesecasesoftenemphasisedtheimportanceoflisteningtothechild,promotingopenandauthenticdialogueandspendingtimegettingtoknowthechild;onecarerdescribedthisas“listeningtowhat[children]say,anddon'tsay,inordertotailorresponseandactions”.Anothercarersummedup“beingclearandhonestinourcommunication”asbeingcentraltotheirpractice.

76

Foranothercarertheirapproachwassomethingwhichextendedthroughouttheirhousehold:“asafamilywetaketimetohearthechildandsupportthebestwayforwardforthechild”.Box18:Definition-Non-ViolentCommunication

TheCommonThirdwasalsoutilisedbyfostercarerswhentheyneededtotalktochildrenandyoungpeopleaboutsensitiveordifficultsubjects.Asmallnumberoffostercarersreportedthattheyhademployedthistechnique,toensurethattheyoungpersonfeltsafeandcomfortableduringdifficultconversations.Theyreportedthatthesharedactivityprovidedawelcomedistractionforbothfostercarerandchildifthetopicbecametoooverwhelmingorifonepartyneededtimetothink(n=8:14%).Onefostercarernotedthat:

“IusethecarsometimeswhenI’mtakinghimsomewhere,togentlytalkaboutdifficultstuff.[He’s]notfacingmethen.[He]canlookoutthewindow,canturntheradioup[ifhefeelsuncomfortable]”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Fostercarers,andchildrenandyoungpeople,reportedthatthisapproachmadethesekindsofinteractionsmucheasierandlessstressful.Inadditiontobeingmorereflectiveaboutwhattheymightbecommunicatingtochildrenandyoungpeople,thesefostercarersalsoreportedthattheyhadbecomemorereflectiveaboutwhattheirchildrenandyoungpeoplewerecommunicatingtothem.

Non-violentcommunicationisbasedontheworkoftheAmericanpsychologistMarshallRosenberg.Itemphasiseshowwecanengagewithotherpeopleinawaythatavoidsjudgmentsandconflictbyexpressingfeelingsandneeds.Throughthis,Rosenbergargues,wecanempathisewitheachotherandconnectwithotherpeopleasequalhumanbeings,recognisingourcommonalitiesratherthanourdifferences.Essentially,non-violentcommunicationisunderpinnedbytheideathatweallhavethecapacitytobecompassionatewithothersbutoftendon’thavethelanguagethatallowsustounderstandeachother’semotionsandneeds.Violenceandconflicthappenasaresult,whenwetrytomeetourneedsbutcan’tfindawayofdoingthisinamannerthatrecognisesorunderstandsotherpeople’sfeelingsandneeds.Withinsocialpedagogicalsettings,non-violentcommunicationisintendedtoachieveseveralaims:tohelpchildrenunderstandtheirownfeelingsandneedsandhowthesemightinfluencetheirbehaviour(forinstance,whattheyarethinkingandfeelingwhentheyareangryandlashout),toshowchildrenthatwecareaboutthembyempathisingwiththeiremotionsandgivingthememotionalsupport,todeescalateandresolveconflictsinawaythatenableschildrentounderstandhowothersmightbefeeling.Allofthisservestostrengthentherelationshipbetweenthesocialpedagogueandthechildandsetinmotionimportantlearningprocessesforthechild. Thempra(nodate,c)SocialPedagogy–trainingpack:SocialPedagogicconcepts.[online]http://www.thempra.org.uk/social-pedagogy/key-concepts-in-social-pedagogy/nonviolent-communication/

77

DealingwithconflictanddifficultcircumstancesSeventypercentofthesurveyrespondents(n=33)reportedthattherehadbeena“greatdealofpositivechange”inthewaythattheydealtwithconflictordifficultsituations.NearlyhalfofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses,theyhadbecomemuchlessquicktoreacttocircumstancesastheyarose(n=26:46%).Thesefostercarersdescribedtaking,evenjustafewmomentstoassessasituationbeforereacting.TheLifeworldOrientationwascitedbyathirdoftheparticipatingfostercarersasausefulremindertounderstandpreciselywhatemotionsaparticularchildmightbeexpressingthrough“difficult”behavioursandtoensurethatthecorrectresponsewasgiven,ratherthansimplyactingoninstinct(n=21:31%).Onefostercarerwhotookpartintheinterviewsdescribedhowshecametounderstandthatheryoungperson’sbehaviourwasaresultofherfeelingunsettled.Shereportedthatshereactedinawaythatshefeltwasaddressingtheyoungperson’sfeelingsandnotthebehaviour.Theyoungpersondescribeditasfollows:

“Withinthefirstcoupleofmonths[…]IgottothepointwhereIpushed[Fostercarer]intheend.AndIwentoutsideandIreallyregretteditandIwascryingandIthoughtIhadlostmyplacementand[fostercarer]justcameoverandgavemeahugandwaslike“Don’tworry[..]you’renotlosingyourplacementforit”andIwaslike“ohmygodthatmustmeanthatsheactuallycares”.Ihaveneverhadthat,[...]lookIamstillherenowandyouknowIamprettymuchpartofthefamily,[...]Ithinkthatjustmadetherelationshipevenstronger”(Youngpersoninterviewee).

Conceptualisingdifficultsituationsandconflictasapotentialopportunityforayoungpersontogrowisanessentialelementofsocialpedagogicpractices(Kleipoedszus,2011).Someoftheparticipatingfostercarersreportedthatwaitingfortherightmomenttoaddressanissuedidnotmeanthatitdidnotgetaddressed.Ratheritwasaddressedmoreeffectively,whenneitherfostercarerorchild’semotionsandanxietieswerenotoverlyheightened.Thisapproachwasidentifiedasbeingparticulareffectiveforchildrenwhostruggledtoexpresstheiremotionsandtendedtocommunicateinaconfrontationalway.Theinterviewparticipants,includingsomefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplealike,reportedthatthisapproach,coupledwithagreaterawarenessofinterpersonalcommunication,createdacalmer,morenurturingenvironment.Asonefostercarerremarked:

“Before[Head,Heart,Hands]Iwouldprobablyhaveargued,youknow,continuedthediscussionanditprobablywouldhaveblownoutofproportion.Youknowtherewouldhavebeenalotofupset.IthinknowIcanbemorecalmaboutit[now].Thenwecansortoutthesituationafterwardswhentheyareready”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Almostaquarterofthechildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewedalsonotedthatalessconfrontational,calmerapproachwasvaluable(n=8:23%),withanumbercommentingthattheyaregiventimetocalmdownwhenargumentsarise.Oneyoungpersonnoted:

“Becauseitissuchachilledenvironment,Ijustdidn’tgetasworkedup,doyouknowwhatImean?[...]Butthethingisifyou’rereally,reallyangry,andsomeoneisgiving

78

youzilchanger.Likenoemotion,theyaregivingyouemotionbutnotangeryoujust,Ihatetosay[itbut]yougetboredofbeingangry[...]Whatisthepoint?Andmostofthetimewhenyou’reshouting,nooneislisteningtoyou.ItwaskindoflikeaninstantchangeandIwasjustlike“oh,ifyoutalkhere,youactuallyaregoingtogetmoreofwhatyouwant”.(Youngpersoninterviewee).

Anothernoted:

“TheladyIwaswith[before],sometimes[shouted],butthatmakesyouwanttoshoutatthem,whichIdid.But,here,[…]they’recalmtoyou,soyoutalktothemcalmly,andyouthinkaboutwhatyou’resaying.Whereaswhenyou’reshouting,youdon’tthinkaboutit,youjustsaywhatever’sinyourhead.[…]IlookuptothemandIseehowtheyactwhenthingsarewrong,orwhensomethinghappens.[…]Itakeitfromthem,howtheytalktome,andhowItalktothem.[...]Iftheyorder[sometakeaway]anditdoesn’tcome,howtheyact,insteadofshoutingatthem,theytalktothemcalmlyandtheystatethefacts.[Before]Iwouldhavehadagoatthem,andshoutedatthem.[...]ButI’verealisedthatthatisn’tthewaytodoit,becausethentheywon’tbe,onyourside,ifyou’reshoutingatthem.Whereas,ifyou’reclamandyoutellthemthefacts,theywillbe[morehelpful]”.(Youngpersoninterviewee).

79

Box19:Casestudyofamorereflectiveapproachtoconflict

FostercarerconfidenceAthirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheprovisionofatheoreticalframeworkthroughHead,Heart,Handsvalidatedtheirexistingapproachtocare,givingthemmoreconfidencethattheircurrentpracticewasalongtherighttracks(n=19:33%).ItwasalsoreportedthatthecommonlanguagepromptedthroughHead,Heart,Handsenabledsomeoftheparticipatingfostercarerstoarticulatetheirpractice(n=13:22%).Theresultwasaproportionoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewhofeltmoreassuredintheirownskills,andthereforemoreconfidentliaisingwithchildren’ssocialcarestaffandadvocatingforthechild(seeChapter7below).Inessence,thedevelopmentofaconceptualframeworkandbeingmoreabletodescribethehowandwhyofthingstheywerealreadydoing,createdamoreprofessionalandconfidentperceptionofselfamongthesefostercarers.Asmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationalsoreportedthat

Alisha,JenniferandMichaelJenniferandMichaelhasbeenfosteringforaboutayearbeforetheyattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Michaeldescribedhowtheemphasisonreflectionhelpedhimtofeelmuchmoreconfidentandcalmsincebeingpartoftheprogramme.Hesaidthat:

“Ican’tsaythatIwaseversomebodywhohasneverlosthistemper,butmytemperismuchmoreevenbecauseIlookatthingsinadifferentway,inamorebalancedwayandItakemytimetothinkaboutthingsmoreandreflectonthings.Ithinkthatgivesyouchancetonotreactinstantlyandangrilytothings.Andthatmakeslifebetterformyself,andmywife,aswellasfor[Alisha].”

AlishahadbeenlivingwithJenniferandMichaelforaboutthreeyearswhenwespoketoher.Shewas17andhadbeenincaresinceshewas11.Alishadescribedhowshehadstruggledtocontrolheremotionsinthepast.WhenshefirstmovedinwithJenniferandMichaelshehadlosthertemperseveraltimes,andwhilstshewasneverviolenttothem,haddamagedsomeoftheirpossessions.ShedescribedhowthecalmerapproachMichaeldescribedhadhelpedher:

“IwasnaughtyfromthefirsttimeIwentintocare.ButthenitjustgotworseandworseandwhenIgotheretheseguyshelpedmeandwithalltheirtrainingtheyhavehad,[…]Theydealwiththingsdifferentlytomostfostercarers,theyreallydoandtheyhavehelpedmesomuch.IthasmademeintowhoIamtoday.ButIamnotanythinglikethat,whatIwasbefore.[...]Insteadofgettingangryorshoutingoryouknowgettingworriedorshowingthattheywereangryorupsetwithwhatwasgoingon,theywouldjustbecalmandtalktomecalmly.Asmuchastheywereangryinside,orsomething,theywouldjusttalktomecalmly[…]NomatterwhatIwasdoing,IcouldbeahorriblepersonandtheywouldstilltalktomecalmlyandstuffandIthinkthatistheapproachthatyoushoulddo,[…]notloseyourtemperbecausethatjustragesmetobehonest.Ifsomeoneislosingtheirtemperwithmethenitjustgetsworseandworse.SoifsomeonekeepscalmtheneventuallyIjustcalmdown.”

80

involvementwithHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeactivities,suchaspresentingatconferencesandfacilitationofsubsequentsocialpedagogytraining,alsoincreasedtheirself-confidence.ThefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadincreasedtheirconfidence.Almosttwothirds(n=30:63.8%)ofthesurveyrespondentsreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadresultedin“agreatdealofchange”intheirconfidencelevels.Inaddition,aroundathirdofthoserespondentswhocommentedonthebestormostimpactfulthingabouttheprogrammecitedanincreaseinconfidence(n=14:33%),eitherintheirownskillsasafostercarersuchasthisrespondentwhostatedtheywere“feelingmoreconfidentaboutmyfosteringability”orintheextenttowhichthesitevaluedtheircontributiontothecareofthechild.Asonerespondentnoted:“Ithasgivenustheself-esteemtobeonthe'samefooting'astheotherprofessionals”.Similarly,halfofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedreportedthattheirconfidencehadincreasedinsomewayduringtheprogramme.Thisthemewaspickedupbythechildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewed,threeofwhomnotedthattheircarersseemedtoincreaseinconfidencefollowingtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Asoneyoungpersonnoted:

“[Myfostercarerhas]gotmoreconfidentwithdoingsomestuff.[Hehassaid]“Hangon,right,Icandothis”(...),“let’sdoanotherthingfrommytraining”,seeifthatworksaswell”.(Youngpersoninterviewee).

Thedatapresentedherearepromisingregardingtheextenttowhichtheprogrammehadpositivelyimpactedthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluation.ThedatasuggestthatalargeproportionofthefostercarerswhotookpartinaninterviewwereabletoidentifyatleastonesmallchangethattheyhadmadetoenhancetheirpracticeasaresultofHead,Heart,Hands.Primarilythesechangeswereassociatedwithhowthefostercarersthinkabouttheirpractice,ratherthantheirbehaviours.However,readersmaybenefitfromexercisingsomecautionininterpretingtheresults,giventhemethodologicalconsiderationsandlimitationsoutlinedinChapter3.

81

Box20:Summaryofkeyfindings:TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsoffostercarers

• ThemajorityoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereabletoidentifyatleastonewayinwhichHead,Heart,Handshadinfluencedthemasfostercarers(n=54:95%).Itisencouragingtonotethatonlythreeoutofthe57fostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadnotimpactedontheirpracticeinanyway.Likewise,whenaskedwhatthebestthingaboutHead,Heart,Handswas,justunderhalfoftheWave3fostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheprogrammehadhadapositiveinfluenceontheirpractice(n=21:49%).Thesefindingsarecorroboratedbythecasefileanalysis,whichidentifiedatleastonewayinwhichthefostercarerswerepractisingsocialpedagogicallyinaroundhalfofthehouseholdsincludedinthecasefileanalysis(n=74:47%).

• TheviewthatthetheoreticalapproachesexploredthroughHead,Heart,Handsprovidedaframeworkthroughwhichtoarticulateexistingknowledgeaboutgoodpracticewascommonlycitedamongthefostercarersinterview.Thesefostercarersnotedthatalthoughtheymaynothavedramaticallychangedwhattheyweredoingwiththechildrenandyoungpeopleonadaytodaybasis,theyweremorethoughtfulandintentionalintheiractions.

• AthirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheprovisionofatheoreticalframeworkthroughHead,Heart,Handsvalidatedtheirexistingapproachtocare,givingthemmoreconfidencethattheircurrentpracticewasalongtherighttracks(n=19:33%).ItwasalsoreportedthatthecommonlanguagepromptedthroughHead,Heart,Handsenabledsomeoftheparticipatingfostercarerstoarticulatetheirpractice(n=13:22%).Theresultwasaproportionoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewhofeltmoreassuredintheirownskills,andthereforemoreconfidentliaisingwithchildren’ssocialcarestaffandadvocatingforthechild.

• Aroundafifthofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthattheprogrammeenabledthemtoreflectontheinfluencethattheirpersonalandprivateexperienceshadontheirownfostering(andparenting)(n=11:19%).Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedreflectionhadreducedprolongedperiodsofstress,throughprovidingframeworksbywhichtheycouldcriticallyassesschallengingperiods,totakeaccountofpersonalfeelingsofguilt,whilenotbeingdictatedtobythem.

• AlmosthalfofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthatmeetingotherfostercarersanddevelopingsupportivepeernetworkstoshareideaswasthebestthingabouttheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(n=20:47%).Similarly,almostaquarterofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthataspectsoftheprogrammedesignhadenabledthemtodevelopsupportiverelationshipswithotherfostercarers(n=14:24%).

• AsmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadresultedinagreaterawarenessofcommunicationbeingatwowayprocesswherebyonepartycommunicatessomethingandanotherpartyinterpretsit(n=9:16%).

• Seventypercentofthesurveyrespondents(n=33)reportedthattherehadbeena“greatdealofpositivechange”inthewaythattheydealtwithconflictordifficultsituations.NearlyhalfofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses,theyhadbecomemuchlessquicktoreacttocircumstancesastheyarose(n=26:46%).Anumberofchildrenandyoungpeopleinthesamplealsodescribedthepositiveimpactthatacalmer,lessreactiveapproachhadontheirrelationshipswiththeirfostercarersandtheirownbehaviours.

• Thehighlypositiveperspectiveofthoseweinterviewedmayreflecttheparticularnatureofthesample.Moreover,whileonlythreefostercarerscouldnotidentifyanychangesinpracticesincethecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands,otherswerereticenttostatethatanychangesintheirpracticeweresolelydowntotheprogramme(n=9:16%)andreportedthatitwasdifficulttoseparatethechangesinapproachfromothercontributingfactorssuchasbecomingmoreconfidentandexperiencedinfosteringgenerally,orthattheyhadsimplygottoknowthechildrenandyoungpeoplebetteroverthecourseoftheevaluationtimeframe.

82

7.TherelationshipbetweenHead,Heart,Handsandthewidersystem

Fostercarersdonotcareforchildrenandyoungpeopleinavacuum.Thefosteringhouseholdispartofawidernetworkofrelationshipswhichincludechildren’ssocialcareprofessionals,teachers,healthprofessionalsandotheradultsworkingtosupportthem.Thesenetworksoperatewithinwiderlocalorganisationalcontextsandnationallegislativeandregulatorystructures.ThisiswhatGhatereferstoastheinvisibleinfrastructure’thatsurroundsanyprogrammeorintervention(2015:4).OneoftheaimsofHead,Heart,Handsistoinformthatinfrastructure.AsnotedinBox1,oneoftheobjectivesofHead,Heart,Handswas“toimplementsystemicchangeandaculturalshiftwhichwillsupportsocialpedagogicpracticeandrecognisethecentralroleoffostercarersinshapingthelivesofchildrenwithintheircare”.Inthisway,thewidersystemcouldbeconsideredakey“recipient”oftheprogramme.However,likeanynewintervention,theextenttowhichthatcontextwillfacilitateorinhibittheadoptionoftheapproachisofkeyimportance(Ghate,2015).Anumberofstudieshavesuggestedthattheextenttowhichsocialpedagogicpracticescanembedintodifferentcontextshasbeenaffectedbythecultureofchildwelfaresystems(Lorenz,2008;Stephens,2009;Berridgeetal.,2011;EichstellerandHolthoff,2012),regulatoryframeworks(Bengtssonetal.,2008,Berridgeetal.,2011),alongwithperceivedandactualcommitmenttotheapproachacrossthewholeorganisation(Berridgeetal.,2011;CameronandMoss,2011;EichstellerandHolthoff,2012).Bycontrast,manyauthorshavehighlightedthe“impossibilityofisolating”socialpedagogyfromitscontext(Cousséeetal.,2010:797,seealsoLorenz,2008;Stephens,2009).Othersgofurtherandarguethatsocialpedagogyseekstoinfluencesociety,ratherthanjustbeinginfluencedbysocietalcontexts(Sünker,2006).Therefore,inadditiontodemocratisingrelationshipsbetweenindividuals,socialpedagogyseekstodemocratisesocietyitself.Thusexistsacomplexinterplaybetweentheextenttowhichsocialpedagogicpracticesimpactthesystem,orareimpactedbythesystem.Theextenttowhichthewidersystemmightbereceptiveto,andinfluencedby,Head,Heart,Handswasakeyissueofconcernforparticipantsthroughouttheevaluation.Duringpreviousevaluationtimepoints,participatingfostercarersreportedthattheextenttowhichthewidersystemwasreceptivetosocialpedagogywasidentifiedasthebiggestbarriertotheprogrammehavingthemaximumimpact.Similarconcernswerebeenraisedduringthefinalevaluationtimepoint.Somefostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthatwhiletheyhadcontinuedtoembedsocialpedagogicapproachesintotheirownpractice,theextentoftheimpacthadbeeninhibitedbythewidersystemscontext.Asnotedabovetenfostercarersintheinterviewsample(n=10:13%)becamelessenthusiasticabouttheapproachasaresultofdisappointingexperiencesinhowtheprogrammehadbeenimplemented.Morepromisingly,thereissomeevidencefromtheWave3datacollectiontosuggestthatotherparticipatingfostercarersweremoreoptimisticabouttheimpactthatHead,Heart,Handshashadontheirowninteractionswithpartsofthewidersystem,mostnotablywithsupervisingsocialworkers.TherelationshipbetweenHead,Heart,Handsandthesystemscontextfromtheperspectiveoftheimplementationoftheprogrammehasbeencoveredindepthelsewhere(GhateandMcDermid,2016).ThissectionwillexplorethemixedpictureidentifiedinWave3oftherelationshipbetween

83

Head,Heart,Handsandthewidersystemfromtheperspectiveofthefostercarers,childrenandyoungpeopleandthefrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhosupportthem.RelationshipswithsupervisingsocialworkersInadditiontotheirstatutoryfunction,supervisingsocialworkersplayasignificantroleinthesupportoffostercarers,andbyimplication,thechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.Theprovisionofeffectivesupportandguidance,includingregularinteractionswithsupervisingsocialworkers,consistentlyemergesasakeyfactorintheretentionoffostercarers(McDermidetal.,2012).Thefostercarersinterviewedpaintedavariedpictureofrelationshipswithsupervisingsocialworkers.Themajorityofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewwhodiscussedthisrelationshipreportedfeelingwellsupportedgenerally(n=13:60%),whileothersreportedthatthesupportwasinsufficient(n=9:40%).Workerswhocontactedfostercarersinfrequently,wereunavailableattimesofcrisis,alongwithfrequentchangesofsocialworkerresultedinthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplefeelingunsupported,isolatedandunvalued.TwofifthsoffostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviewsduringWave3(n=25:43%)reportedthattheirrelationshipwithsupervisingsocialworkershadimprovedsinceHead,Heart,Hands,includingthreewhoreportedthattherelationshiphadbeenchallengingatthestartoftheprogramme.Twothirdsofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerhadimproved“agreatdeal”sinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses(n=31:66%,meanchangescore7.420).OnesurveyrespondentreportedthatthebestthingaboutHead,Heart,Handswasthe“improvedrelationshipswithotherprofessionals”andanothercommentedthatsinceparticipatinginHead,Heart,Hands“Thereisnousandthem.Weareequal”.Similarly,participatingfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromallofthesitesreportedthattheprogrammehadpositivelyimpactedtheirrelationshipwithfostercarersinsomeway.Somesupervisingsocialworkersreportedthattheprogrammehadreinforcedtheimportanceoftheirrelationshipswiththefostercarerstheysupportandhadmadethemmoreattunedtoensuringthoserelationshipswerefunctioningwell.Asonesupervisingsocialworkernoted:

“WhatI’velearned[throughHead,Heart,Hands]hasbeenvalidatingandquitefreeing,inaway.Tohaveanapproachthatjustifiesyouinvestingtimeintorelationships.There’sajustificationthereforinvestingyourresourcesinsomethingthatisnotgoingtobeseenbycourt,orpickeduponaninspection.It’saboutyourpracticeandnotyourpaperwork.Weallcomeintothejobtodothepracticeandnotthepaperworkandit’snicetohaveanapproachthatreallyvaluesthat.”(Children’ssocialcarestafffocusgroupattendee).

ParticipatingfostercarersandsocialworkersalikereportedthatthedeliveryoftheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestofostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaffsimultaneouslyhadhadapositiveimpactonrelationshipsoverall,andinparticularwherefostercarershadcompletedthetrainingwiththeirsupervisingsocialworker.Almostathirdofthefostercarersurveyrespondents(n=13:30%)notedthatthejointtrainingapproachprovidedthemwithopportunitiestogettoknow

20Whereascoreof10-8=agreatdealofchange,7-5=somechangeand4orless=littleornochange.

84

children’ssocialcarestaffandasaresultfeelmorepartoftheteamaroundthechild.AsmallnumberfostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviewsduringWave3reportedthatHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourseshadgiventhemgreaterinsightintochildren’ssocialcarestaffmembers’perspectivesandtheparticularstressesandconstraintstheywereunder(n=7:12%).Forsomeoftheparticipatingfostercarersitwasimportanttoberemindedthat,despitedifferencesinopinionandapproach,fostercarersandsocialworkerssharedthegoalofworkingforthebestinterestofthechild.Participatingsupervisingsocialworkersfromonesiteinparticular(Orange)notedthattheprincipleofequalityinrelationshipswasreinforcedbythefactthatthetrainingwasdeliveredtobothfostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaff.Onesocialworkerfromthissitecommented:

“Thegreatthingwithpedagogyisthatitpromotesrelationshipsnotjustbetweencarersandthechildrenbutwitheveryone.Itisallencompassing.Sotoget[fostercarers]involvedfromtheverybeginningatthesamelevelwithus,wewerealreadybreakingdownthosebarriers,thatsenseofinequalityifyoulike.Itwasinvaluable”(Children’ssocialcarestafffocusgroupattendee).

Thegeneralviewacrossevaluationparticipantswasthattheco-learningapproachadoptedbytheprogrammedesignwasakeyfactorinenhancingtherelationshipsbetweenparticipatingfostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkers.Wherethiswasworkingwell,theresultwasthateachunderstoodtheothermoreclearly,andcreatingmoreequitableandeffectiveworkingrelationshipsasthisfostercarerdescribed:

“Socialworkershaveopinionsoffostercarersandfostercarershaveanopinionofthesocialworkers,andjustbybringingthemtogetherinagroupwhereyou’relearningthesamethingatthesametime,foreverybodyatthesortofsamelevel,[…]Itjustmadeusworkbetterasateam,becausewhatwewereessentiallydoingwasputtingthechildfirst,youknow?Soitwaskindoflike,well,weallwantthebestforthechild,let’sseewhatwecando,tochange,like,ourpractices,tosupportthechild.“(Fostercarerinterviewee).

ForanumberoffostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handsfacilitatedasharedapproachandasharedlanguagebetweenfostercarersandthesocialworkerwhosupportsthem.Asmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterview(n=4),andsupervisingsocialworkersfromfourofthesitesreportedthattheyhadstartedtousesomeHead,Heart,Handsmodels,suchastheThreePsandtheFourFsintheirsupervision.Inparticular,children’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromfourofthesitescommentedthat,intheirview,theuseofasharedlanguagenotonlyraisedthestatusoffostercarers,butallowedsupervisingsocialworkersandthefostercarerstheysupporttoworkmoreeffectivelyasateam.Likewise,asmallnumberofcasefiles(n=12)recordedthattheyhadstartedtousesomeHead,Heart,Handsmodelsintheirsupervisionorannualreviewmeetings.ImprovedrelationshipsbetweenfostercarersandtheirsupervisingsocialworkersweremostprominentwherebothpartieshadattendedtheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestogether,andweresupportiveoftheapproach.Theconversewasalsoevidentfromthedata.Fourfostercarers

85

whotookpartintheevaluationatWave3reportedthattheirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerremainedunchanged,andforothers,frustrationsarisewheresupervisingsocialworkerscontinuedtobeunengagedintheprogramme(n=8:14%).Indeed,diffusionofsocialpedagogyacrossthesitehadbeenhighlightedinpreviousevaluationreportsasakeychallengefortheimplementationoftheprogramme(GhateandMcDermid,2016).AsmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationatWave3,echoedthesesentiments,andraisedconcernsregardingthenumberofsupervisingsocialworkerswhohadengagedwiththeprogramme.ThesefostercarerswereoftheperspectivethatthenumberoffosteringhouseholdswhomightbeimpactedbysocialpedagogywouldbelimitedwheretheproportionofsupervisingsocialworkersattendingtheLearningandDevelopmentcourseswassmall.Thesefostercarersreportedthatincreasingopportunitiesforsupervisingsocialworkerstoattendsocialpedagogytrainingwouldbeofgreatbenefit.Frontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromallofthesitesechoedtheviewsoffostercarersandnotedthatideallymoresupervisingsocialworkersshouldhaveaccessedtheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestoensuregreatercongruencebetweentheapproachusedbythefostercarersandthesupervisingsocialworkers.FrontlinestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationatWave3inonesiteinparticularraisedconcernsregardingtheextenttowhichtheywereabletofullysupportthefostercarerswhohadengagedwiththeprogramme,whentheirownknowledgeofsocialpedagogywaslimited.Children’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromfivesitesnotedthatalthoughtheywouldhavelikedtohaveattendedmoreoftheHeart,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses,workloadandtimeconstraintsmeantthatthiswasnotalwayspossible.Sitesmaybenefitfromexploringhowmoresupervisingsocialworkersmighthaveaccesstosocialpedagogylearninganddevelopment.Inthefirstinstance,targetingthesocialworkerswhoareallocatedtofostercarerswhohavealreadyadoptedtheapproachmaybeofparticularadvantage.TheOrangesiteintroducedadditionalsocialpedagogytraining,whichsupervisingsocialworkerswillberequiredtoattend.Moreover,thistrainingwasbeingco-facilitatedbyfostercarers,whoreportedthat,notonlydidthisapproachenhancetheirownconfidenceandunderstandingofsocialpedagogy,butcreatedamoreequalrelationshipbetweenfostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaff.Thisapproachwasviewedextremelypositivelybythefostercarersfromthissite,reassuringthemthatthefosteringservicewascommittedtotheapproachbeyondthelifeoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.RelationshipswiththewiderfosteringserviceLikesupportfromsupervisingsocialworkers,theextenttowhichfostercarersfeelrespected,listenedtoandvaluedbytheirfosteringservicehasbeenassociatedwithretention(McDermidetal.,2012).ElevenofthefostercarerswhotookpartininterviewsatWave3reportedthattheybelievedthattheirstatusamongprofessionalshadimprovedsinceHead,Heart,Hands,includingtwoofthosewhohadfeltundervaluedbytheirservicepreviously.Thedevelopmentofmoreopenequitablerelationshipswithsupervisingsocialworkersnotedaboveappeartohaveinfluencedtheextenttowhichfostercarersintheinterviewsamplefeltrespectedbytheirserviceasawhole.Thosefostercarerswhofeltmorevaluedbytheirfosteringserviceweremorelikelytoreportthattheirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerhadimproved.However,otherfostercarersintheinterviewsampleexpresseddisappointmentattheextenttowhichHead,Heart,Handsraised

86

thestatusoffostercarersintheirview,despiteassurancesthatthiswasoneoftheaimsoftheprogramme.Onecommented:

“IgotoLookedafterreview,Isitthere,I'mworkingwithwhateverchilditis.[...]24/7.IgointhereandIsay,'WellthisiswhatIthinkisbestfor[thechild]”.Thesocialworkerswillsay,“No,thisiswhatwethink”.Itdoesn'tmatterbecausethey'vegotthedegreeorwhatever.[…]Asafostercarerwearejustaccommodation.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Otherfostercarerswhowereinterviewedexpressedconcernsthatwhiletheirownworkerwassupportivetotheapproach,otherchildren’ssocialcarestaff,thewiderservicecontextandthepoliciesofthefosteringservicewerenotbeasreceptive.Thelackofcongruenceofapproachwasparticularlyacutewhenfostercarersexperiencedchallengingperiodssuchasinthecaseofallegationsorplacementdisruptions.ThreefostercarersreportedthattheyhadexperienceddifficultieswiththeirplacementsandhadfoundthewaythattheservicehadaddressedthosedifficultieshadbeenatoddswithwhattheyhadlearntthroughHead,Heart,Hands.Thisaddedtoalreadyfrustratingandchallengingexperiencesforthefostercarers.Similarly,frontlinestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromtwositesalsoexpressedconcernsregardingtheextenttowhichlocalsystemswereconsistentwithsocialpedagogicprinciples.ThesesupervisingsocialworkerswhoparticipatedduringWave3notedthatthetendencytowardsaccountabilityandbureaucracywithinlocalauthorities,andthestatutoryroleasasupervisingsocialworkerattimesappearedtobeatoddswiththemoreflexibleandcreativeapproachesadvocatedbysocialpedagogy.Thefindingsregardingtheinconsistencyofapproachacrosstheteamaroundthechildidentifiedbytheevaluationparticipantsisperhapsunsurprisinggiventhelimitedreachoftheprogrammeatasystemlevelidentifiedbytheimplementationevaluation21.Despitetheconcernsraisedbysomeevaluationparticipants,aspectsoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammedesignappeartohaveprovidedopportunitiesfordialoguebetweensomeofthefostercarerswhotookpartintheevaluationandrepresentativesofthefosteringservice,includingsocialworkersandteammanagers.Asmallnumberoffostercarersreportedthatpoliciesandproceduresimplementedbythefosteringservicewerenotchildcentredenough,andmoreimportantly,didnotreflectsocialpedagogicprinciples(n=5:8%).Fostercarerparticipantsfromtwoofthesites(BlueandOrange,n=3)reportedthattheyhadbeeninvolvedinthereviewofpolicyandprocedures,includingfostercarersupervisionpaperwork,tointroduceasocialpedagogiclenstokeyoperationalaspectsofthefosteringservice.Theyreportedthattheirinvolvementinthisprocesshadnotonlyreassuredthemthattheservicewascommittedtosocialpedagogymorebroadly,buthadenabledthemtoinfluencetheseoperationalaspects,makingthemfeellikevaluedmembersoftheteam.Likewise,asmallnumberoffostercarersinterviewedfromtheOrangeSitewereoftheviewthattheattendanceofteammanagersatHead,Heart,Handsevents,helpedthemtodeveloprelationshipsbetweenfostercarersandmoreseniorrepresentativesoftheservice.Theresultwastobreakdown21Theimpactoftheprogrammeatasystemlevel,includingthediffusionof,andcommitmenttosocialpedagogyacrossthesite,isexploredatlengthinGhateandMcDermid,2016andcanbefoundhttp://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf);

87

someofthe(perceived)barriersandcreatedalessersenseofusandthem.Whilethenumberoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewhoreportedthiswassmall(n=5:8%),theimpactontheirviewsontheextenttowhichtheservicewascommittedtosocialpedagogywasprofound.Itmaybeadvantageousforfosteringservicesexploringsocialpedagogytodevelopmechanismsthroughwhichfostercarerscanbeinvolvedinthemoresystemicaspectsoftheprogramme.Almostathirdoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthattheyfeltmoreconfidentvoicingtheirviewsandadvocatingforthechild(n=17:30%).Theyreportedthatthiswasinpartaconsequenceofincreasedconfidenceintheirskillsasfostercarersmoregenerally(asnotedabove)andinpartaconsequenceofarenewedsenseoftherightsofthechildbeingparamount.Asonefostercarerdescribed:

“Wehadasituationwherewehadasocialworkerfor[fosterson].Socialworkercamein,andshewasveryriskaverse,[..]AndIwasabletousethelanguagethatIhad[learntonHead,Heart,Hands],andI(was)abletousetheknowledgeforthat,tobeabletoexplaintoherwhythatwasn’tin[fosterson]’sbestinterest”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Anotherexplained:“Because[socialpedagogy]givesyouthingstoreflecton,youknow,whereas,youjustdidit,youdidn’treallyknowifitwasworkingornot,itjusthelpsme,it’sgivenmemoreconfidencewhenI’mworkingwithotherprofessionals”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

ThewiderteamaroundthechildFosteredchildrenarepartofawidernetworkofsupportthatincludesthefostercarer,theirsupervisingsocialworkerandtheirownsocialworker,alongwithamyriadofotherprofessionalswhomaybeinvolvedinthecase.OurpreviousevaluationreportshavehighlightedtheneedforthediffusionofHead,Heart,Handstoextendbeyondacoregroupoffostercarers,andtheirfosteringservice(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Overathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatawarenessandpracticeofsocialpedagogyamongsomechildren’ssocialcarestaff,andthosefromotheragencieswaspatchyatbest(n=21:37%).Adoptionandpermanencesocialworkers,educationandhealthprofessionalswereallmentionedbyfostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationatWave3asbeingkeytothecareofchildrenandyoungpeople,andthereforekeypotentialrecipientsofsocialpedagogytraining.Ofparticularnote,however,werechildren’ssocialworkers,whowerecharacterisedbysomeofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewasunengagedwiththeprogrammeandunsupportiveofsocialpedagogicapproaches.Thiswasthecaseacrossthewholesample,includingfostercarersfromlocalauthorityandindependentfosteringservices.Onlyonefostercarerwhowasinterviewedreportedthattheirchild’ssocialworkerwassupportiveoftheapproach.Analysisofthefostercarersurveysuggeststhatfostercarers’relationshipswiththeirchildren’ssocialworkerweretheleastaffectedbytheprogramme,witharoundathird(n=14)statingthattherehavebeen“littleornochange”inthatrelationshipsincethecommencementoftheprogramme.

88

Ofthe18fostercarersurveyrespondentswhoidentifiedsomethingtheywouldliketochangeaboutHead,Heart,Handsoverhalfreportedthattheywouldlikemorepeopletoundertakethetraining(n=10:56%),sixofthosereportedthatmoresocialworkersshouldbetrainedinsocialpedagogy.Onerespondentnotedthat

“Iwouldliketoseemoresocialworkersandcareteammanagersattendingthecourseinitsentirety,ratherthandroppinginandout.Ifeltdisappointedthatthesocialpedagogycoursesessionswerenotprioritisedforthem,[…]Itseemedtomethatthiscreatedahierarchicalstructure,becausefostercarershadprioritisedthecourse,whereasSocialWorkersandCareManagerswereperceivedtohavemoreimportantworkelsewhere”.(Fostercarersurveyrespondent).

AthirdoffostercarerswhotookpartinaninterviewatWave3highlightedtheneedfortrainingtobeprovidedacrosstheteamaroundthechild.Asmallnumberoffostercarersintheinterviewsample(n=3:5%)reportedthatthehighworkloadthatmanychildren’ssocialcarestaffhadpreventedthemfromprioritisingsocialpedagogyLearningandDevelopmentactivities,eveniftheywantedto.AsnotedinChapter3,thecasefileanalysisprovidedanexplorationofwhatisrecordedinrelationtosocialpedagogy,inadditiontoenablingacontextualandlongitudinalperspectiveoffosteringhouseholds.Inviewofthis,giventhatcasefilesarepredominantlycompletedbysocialcarestaff,ananalysisoftheextenttowhichsocialpedagogyandHead,Heart,HandswasmentionedexplicitlyincaserecordingprovidedanotherviewontheextenttowhichthosestaffhaveengagedwithandassimilatedHead,Heart,Hands.Thecasefileswerereviewedforexplicitmentionsof“Head,Heart,Hands”,“socialpedagogy”and“SocialPedagogue",alongwiththenamesoftheindividualSocialPedagoguesineachofthesitesfromwhichcasefiledatawerecollected.TherewerefewdirectmentionsofthetermHead,Heart,Handsorsocialpedagogyinthecasefiles(n=46:30%).TheOrangesitewasanexception,wherethisterminologywasusedinasmallnumberoffostercarerprofilestostructureinformationaboutthecarers(thiswasasadirectresultofparticipationintheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme).However,whenthecasefileswereexaminedforreferencestothespecificcorefeaturesoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(suchasattendanceattheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,momentumgroupsoractivitydays)morerecordingwasevident.Table5summarisesthenumberofspecificreferencestoHead,Heart,Handsbysite.Insomesites(BlueandGreen)therewasahigherproportionofrecordingobservedincontrasttothePurplesitewhereverylimitedreferencestoHead,Heart,Handswerefound.However,asnotedabove,thereweremorereferencestospecificmodelsandtoolswithinindividualcasefiles.TheimplicationsofthisareexploredfurtherinChapter11.

89

Table5SpecificmentionsofHead,Heart,Handsincasefiles,bysite

Site ExplicitreferencetoHead,Heart,Handsactivitiesincasefiles

Blue 17(68%)

Green 8(53%)

Orange 8(21%)

Purple 0(0%)

Yellow 13(32%)

Total 46(of157)fosteringhouseholds(29%)

Thetwositesinwhichthehighestnumbersofmentionsofsocialpedagogywereidentified(BlueandGreen),werethetwosmallestsitesincludedinthecasefileanalysis.AsexploredinGhateandMcDermid(2016)smallersitesmight(butnotnecessarily)facilitategreaterdiffusionoftheprogrammeacrossawiderstaffgroup.Therefore,greaterexposuretotheprogrammemaybeafeatureinthesesites.Therelativelysmallnumbersofexplicitreferencestotheprogrammeinthecasefilesissomewhatdisappointing.AsnotedinChapter3otherfactorsmayinfluencethewayinwhichHead,Heart,Handswasreferencedinthecasefiles.Therefore,somecautioniswarrantedwhengeneralisingthesefindingsiftakeninisolation.Nevertheless,thecasefileanalysiscorroboratesthefindingselsewhereintheevaluation,includingtheinterviewsandsurveywithfostercarersandmostsignificantlytheimplementationevaluation,thatthediffusionoftheprogrammeacrossthewiderteamaroundthechildwaslessthanoptimal.Itispossiblethatthereportedlackofengagementfromsomechildren’ssocialcarestaffwasaconsequenceoftheprogrammedesign,whichlimitedthenumberofplacesavailabletostaffattheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses.AppendixEoutlinesthenumberofattendeesattheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursesbysite.Arelativelysmallnumberofchildren’ssocialcarestaffattendedtheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses:33(whowerenotsupervisingsocialworkers)intotal,andafurther298attendedthetwodayOrientationcourseacrossallsevensites.Thiswascompoundedbythehighturnoverofchildren’ssocialworkers.Threechildrenandyoungpeoplereportedthattheyhadfrequentchangesofsocialworkers,withonereportingthatshecouldnotrememberthenameofhercurrentworkerbecausetheychangedsofrequently.Indeed,theimpactoffrequentchangesinsocialworkersontheoutcomesofchildrenincarehasbeendocumentedelsewhere.Researchhasfoundacorrelationbetweenthepositiveorganisationalcultureandlowerstaffturnover,andimprovedqualityofserviceandoutcomesforserviceusers(Hemmelgarnetal.,2006).Moreover,frequentchangesofsocialworkerhindertheprocessofrelationshipformationbetweenchildrenandyoungpeopleandthesocialworkerswhosupportthem(Morgan,2006;Leeson,2007;McLeod,2007).Neverthelessthelackofawarenessofandsympathyforsocialpedagogicpracticewasasourceofparticularfrustrationforalargenumberoffostercarerswhotookpartintheevaluation.Theyraisedconcernsregardingthepotentialfor,andincidencesof,inconsistenciesofapproachacrosstheteamaroundthechild.

90

OneareaofparticularfrustrationidentifiedbyaproportionofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3wastheapplicationofamorerisksensibleapproach.Asnotedabove,asmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=7:12%)reportedthatsinceHead,Heart,Hands,theyweremorelikelytoallowthechildrenandyoungpeopletoparticipateinactivitiesthattheypreviouslywouldnothaveallowedthemtodo.However,children’ssocialworkerswerecharacterisedbyasmallnumberofevaluationparticipantsasbeingmoreriskaverse(n=4).Theresultwasthatactivitiesanddecisionsmadebythesefostercarerswiththeirchildrenandyoungpeople,wereover-ruledbytheirsocialworker.Inoneexample,ayoungpersonhadbeenattendingaparticularsportsactivity,whichthefostercarerhadreportedtobeextremelybeneficial.Itwasreportedthathewasincreasinginconfidence,meetingotherchildrenandtakingpartinsomethingheenjoyed.Bothfostercarerandyoungpersonrecalledhowhischildren’ssocialworkerhadrequestedthatheceasedattendingtheactivityfollowinganinjury.Thisfrustratedthefostercarerwhoreportedthatinjurieswerea‘normal’riskforchildrenwhoparticipateinsports.Removingthechildfromtheactivityfurthermarkedhimoutasdifferentfromhispeers.Whiletheseexampleswerefoundamongasmallproportionoftheoverallsample,thefostercarersinvolvedexpressedagreatdealoffrustration.Theyreportedthat,intheirview,thedecisionsmadebythechildren’ssocialworkersunderminedtheprinciplestheyhadlearntonHead,Heart,Hands.Theexampleshavenotbeenprovidedheretoconcludewhetherthechildren’ssocialworkermadethecorrectdecisionornot.Rathertoemphasisetheextenttowhichaportionoftheparticipatingfostercarersbecamefrustratedatthelackofcongruenceinapproachacrosstheservice.Forinstance,onefostercarerwhotookpartinaninterviewreportedthatalackofcongruenceofapproachbetweenthewholeteamaroundthischildcreatedasenseofinstabilityandalackofconfidencethatshecouldfullyinvestintheapproach:

“So,holistically[…]Icancarryonmycare,inabubble,andIcandothislovelywork,but,atsomepoint,I’llbetold,“No,youcan’tdothat”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Whileitisnotuncommonfordifferencesofopinionorapproachtooccuracrossmembersoftheteamaroundthechild,sitesexploringtheintroductionofsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromensuringthatthesedifferencesdonotunderminetheapproachintheviewoffostercarers,leadingtothembecomingdisillusioned.Despiteconcernsraisedbyanumberofparticipatingfostercarersthatalowerthanoptimumnumberofchildren’ssocialcarestaffhadengagedwiththeprogramme,thefindingsofthesurveytochildren’ssocialcarestaffsuggestthataproportionofchildren’ssocialcarestaffwhohadengagedintheprogrammehadmadepositivechangestotheirpracticeasaresult.Thechildren’ssocialcarestaffsurveyrespondentswereaskediftheLearningandDevelopmentcourseshadpositivelyornegativelychangedtheirapproachtotheirwork.Respondentsindicatedonascaletheextentforthepositiveornegativeeffect;ascalefrom-5,“Extremelynegatively”to5,“Extremelypositively”.Ofthe20responses,overallthechangeexperiencedwaspositive(Mean=2.75,n=20),whichsuggestsamoderatelevelofpositivechangemadetotherespondentspractice.Thechildren’ssocialcarestaffsurveyrespondentswerealsoinvitedtoratethedegreeofpositiveornegativechangethathadoccurredsinceattendingtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,basedon10statements.Positivechangesinpracticewereidentifiedinthefollowingareas:theway

91

respondentsinteractwithchildrenandyoungpeople(M=2.2,n=31),andhowrespondentsthinkabouttheirjobrole(M=2.2,n=31).Theareasofleastperceivedpositiveaffectarehowrespondentsinteractwithbirthfamilies(M=1.6,n=31),andinteractionswithlinemanagers(M=1.5,n=31).However,cautionshouldbetakenwhengeneralisingthesefindings.Thechildren’ssocialcarestaffsurveyobtainedaresponserateof20%,anditispossiblethatonlythosechildren’ssocialcarestaffthatweremostengagedintheprogrammecompletedit.Sitesexploringintroducingsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromconsideringhowtoensurethatallstaffareawareofandsympathetictotheapproach.Flexiblelearninganddevelopmentopportunitiesmayfacilitatestaffwhoareunabletoattendalongertrainingcoursetoengagewiththeapproach.Independentfosteringservicesmaybenefitfromexploringhowchildren’ssocialworkersfromplacingfosteringservicesmayalsobeengagedinsocialpedagogicpractices,toensureacongruenceinapproachacrossallmembersoftheteamaroundthechild.TheorganisationalcontextAllnewinnovationsrequirethesystemcontexttobereceptiveiftheyaretobesuccessfullyestablished(Ghate,2015).WhilemanyfostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviewsduringWave3recognisedthattheirownfosteringserviceand/orindividualswithinitwerecommittedtosocialpedagogicpractices,athirdofthefostercarersinterviewedraisedconcernsregardingtheextenttowhichthewidercontextalignedwithsocialpedagogicapproaches(n=20:33%).BureaucracyandriskaversionwereidentifiedaspervadingfeaturesofthecurrentBritishsystemofChildren’ssocialcare(Berridgeetal.,2011;CameronandMoss,2011),featureswhichthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplethoughtmayhinderthepracticeofsocialpedagogy.OtherincongruencesbetweensocialpedagogyandthewidersystemidentifiedbythefostercarerswhotookpartinaninterviewatWave3includedthedominantlanguageofdeficitratherthanastrengthsbasedapproach,failuretoconsultwithchildrenandyoungpeopleandtimeandmonetaryconstraintsover-ridingchildcentric(orLifeworldOrientation)approaches.Onefostercarerintheinterviewsamplenotedthatthesystemwasrestrictivetosocialpedagogy,evenfortheSocialPedagogues,oneofwhomwashersupervisingsocialworker.ShereportedthatthetimespentwiththeSocialPedagoguewasdominatedbylogisticsand“management”ratherthanallowingsufficienttimeforreflectivesupervision.Thesefostercarersreportedthattheimpactofsocialpedagogypracticewouldbelimitedunlessgreatersynergiesbetweentheapproachandthewidersystemcouldbeachieved.Asonefostercarernoted:

“Ithink[Head,Heart,Hands]wasverygood,itwasveryfocusedonfostercarers,which,initselfwasgoodbecauseitgavefostercarersthefeelingthattheywerereallyvalued.[...]ButIthinkitneedsapackageofallsortsofthingsaroundit.Youknow,becausethere’snogoodjustdoingsocialpedagogytraining,butLACreviewsneedtobesetupinasociallypedagogicway.Reflectivesupervisionneedstobecarriedoutinasocialpedagogicway.Itneedstorunthroughasathreadthrougheverythingwedo,youknow.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Inmanywaystheparticipatingfostercarers’assertionthatsocialpedagogyshouldbediffusedacrossthewholesystemscontextisanindicatoroftheircommitmenttotheapproach.Asreported

92

above,somefostercarersintheinterviewsampleraisedpracticalchallengeswhenapproachesacrosstheteamaroundthechildandthesystemsupportingthemdonotalign.However,othersreportedthatwidersystemschangewasnecessarybecausesocialpedagogyprovidedanapproachtocaringforchildrenandyoungpeoplethatwasmorealignedtochildren’sneeds.Nevertheless,researchhasdemonstratedthateventheleastcomplexinnovationscantakeuptofouryearstoreachsustainedimplementation(Fixsenetal.,2005).Widersystemsandculturalchangeacrossasystemascomplexandvariedaschildren’ssocialcareislikelytotakeagreatdeallonger.Itisperhapsunsurprising,therefore,thatwholesystemschangehadnotbeenachievedinthetimeframeoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Toavoidfostercarersbecomingdisillusioned,sitesmaybenefitfrompresentingrealisticexpectationsofwhatmightbeachievedwithinanygivenprogrammetimeframe.Rather,astagedapproachtochangemaybemoreappropriate,wherebysitesexplore,identifyandtargetparticulararenasfortheirefforts.Asshownhere,thegreatestchangeappearstobewithsupervisingsocialworkersand,wherethesehavebeenidentified,theimpactsofthosechangeshavebeenprofoundforfostercarers.Sitesexploringintroducingsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromconcentratingtheireffortstoensuringbothsupervisingsocialworkersandchildren’ssocialworkersarealignedwiththeapproach.Thefindingsoftheevaluationsuggestthatthereremainsalongwaytogoregardingfostercarers’senseofequalitytotheirfosteringservice.However,thereissomeevidencetosuggestthattheinvolvementoffostercarersindecisionmakingaboutindividualcasesandwithregardtothewideroperationalaspectsoffostering,mayensurethattheyfeelmoreassuredbythesites’commitmenttosocialpedagogy.

93

Box21:Summaryofkeyfindings:Head,HeartHandsandthewidersystem

• TwofifthsoffostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviewsduringWave3(n=25:43%)reportedthattheirrelationshipwithsupervisingsocialworkershadimprovedsinceHead,Heart,Hands,includingthreewhoreportedthattherelationshiphadbeenchallengingatthestartoftheprogramme.Twothirdsofthefostercarersurveyrespondentsreportedthattheirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerhadimproved“agreatdeal”sinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses.

• Similarly,participatingfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromallofthesitesreportedthattheprogrammehadpositivelyimpactedtheirrelationshipwithfostercarersinsomeway.

• ParticipatingfostercarersandsocialworkersalikereportedthatthedeliveryoftheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestofostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaffsimultaneouslyhadhadapositiveimpactonrelationshipsoverall,andinparticularwherefostercarershadcompletedthetrainingwiththeirsupervisingsocialworker.

• Almostathirdofthefostercarersurveyrespondents(n=13:30%)notedthatthejointtrainingapproachprovidedthemwithopportunitiestogettoknowchildren’ssocialcarestaffandasaresultfeelmorepartoftheteamaroundthechild.AnumberoffostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handsfacilitatedasharedapproachandasharedlanguagebetweenfostercarersandthesocialworkerswhosupportthem.

• ElevenofthefostercarerswhotookpartininterviewsatWave3reportedthattheybelievedthattheirstatusamongprofessionalshadimprovedsinceHead,Heart,Hands,includingtwoofthosewhohadfeltundervaluedbytheirservicepreviously.

• Anumberoffostercarers(n=8:14%)andfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestafffromallofthesitesnotedthatmoresupervisingsocialworkersshouldhaveaccessedtheLearningandDevelopmentcoursestoensuregreatercongruencebetweentheapproachusedbythefostercarersandthesupervisingsocialworkers.Thelackofcongruenceofapproachwasparticularlyacutewhenfostercarersexperiencedchallengingperiodssuchasinthecaseofallegationsorplacementdisruptions,wherefostercarersreportedthatthewaythattheservicehadaddressedthosedifficultieshadbeenatoddswithwhattheyhadlearntthroughHead,Heart,Hands.

• OneareaofparticularfrustrationidentifiedbyaproportionofthefostercarerswhowereinterviewedatWave3wastheapplicationofamorerisksensibleapproach.AsmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3(n=7:12%)reportedthatsinceHead,Heart,Hands,theyweremorelikelytoallowthechildrenandyoungpeopletoparticipateinactivitiesthattheypreviouslywouldnothaveallowedthemtodo.However,theactivitiesanddecisionsmadebythesefostercarerswiththeirchildrenandyoungpeoplehadbeenover-ruledbytheirsocialworkerinoverhalfofthesecases(n=4).

• Overathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatawarenessandpracticeofsocialpedagogyamongsomechildren’ssocialcarestaff,andthosefromotheragencieswaspatchyatbest(n=21:37%).Ofparticularnote,werechildren’ssocialworkers,whowerecharacterisedbysomeofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewasunengagedwiththeprogrammeandunsupportiveofsocialpedagogicapproaches.

• Itispossiblethatthereportedlackofengagementfromsomechildren’ssocialcarestaffwasaconsequenceoftheprogrammedesign,whichlimitedthenumberofplacesavailabletostaffattheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses.

94

8.Placementpurpose,patternsandexperience

OneofthefourobjectivesoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(asoutlinedinBox1ofthisreport)wastodevelopfostercarerswiththecapacitytosignificantlyimprovethedaytodaylivesofthechildrenintheircare.AswehavepresentedearlierinthisreportfostercarersindicatedthatHead,Heart,Handshadprovidedatheoreticalandpracticalframeworkthroughwhichtheycouldthinkabouttheirexistingpracticeandthatithadprovidedthemwithagreaterawarenessofthecentralityofrelationshipsandtheimportanceofcommunicatingeffectivelywithchildren.Furthermore,fostercarersreferredtoHead,Heart,Handsasleadingthemtoreflectondaytodayactivitiesresultinginamorethoughtfulandintentionalapproachtowhattheyweredoingwithchildrenintheircare.Theyreportedbeingmoreconfidentintheirownabilities,andthereforemoreconfidenttoadvocatefortheneedsofthechild.WithinthischapterwenowfocusontheplacementexperienceofthechildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarers.WealsoconsidertheHead,Heart,Handsplacementwithinthechildrenandyoungpeople’scaretrajectory(encompassingbothplacementsbeforeandafterHead,Heart,Hands)andtheirpurpose.Throughoutthischapterwedrawondatafromthecasefileanalysisandalsoincludeasecondaryanalysisofnationaldatasets(SSDA903inEnglandandCLASdatainScotland)forthelocalauthoritysitesthatarerequiredtocollectthesedataonanannualbasis22.Wepositionthefindingsofthisevaluation,inrelationtotheplacementexperience,withinthewiderexistingevidencebaseandhighlightthecomplexityofattributingplacementstabilitytospecificprogrammes.Toillustratethedifferentcaretrajectoriesthatthesamplechildrenexperienced23,aseriesofcasestudyexamplesareincludedinthischapter.HeterogeneityasadefiningfactorAswehaveindicatedthroughoutearliersectionsofthisreport,Head,Heart,Handswasnotaclearlydefinedprogrammewithsetparameters.Assuchthewayinwhichitwasimplementedandusedinthesevensitesvariedconsiderably.Furthermore,theheterogeneityofthefostercarersthatparticipatedintheprogrammehasbeenhighlighted,bothintermsoftheirrecruitmenttotheprogrammeandthetypeofcaretheyprovided(forexample,theinclusionof“specialistfostercarers”inoneofthesites).Oursecondaryanalysisofthenationaldatasetsforasampleofchildren(n=328)placedwithHead,Heart,Handscarershighlightedfurtherheterogeneityintermsoftheneeds,circumstancesandpastcasehistoriesofthechildrenandyoungpeople.Weexploreindetailthroughoutthischaptertheheterogeneityoftheprogramme,thecarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleandhowthisconsequentlyledtodifficultiesattributingplacementstabilityandoutcomesforthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers.Thesedifficultiesarenotuniquetothisevaluation:otherauthorshavenotedthatunderstandingtheoutcomesforchildrenincareisanincrediblycomplextask,notleastbecausetheirownexperiences(bothpriortoandfollowing

22TheSSDA903andCLASdatasetsincludesimilarbutnotthesamevariables.Forsomeoftheanalysisincludedinthischapterithasnotbeenpossibletoreporttheanalysisforallfourlocalauthorities.23Apurposivesamplingtechniquehasbeenusedtoidentifythechildrenforthecasestudyexamples.Thecasestudieshavebeenchosentoillustratekeyevaluationfindings,ratherthantoberepresentativeofthesampleasawhole.Keyinformationhasbeenchangedtoprotecttheidentitiesoftheevaluationparticipants.

95

placement),characteristicsandpersonalcircumstancesaresodiverse(Boddy,2013;NationalAuditOffice,2014a).Furthermore,Sellick,ThoburnandPhilpot(2004)highlightthatthemeasurementofoutcomesforchildrenincarearehighlycomplexandaresubjecttomanyinteractingvariables:themorecomplexthecircumstances,themoredifficultitistoattributesuccess(orotherwise)toanyonefactorortypeofplacement.TheneedsandcircumstancesofthechildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,HandscarersAnexplorationoftheneedsandcircumstancesofthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwithHead,HeartHandscarershighlightedtheheterogeneityofthesample.AsecondaryanalysisofthenationaldatasetsforthelocalauthoritysitesidentifiedthattheHead,Heart,Handsplacementwasthefirstinthecaretrajectoryfor40%ofthesamplechildren;therestofthechildrenhadexperiencedmultipleplacementspriortobeingplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers.ForthechildrenwhohadbeenlookedafterpriortoHead,Heart,Hands,thelongestepisodeofcarewassevenyears.AsmallnumberofyoungpeoplewerealsoidentifiedtobelivingwiththeirformerfostercarersunderStayingPutarrangementswhentheprogrammecommenced(n=7).Theagerangeofthechildrenalsovariedbutwasnotequallyspreadacrossthesample:aquarterofthechildrenwereagedunderfouratthepointatwhichtheywereplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarerswhilstjustoverhalf(55%)wereaged13orover.InadditiontothelengthoftimethechildrenandyoungpeoplehadbeenincarepriortoHead,Heart,Handsweusedthe“needcode”fromtheEnglishnationalstatisticalreturnstoexplorethereasonforthembecominglookedafter.Justoverhalf(56%)ofthechildrenandyoungpeoplebecamelookedafterasaresultofAbuseorNeglectandafifth(22%)hadbeenplacedduetoFamilyDysfunction.However,asfoundinotherstudies,thecategoriesforidentifyingtheneedsofchildreninthenationalstatisticalreturnsarenotmutuallyexclusive.Localauthoritieshowever,arerequiredtoonlyselectonecategoryforeachchild.Therefore,theymaymaskarangeofcomplexandmultifacetedneedsandcircumstancesfoundacrossthesample(Holmesetal.,2010).Tofurtherunderstandtheneedsofthechildreninthesampleandtoexplorewhethertherewasanycorrelationbetweentheiremotionalandbehaviouralneedsandplacementlength,wecarriedoutasecondaryanalysisoftheStrengthsandDifficultiesQuestionnaire(SDQ)scoresforthechildrenplacedinthethreeEnglishlocalauthorities(ScottishlocalauthoritiesdonotcollectorreportSDQscoresaspartoftheirnationalstatisticalreturns).TheSDQisastandardisedtoolwhichmeasuresemotionalandbehaviouralwellbeingbasedonarangeofparameters(Goodman1997).InEnglandasinglescore(0–40)isrequiredforeachchildbetweentheagesoffourand16lookedaftercontinuouslyforatleast12months.Achildoryoungpersonisconsideredtohavelowlevelsofneediftheyobtainascoreof0-15,havesomeidentifiableneedsiftheyhaveascoreof16-19,andhighlevelsofneedwithascoreof20-40.Thisdatahadnotbeencompletedforallchildreninthesampleandcompletionratesweretoolowtocarryoutanytestsofstatisticalcorrelation.ForthesmallsampleofchildrenforwhomtheSDQdatawereavailable(n=73:19%)theirscoresrangedfrom11to38.AsnotedinChapter3,poorcompletionandreportingofSDQscoreshasrecentlybeenhighlightedbyBazalgetteandcolleagues(2015).TheynotethatdespitebeingastatutoryrequirementforchildrenincareinEngland,only25%ofalllocalauthoritieshadaSDQcompletionrateof90%orabovewhile8%oflocalauthorities(12areas)hadacompletionrateof30%orlower,

96

withthreelocalauthoritiesapparentlyreturningnodataatall.ThepoorcompletionofSDQscoreshasalsobeenhighlightedbySebbaandcolleagues(2015).PlacementpurposeBeforeweexplorethelengthofplacementswithHead,Heart,Handscarers,andthepatternsofplacementsthatbothprecededandfollowedthese,weconsiderthepurposeoftheplacements.DuringthecourseoftheevaluationitbecameevidentthatthesampleofHead,Heart,Handscarersincludedkinshipandrespitecarers.ThetypeofHead,Heart,Handsplacements,asdefinedbytheplacementtypecodesinthenationalreturns,andtheproportionoffostercarersineachofthesecategoriesaredetailedinTable6.Table6Head,Heart,Handsplacementtypes

PlacementtypeYellow Orange Purple Pink

n % n % n % n %

Supportedlodgings 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0

Kinship/Friendsandfamilycare

3 2 10 10 1 1 1 2

Fostercare 134 92 89 88 110 98 48 98

Motherandbaby 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Temporaryplacement 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 146 100 101 100 112 100 49 100

Duringthelatteryearsoftheprogramme,thenationalstatisticalreturnsinEnglanddifferentiatedbetweenlongtermfostercare(fosteringforpermanence)andotherfostercareplacements(DepartmentforEducation,2015).OfthefostercareplacementsinTable6abovethatwereincludedintheselatterreturns(n=295),46%werelongtermplacements,and54%werecategorisedas‘notlongterm’.AsshowninTable6Head,Heart,HandsplacementsintheYellowsitealsoincludedtemporary,short-termepisodesofcare.PlacementlengthandtheHead,Heart,HandsepisodeGiventheheterogeneityofthetypesofHead,Heart,Handscarers(asdefinedinthenationalstatistics)anddetailedinTable6above,variabilityinthelengthoftheplacementswithHead,Heart,Handscarersistobeexpected.Bytheirverydefinitiontemporaryplacementsarenotmeanttoofferlongtermstability,butserveaspecificpurposeatagiventimeinachild’scaretrajectory.However,ouranalysisofthelengthofHead,Heart,Handsplacementshighlightedavastrangeinplacementlengthsincludinghighnumbersofplacementslastingforlessthanonemonth.TheplacementlengthsforeachofthefourlocalauthoritysitesaredetailedinTable7below.Inthreeofthesites(Yellow,OrangeandPurple)therewasevidenceofHead,Heart,Handsplacementslastingforonlyoneday,whereastheshortestplacementinthePinksitelastedfor49days.FurthermorethehighestproportionofplacementsintheYellow,OrangeandPurplesiteslastedforlessthan31days.ThePinksitealsohadthehighestproportionoflongertermplacementswithHead,Heart,Handscarers:22placementslastedformorethanfiveyearsandallstartedpriortothecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands.

97

Table7LengthofHead,Heart,Handsplacements

LengthofHead,Heart,HandsplacementNumberofHead,Heart,Handsplacements

Yellow Orange Purple Pink

Lessthan31days 53 27 27 01to3months 19 15 16 33to6months 19 15 16 16to12months 17 13 15 51to2years 15 12 12 52to3years 11 8 7 33to4years 5 6 6 64to5years 3 2 3 45yearsormore 4 12 10 22Mean 312.01 532.12 494.93 1580.22Median 100.5 169.5 164 1504Standarddeviation 503.37 755.31 723.77 1078.76Range(minandmax) [1,2906] [1,3641] [1,3641] [49,3790]Observations 146 110 112 49

RemainingwithHead,HeartHandscarersTherewasvariabilitybothwithinandacrosssitesintermsofthenumbersofchildrenwhowereplacedwiththeirHead,Heart,HandscarersatthecommencementoftheprogrammeandthosewhomovedintotheplacementfollowingthecompletionoftheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.TherewasalsovariabilitybetweenthesitesintermsofthenumberofplacementsthatcommencedpriortotheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursesandthenumberofchildrenthatwereplacedaftertheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.ThisinformationissummarisedinTable8.Table8NumberofchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,HandscarersbeforeandaftertheLearning

andDevelopmentcourses

Yellow Orange Purple Pink

Head,Heart,HandsplacementstartedafterthecompletionoftheLearningandDevelopmentcourse

123 87 88 47

PlacementcommencedbeforetheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourse

33 49 46 43

Total 156 136 134 90Furthermore,therewasacohortofchildrenwhoremainedwiththeirHead,Heart,Handscarersthroughtotheendoftheprogramme.Thenumberofchildrenwhoremainedwiththeircarersattheendofourdatacollectiontimeperiod(31March2016:threemonthsafterthecompletionoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme)wassmallandrangedbetweenfourand17persite.Ruby’sstoryinBox22belowprovidesanillustrativeexampleofachildwhowasplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersshortlyafterthecommencementoftheprogramme,andremainedwiththemforthedurationoftheevaluation.

98

Box22:Ruby’sstory

RelationshipswithHead,Heart,HandscarersTounderstandmoreabouttheexperienceofHead,Heart,HandsandtheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsepisodeforthechildrenplaced,casefileswereexaminedforindicationsofthenatureoftherelationshipbetweentheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.Theinformationcollectedwasfromanumberofsourcessuchasthechildren’ssocialworkers,fostercarersandthechildrenthemselves,asrecordedwithinkeycasefiledocumentation.Theinformationavailablewasreviewedandanumberofthemesidentified;acountofthenumberofthemespercasewasthenundertaken.Theinformationgatheredwasnotintendedtobeadefinitiveassessmentofthequalityofthefosteringhouseholdrelationships.Ratheritfocusedonwhetherthecasefiledemonstrated,onbalance,apositiverecordingoftherelationship.Tothisenditisconstrainedbyanumberoflimitations(theseareexploredmorefullyinChapter3).All334casefilerecordswereexamined.Eachcasewascategorisedasshowingbroadly“positivedescriptions”,“mixeddescriptions”orgenerally“negativedescriptions”basedontheanalysisoftheinformationinthecasefilesregardingfosteringhouseholdrelationshipsandtheidentifiedpositiveornegativethemes.Encouragingly,asTable9illustrates,nearlytwo-thirdsofcasesweredescribedinpositiveterms(64%),aminoritywerenegative(10%)andtherestweredescribedinmixedterms(25%).Casefiledescriptionswerenotassignedin87cases(26%ofallchildren’sfiles).Table9CasefiledescriptionsofHead,Heart,HandsfosteringhouseholdrelationshipsB

Descriptionincasefile Number Percentage(%)

Positivedescription 159 64

Mixeddescription 62 25

Negativedescription 26 10

Total 247 99BPercentageshavebeenroundedandmaythereforenottotal100.

Ruby,GordonandCarolRubywastenyearsoldwhenshewasplacedinlocalauthorityfostercarewithaCareOrder.UponenteringcareinNovember2011,Rubyshowedsomesignsofemotionalandbehaviouralneeds.Sheseemedtobefallingbehindherpeersatschool,whichhersocialworkerreportedwaspossiblyduetothetraumaofherearlychildhoodexperiences.Shestayedwithherfirstfostercarersforeightmonths,andtheninJuly2013shemovedinwithGordonandCarol.GordonandCarolwereveryexperiencedfostercarerswhohadrecentlycompletedtheHead,Heart,HandsCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses.WhenshefirstmovedinwiththemRubydidnotwanttoengageinanycommunityactivities,butafterawhilefoundthatsheenjoyedplayingtenniswithCarol.RubyandCarolcontinuetoplaytennistogether.Attheendofthedatacollectionperiod(March2016),Rubywasaged14andwasstilllivingwithGordonandCarol.HersocialworkernotedthatitwasevidentthatRubywassettled,andhadformedapositiverelationshipwithherfostercarers.Heremotionalandbehaviouralneedsseemedtobelesseningandherconfidencewasincreasing.Shewasmeetinghertargetsatschoolandwasplanningtoattendauniversitytastersession.

99

Descriptionsofthefosteringhouseholdrelationshipswereavailableforthreequartersofcases(n=247cases:74%).Intotal,nearly600positivedescriptionswereidentifiedinthe247availablecasefilesandtheseweregroupedinto19themes.ThesethemesaredetailedinAppendixE.Themostcommonthemewasrelatedtodescriptionsofhowstabletheplacementwasconsideredtobe(n=112:45%),followedbychildrenandyoungpeople’spositiveviewsoftheplacement(n=83:33%),andwhetherthechildoryoungpersonwasthoughttobemakingprogress(n=70:28%).Theleastcommonlycitedthemesweretheuseoftheword“love”(n=8:35)andwherethecarersupportsthebirthfamilyrelationship(n=8:35).Thecasefileswerealsoexaminedfornegativedescriptionsorstatementsregardingtherelationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold.Thesedescriptionsincludedfactorsthatwerebothinternal,suchasthosereferringspecificallytotherelationshipwithinthehousehold,andexternalfactors,suchastheyoungperson’slackofengagementwitheducation,thatwereplacingadditionalstrainontherelationshipsbetweenthemandtheirfostercarers.Atotalof125negativestatementswereidentifiedin79cases.Themostfrequentlycitedwaschallengeintheplacementrelatingtoavarietyoffactors,whichwereindicatedtohaveadetrimentalimpactonthefosteringhouseholdrelationship(n=70:28%).Concernswithintheplacementwereidentifiedinjustunder10%oftheplacements(n=22:9%)andallegationsagainstthefostercarerwereidentifiedin6cases.AsTable9,aboveshowsaroundonein10oftherelationshipsweredescribedinbroadlynegativetermswithinthecasefiles.Inthesmallnumberofcasefiles(n=26)whererelationshipswerecharacterisedasnegative,therewerevariedfactorsrecordedsuchastheimpactoftheyoungperson’sdeterioratingbehaviourandtheabilityofthefostercarertomanagethis.Forsomeyoungpeoplethe‘pullfactor’ofhomewasdescribedasanegativeinfluentialfactorintheirabilitytoformrelationshipswithinthefosteringhouseholdandforothers,birthfamilycontactwascitedashavingadestabilisingimpactontheplacement.MovingonfromHead,Heart,HandsThenationalstatisticalreturnswerealsoexaminedtoexplorethenumberofplacementschildrenexperiencedpriortoandfollowingplacementinaHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhousehold.ThedataindicatethattheaveragenumberofplacementsexperiencedbythechildreninthesamplewashigherfollowingplacementwithaHead,Heart,HandscarerwhencomparedtotheiraveragenumberofplacementspriortotheirHead,Heart,Handsepisode.Inaddition,theaverageplacementlengthwasshorterfollowingaHead,Heart,Handsepisode.Thesedatarevealthatacohortofchildrenexperiencedshorterplacements,andmorefrequentchangesofplacementfollowingtheirHead,HeartHandsepisode.Theanalysisofthecaretrajectoriesforthesamplechildrenhighlightedsubstantialvariabilityinthestabilityoftheirplacements.Giventheheterogeneityofthechildrenandtheircareexperienceitwouldnotbeappropriatetoattribute(atanaggregatelevel)placement(in)stabilitytotheprogramme.Thefindingsdoindicatethatinthreeofthefoursitesearlysignsofplacementstabilityweredetectedtowardsthelatterstagesoftheprogramme.ThenationalstatisticalreturnswerealsoexaminedtoexplorethereasonsforHead,Heart,Handsplacementsending.Asotherlargescalestudiesofthecaresystemhaverevealed(SkuseandWard,2003;Wilson,SinclairandGibbs,2000;Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008)childrenmovetoavarietyofdestinationsandthiswasthecaseforthesampleofchildreninthenationalstatisticalreturndata.ThereasonsforplacementsendingareshowninTable10

100

Table10ReasonHead,HeartHandsepisodeceasedCReasonepisodeceased Yellow Orange Purple

n % n % n %

Notrecorded 32 22 67 66 20 18

Movedtoanotherplacement 70 47 21 21 83 74

Residenceordergranted 0 0 1 1 0 0

SpecialGuardianshipordergrantedtofostercarers

5 3 4 3 2 2

SpecialGuardianshipordergrantedtoothercarers

0 0 1 1 0 0

Returnhometobirthfamily 31 21 1 1 3 2

Movetoindependentliving 1 1 3 3 1 1

Movetoadultresidentialcare 0 0 1 1 0 0

Placementendedforanotherreason 7 4 2 2 3 2

CDatawerenotavailableinthePinksite.AsshowninTable10,themostcommonlycitedreasonforchildrenmovingonfromtheirHead,Heart,Handsepisodewastomovetoanotherplacement.FurtheranalysisofthenationalstatisticalreturnsfacilitatedananalysisofthetypeofplacementdirectlyfollowingaHead,Heart,Handsepisode.Themostcommondestinationwastoanotherfosterplacement:aroundtwothirdsofthechildrenineachofthesitesmovedonfromaHead,Heart,Handsplacementtoanotherfostercarehousehold.Asmallnumberofchildren(n=20)movedintoasubsequentplacementwithotherHead,Heart,Handscarers.Intwosites,around10%ofthechildrenmovedintoaresidentialcareplacement,whichislikelytobeanindicationoftheirhigherlevelsofneeds.ThepatternthatemergesisofacohortofchildrenwithhigherlevelsofinstabilitybothpriortoandfollowingtheirHead,Heart,Handsplacement.However,itshouldalsobenotedthatthesechildrentendedtoexperiencetheshorterHead,HeartHandsepisode.Asnotedabove,aproportionofchildrenwereonlyplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarersforamonthorless.Inthisway,itispossibletoquestiontheextenttowhichthesechildrenmighthavebenefitedfromthesocialpedagogicpracticesasdetailedintheprecedingchapters.Asnotedelsewhereinthisreport,arangeoffactorsexternaltotheplacementmayultimatelydeterminewhereachildisplaced.ThisisillustratedinAshley’sstory,inBox23.

101

Box23:Ashley’sstory

TheimplementationandthedesignoftheprogrammemayhaveinfluencedtheheterogeneityofthesampleandextenttowhichwemightexpectHead,Heart,Handstohaveanattributableimpactonsubsequentcaretrajectoriesandplacementpatterns.Itisundeniablethatsomestaffatdifferinglevelsofseniorityhaveengagedwith,andgainedfrom,theprogramme.However,evaluationparticipants,includingfostercarers(asoutlinedinChapter7)andparticipantsfromthesitesthemselves(asoutlinedintheimplementationevaluation),haverepeatedlyreportedthattherewasinsufficientdiffusionoftheapproachacrossthesitesatthesystemiclevel.Indeed,asnotedinChapter7,thelackofcongruenceofapproachbetweenmembersoftheteamaroundthechildwasparticularlyacutewhenfostercarersexperiencedchallengingperiodssuchasinthecaseofplacementdisruptions.Whilefostercarersplayaprominentroleinthedaytodaydecisionmakingprocessesforthechildrenintheircare,definitivedecisionsonplacementmovesaretypicallymadebychildren’ssocialworkers,orotheragencydecisionmakers,suchasindependentreviewingofficersandmembersofdecisionmakingpanels.Inthisway,itispossibletoarguethattheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonplacementstabilitywillbelimitedunlessawholesystemsapproachistakentoensuresufficientdiffusionacrossallpartiesworkingwithachildissympathetictotheapproach.Thisissueisparticularlyacutefortheindependentfosteringservices,whohavelimitedinfluenceondecisionsregardingwhereachildmightbeplaced.Itistherefore,perhapssomewhatunrealisticwithinthetimeframeandscopeoftheprogrammeandthisevaluationtoidentifymeasurableandattributablechangesinplacementpatternsattheaggregatelevel.Asnotedabove,somechildrenalsoremainedwiththeirHead,Heart,Handscarersforthedurationofthestudy.Therewasalsoevidenceofchildrenmovingintootherpermanencearrangements,includingasmallproportionofSpecialGuardianshipOrdersbeinggrantedtoHead,Heart,Handscarers,andchildrenreturninghometotheirbirthfamilies,whichwasmostprominentintheYellowsitewherethiswastheexperienceofafifthofchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers.Managedandplannedmoveswerealsoafeatureofthesample.Thepicturethatemergesisoneofahighdegreeofvariability,inwhichchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarersexperiencedarangeofcaretrajectories,andevidencethatHead,Heart,Handsplacementshadbeenusedfora

Ashley,SimonandJuliaAshleywasthreeyearsoldwhenshewasfirstplacedincareinMarch2002withaCareOrder.Followingastableplacementlasting8½years,AshleyexperiencedfoursubsequentplacementsbetweenOctober2010andMay2015,includingtwoshortepisodesofbeingplacedwithherparents,whichlastedfourand16daysrespectively.InMay2015shemovedinwithSimonandJulia,whohadattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsCoreLearningandDevelopmentcoursestwoyearspriortoAshleymovinginwiththem.WhenAshleymovedinwithSimonandJuliashehadhighlevelsofemotionalandbehaviouralneedsandhadbeendiagnosedwithspecialeducationalneeds.Ashleyfoundithardtosettleintotheplacement.Hersocialworkerreportedthatshewantedtolivewithhersisterandhaddifficultiesintegratingintothefosteringhousehold.InJuly2014AshleyexperiencedanunplannedmovefromherHead,Heart,Handsplacement,andwenttolivewithanotherfosterfamily.AshleywasstillplacedwiththesesubsequentcarersinMarch2016.

102

varietyofpurposes.ThisisperhapsunsurprisinggiventhatHead,Heart,Handswasnotaclearlydefinedprogrammewithsetparameters,suchasapredeterminedoptimalplacementlength.Inlightoftheheterogeneityofthesample,itisnotpossibletomeaningfullyattributechangesinplacementpatternsdirectlytoHeadHeart,Hands.ManagedmovesThenationaldatasetsdonotprovideanexplanationforthereasonforplacementmoves,wethereforereturntoouranalysisofthecasefilerecordstoofferdeeperunderstandingabouttheexperienceofmovingplacementandwhetherthesemoveswereplanned.Casefileswereexaminedtoexplorewhetherplacementendingsforthe165childrenwhohadlefttheirHead,Heart,Handscarersweredescribedas“planned”or“unplanned”.Itwasnotpossibletocategorisefromthecasefiledataexaminedwhetherthemovewasplannedorunplannedin40%ofthecases.AnalysisofthecasefilesfoundthataroundfourintenchildrenwholefttheirHead,Heart,Handscarerdidsoinaplannedway(n=67:41%)whilstforjustunderafifththeirmovewasdescribedasbeingunplanned(n=32:19%).Itwasestimatedthat10%ofthosechildrenforwhomcasefiledatawereexaminedexperiencedanunplannedmoveatsomepointduringtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Theproportionofunplannedplacementendingswasestimatedin2015tobeintheregionof6%ofallchildreninfostercare(Ofsted,2015).ItwasnotpossibletomatchtheneedsofthechildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerswiththosewhoexperiencedunplannedendingsnationally.Therefore,thesefiguresareprovidedforcontextonlyandshouldnotbeusedfordirectcomparison.Thecasefilesofthosewhohadleftinanunplannedwaywereexaminedtolookatreasonsgivenandcontributingfactors.ThenumberoftimesthesefactorswereidentifiedisshowninTable11.Themostcommonexplanationscentredaroundeitherayoungperson’sbehaviourorthefostercarer’sdecisiontoendtheplacement.Overall,thereappearedtobeacombinationofissuesbothinternaltotheplacementaswellasexternalinfluences.However,asBox24suggeststhecasefilerecordsshowthattherecanoftenbeamyriadofcontributingfactors,whichalsochangeovertime.Table11Unplannedmoves:InformationincasefilesoncontributingfactorsD

ContributingfactorstounplannedmovesNumberofoccurrences

Fostercarerled 12

Youngperson’sbehaviour 12

Unabletomanagelevelofneedwithinplacementorkeepyoungpersonsafe(absconding;riskofCSE;safetyinarea);specialistprovisionrequested

8

Childexpressedbeingunhappyinplacement 5

Influenceofothersforexampleimpactofcontactonstabilityofplacement;Section20statusremovedbyparent;otherchildreninhousehold 4

Allegation 4

Youngpersonled,forexample,movedinwithpartner 2

Concernsabouttheplacement 2DInformationnotavailableonallcases;somecasefileshadmorethanonereasongiven.

103

Box24:Exampleofplacementmovesfromcasefiles

OurcasefileanalysisfurtherexploredwhetherthesemovesfromHead,Heart,Handscarerswereplannedorunplanned.Thedestinationwiththehighestproportionofunplannedmoveswastoaplacementwithanotherfostercarer.Thesecasesconstitutedathirdofthechildreninthesample.Conversely,forthosechildrenwhomovedontolivewithamemberoftheirbirthfamilythechangewasdescribedasplanned.TableE.3inAppendixEprovidesabreakdownofthedestinationofthosechildrenwhomovedplacementsduringtheevaluationtimeframe.Ryan’sstoryinBox25providesanexampleofaplannedmove.Box25:Ryan’sstory

Boddy(2011)highlightsthepivotalconnectionbetweenrelationshipsandplacementstability:placementbreakdownsarenotonlychangesinwhereachildoryoungpersonlives,butoftenconstituteabreakdownintherelationship.Thecasefileanalysisexploredthelinksbetweenwhethertherelationshipswithinthefosteringhouseholdwereratedaspositive,negativeormixed,

Factorsinfluencingplacementchanges“Placementremainedstablefornumberofyearsbutsincelastreviewplacementincreasinglychallengingandyoungpersonphysicallyviolentandaggressivetofostercarer.Numberoffactorsimpactedonplacementstability:youngpersonbegantherapywhichappearedtobringtraumatoforefront;youngpersonnotfeelpartoffamily;fostercarernotbeenphysicallywell;youngpersonnothadcontactwithfamilyfornumberofmonths(hadbeenpromisedcontactbysocialworkerbutnothappenedyet);nothadsocialworkerforconsiderableamountoftime.Atdisruptionmeetingitwasrecognisedthataplanhadbeenputinplacetopreventbreakdownbutthiswasnotpossible”.“ChildveryclearnotwishtoreturntoformerHead,Heart,Handscarer;[they]feltthatboundarieswerestrict...But[youngperson]sayshadsomehappytimes,butthingsgotworsewhenanotherchildcametolivethere.”“Placementnotcometoanendbecauseofanydifficultbehaviourbychildbutfostercarers’personalcircumstanceschangedand[therewasa]changein[their]wishtobelongtermcarer.Placementbecamedifficultasitwasperceivedcarernotcommittedtochildandnotmeetingneeds.ChildhadbelievedwouldbeencaredforbyHead,Heart,Handscareruntiladulthood.Theendingoftheplacementwasdescribedasverydifficult”.

Ryan,TinaandDougRyanwasfiveyearsoldwhenhewasplacedwithDougandTinainAugust2012.Thiswashisfirstplacementawayfromhome.InFebruary2013DougandTinastartedtheCoreHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourse,sixmonthsafterRyancametolivewiththem.Theyreportedthattheunderpinningvaluesofsocialpedagogyresonatedwiththeirownethosandapproachtofostering.Ryan’ssocialworkerreportedthathequicklysettledintotheplacementwithDougandTinaandhadformedagoodattachmentwiththem.RyanstayedinhisHead,Heart,Handsplacementfor11months,andinthattimehemadeprogressdevelopmentally,sociallyandemotionally.InJuly2015Ryan’sauntwasgrantedaSpecialGuardianshipOrderandfollowingaperiodofplanningRyanwenttolivewithher.

104

andwhetherthechildremainedwiththeirHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerforthedurationoftheevaluation.Theanalysisfound,unsurprisingly,thatthosechildrenwhoremainedwiththeirHead,Hands,Heartcarershadahigheraveragenumberofpositivethemesidentifiedintheircasenotes(meannumber=3.3)comparedtothosecaseswherethechildhadlefttheHead,Heart,Handsplacement(meannumber=2.03).Thisindicatesthattherelationshipsweredescribedinstrongertermsforthosewhostayedbutthosewholeftstillhadpositiveaspectsinhowtheirrelationshipwasdescribedinthecasefiles.Inotherwords,whilerelationshipsareidentifiedasbeingkeytoplacementstability,itisnotnecessarilythecasethatchildrenonlyleaveplacementsbecausetherelationshipwiththeirfostercarerwasnotideal.Nevertheless,trustingandsupportiverelationshipsbetweencarersandchildrencantaketimetodevelopandaresometimescompoundedbytheadverseexperiencesthatsomechildrenhavepriortoanyoneparticularplacement(Wadeetal.,2010).ThedatagatheredinthisevaluationregardingtheimpactthatHead,Heart,Handsmayhaveonstrengtheningrelationshipsanddealingwithconflictandchallengingsituations(exploredinChapter6)suggestthatinsomecases,Head,Heart,Handsmaygosomewaytocreatingtheconditionsinwhichsuchsupportiverelationshipscanbeformed.ThisdoesnotguaranteethattheemphasisonrelationshipsfoundinHead,Heart,Handswillsecureplacementsinallcases.However,itmayenhanceplacementstabilityforsomechildrenandyoungpeople.TheprocessofplacementchangeAsSinclairandcolleagues(2007)remindus,leavingaplacementisnotnecessarilynegative.Aspartofourexplorationoftheexperiencesofthefosteringhouseholdswedifferentiatedbetweentheplacementchangeeventandtheprocessofchangingplacements.Afurtherdistinctionhasbeenmadebetweenwhethertheeventand/ortheprocesswerepositiveornegative.ThiscanbeconceptualisedasoutlinedinFigure4.ExplorationandcategorisationinthiswayfacilitatedananalysisoftheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeonhowchangesinplacementwereexperiencedbybothchildren,youngpeopleandtheircarers.Figure4Placementchangeandtheprocessofplacementchange

Thereasonfortheplacementchangeeventwaspositiveandtheprocesswascarriedoutasa

“managedmove”(+ve/+ve)

Placementbrokedownbuttheprocesswascarriedoutasa“managedmove”

(-ve/+ve)

Thereasonfortheplacementchangeeventwaspositivebutthemovewasinstantaneous

(emergencymove)(+ve/-ve)

Placementbrokedownandthemovewasinstantaneous(emergencymove)

(-ve/-ve)

Analysisofhowtherelationshipwasviewedandhowthemovewasmanagedinthecasefiles,wasexaminedforthegroupwhohadlefttheirplacementwithaHead,Heart,Handscarerduringtheprogramme.Asmaybeexpected,thosewholeftinaplannedwayweremorelikelytohavepositive

Reasonforplacementchange

Processofplacemen

tcha

nge

105

descriptionsrecordedintheircasefiles.Moreover,asSinclairandcolleagues(2007)remindusplacementchangesarenotnecessarilynegativeespeciallyifachildisunhappywheretheyareliving.Suchreferenceswererare(n=20)buthighlighttheimportanceofawarenessofayoungpersons’feelingsandwishes.Ofkeyconcerntothechildrenandyoungpeopleintheinterviewsamplewasthefeelingthattheirfostercarerswouldnotgiveuponthem,givingthemagreatersenseofstabilityandsecurity.Itwasevidentfromtheinterviewsthatasenseofsecurityinknowingthatsomeonewouldsupportthepracticalandemotionalneedsoftheyoungpeopleincarewashighontheagendaformanyofthefosteringhouseholds.Thisviewwasexpressedbyoneyoungpersonwhodescribedtheirfostercarersas:

“…reallytrustworthyandyouknowtheyarenotgoingtogiveuponyou.Wehavegonethroughloads,whichmostofmyoldcarerswouldhavejustsaidthatisenoughbuttheyhavesorteditthroughwithme[…]IhavehadquitealotofmovesandthishasbeenmysecondlongestattheminutesoIthinkit[Ifeelsettledherebecause]thefactofwhatwehavegonethrough,thattheyhelpedtryandsortitout,andtheyhaveneverbeen...theyhaveneversaidifthathappensagainyou'reoutoranythinglikethat,theyhavealwayssaidwewillworkitthrough."(Childoryoungpersoninterviewee).

Oneyoungpersonwhowasinterviewedmadeseveralreferencesthroughoutthediscussionthatsheknewthatherfostercarerswouldnotgiveuponher,despiteseveralchallengesshehadfaced.Shenotedthat

"R:Theotherplaceswerequitedisappointing.I:Werethey?R:Becausetheyjust,whenevertherewasanissuetheyjustgaveup.[…]Whereasheretheyhaven’t.Anditfeels…Isaidto[carers]theotherday,iflike,ifIwaswithmyMumandDadtheycouldn’tjustdumpmetheminuteIdosomethingwrongandthatiswhatIlikeaboutherebecausetheydon’tjustdumpyou”(Childoryoungpersoninterviewee).

Thissenseofstabilitycontinuedevenaftertheyhadstoppedlivingwiththeirfostercarers.Twoyoungpeoplewhowerelivingindependentlyatthetimeoftheinterview,reportedthattheirfostercarershadplayedaninstrumentalroleinsupportingthemintoindependence,andfourreportedthattheystillhadregularcontactwiththeirfostercarersevenaftertheyhadmovedout.Placementdisruptionscanbeasdetrimentaltofostercarersastheyaretochildrenandyoungpeople.Feelingsofinadequacy,guiltorfailureafteraplacementbreakdown,havebeenfoundtobeassociatedwithcarersceasingtofoster(McDermidetal.,2012)anddisruptionstoplacementscanbeperiodsofsubstantialstressforallinvolved.SevenfostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Heart,Hands,includingTheFourFsandThreePs24hadprovidedthemwithaframeworkbywhichtheycouldreflectonplacementdisruptions.Thesefostercarersreportedfeelingmoreabletorecoverfromtheemotionalimpactofthosedisruptions,toreviewwhattheycoulddodifferently

24AdefinitionoftheThreePscanbefoundonpage65.

106

nexttime,andcrucially,relinquishanysenseofbeingsolelyresponsiblefortheplacementbreakingdown.Inthiswaytheprocessofplacementchangewasdescribedbythesefostercarersasbeinglessnegativeasaresult.TheinterviewsandcasefileanalysisalsoprovidedfurtherexamplesofHead,Heart,Handshelpingcarerstofeelmoreconfidentincontributingtodecisionsaboutaplacementchangeora“managedmove”,whentheyotherwisemaynothavefeltableto.Thisapproachwasreportedtobemuchmoresatisfactoryforthefostercarersinvolved.Thiswasmosteffectivewheretherelationshipbetweenthefostercarerandthesupervisingsocialworkerwasdescribedassupportiveandeffective.Box26providesanexampleofonesuchcaseofapositivemanagedmove.

107

Box26:CasestudyExampleofamanagedmovePaul,StephanieandRyanPaulandStephaniehadbeenfosteringforfiveyearswhentheyattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Theirsupervisingsocialworkeralsoattended.Theywereapprovedforlongtermplacements,butpriortoHead,Heart,Handshadexperiencedanumberofplacementbreakdowns,whichStephaniedescribedastakinganemotionaltoll.Stephanieadmittedblamingherselfwhenachildmovedonfromaplacementwiththem,whichmadeitdifficultforhertofeelconfidentindevelopingarelationshipwithanewchild.AfterattendingtheHead,Heart,Hands,LearningandDevelopmentcourses,PaulandStephaniedescribedusinganumberofthereflectivetoolswiththeirsupervisingsocialworkertohelpthemtodiscussthosefeelingsofinadequacy.Shesaid:

“Ithinkwhatitis,isthereflection,theabilitytostandback[...][Childrencando]allsortsof[challenging]things,anditisveryeasytogetworndownandstarttotakeitallpersonally,[…]Ihavealwaysreflectedinmyheadbutthereissomethingaboutwritingitdown.Itisaboutwritingitdownanditisalsoabouthavingaformattofollow,youknowwhatarethefacts,whathasjusthappened?Whatwerethefeelings?Whatfeelingsweregoingonforme?Whatcouldhavebeengoingonforher?YouknowandthesortofjustthatsortofprocessofworkingthroughitlogicallyIthink.BecauseIthinkwithoutthatyouwouldjustgettothepointwhereyouwereworndownandthechildhatedyou,youcouldn’tstandthemanymoreandtheyhavetogo.”

Ryanwas17whenhespoketous.HehadlivedwithPaulandStephanieforaboutayearbeforeHead,Heart,Handsstarted.RyanhadbeendiagnosedwithasevereattachmentdisorderandalthoughhehadsettledinwithPaulandStephaniewell,PaulandStephaniefeltthatRyanneededmoreintensivespecialistsupport.Stephaniedescribedhowhersupervisingsocialworker,herselfandRyanworkedtogethertofindaspecialistplacement,thatwasmoresuitedtoRyan’sparticularneeds.RyandescribedhowhefeltincludedinthedecisiontomovehimintoadifferentplacementandPaulandStephaniecontinuedtobeanimportantpartofRyan’slife.Ryanstayedinthespecialistplacementfortwoandahalfyearsbeforemovingtoindependence,anddescribedhowimportantPaulandStephaniehadbeentohiminpreparationforthemove:

“Iusedtodomywashing,myironing,youknowthingslikethat[atPaulandStephanie’s]andtheyusedtogivemeadviceandsupportaboutthatbecausetheywant…becauseIhavealwayssaidsinceImovedwiththem,Ihavealwayswantedmyownhouse,Ihavealwayswantedmyownplaceandbecauseofthem,nowIhavegotit,youknow?NowIhavegotwhatIwantedtoachievewhichIreallywasn’texpectingatthistimeinmylife,[...]IwouldsaythattheonlyreasonwhyIhavegotthesupportthatIhavegotnowandtheplacementisbecauseofthem,Iwouldn’tknowwhattodowithoutthem.”

RyanchosetomoveclosetoPaulandStephaniewhenhemovedtoindependence,sohecouldcontinuetoseethemregularly.Stephaniedescribedtheexperienceasfollows:

“IthinkIwouldhavedoneitdifferentlybefore,IthinkbeforeIwouldhavejustcompletelypanicked,Iwouldhavefeltthatwehadfailedhim,[…]IwouldhavebeenreallyquiteworriedaboutitIthink.AndofcourseIwasstillworriedaboutitbutIthinkIcouldusejustthewayIfeltaboutmyselfandthemoreconfidenceIhadbuiltaboutmyabilitythroughsocialpedagogy,helpedmethroughthatperiodandenabledmetonotpanicquitesomuchetc.;notlayalltheresponsibilityonmeandrealisethat[YP]isa17yearold,heisexercisinghisrightstoyouknowtohisopinionandwhathewantstodowithhislifeandIthinkIcouldseeitthroughhiseyesbetteranddidn’tputitallonme,thinkingitwasmedoingit.SoIthinkIwasabletosupporthimmorebecauseofthatand...Ididn’ttakeitpersonallymyselfwhichIthinkImighthavedonebefore"

108

Box27:Definition-TheFourFs

TheoutcomesforchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,HandsfostercarersThroughoutthisreportwehaveprovidedqualitativeevidenceoftheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.InlightofthevariableuseofHead,Heart,Handsplacements,andtheheterogeneityofthesampleofchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem,ameaningfulanalysisofoutcomesatanaggregatelevelisnotviablebecauseitwouldnotbepossibletodirectlyattributechangesinoutcomestotheHead,Heart,Handscareepisode,particularlyforthosechildrenwhoseplacementwasparticularlyshort.ThereissomeevidenceinthecasefilesofHead,Heart,Handscarerssupportingchildrenandyoungpeoplewithallaspectsoftheirlives,includingemotionalwellbeingandeducationalsupport.Asnotedinpreviouschapters,acohortoffostercarersreportedthatsinceundertakingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursestheyfeltmoreconfidentinadvocatingfortheneedsofthechildrenplacedwiththem.Thisfindingiscorroboratedinthecasefileanalysis,whichidentifiedevidenceofHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersassistingwiththereferralprocessforadditionalsupportservices,forexampleChildandAdolescentMentalHealthServices.

TheFourFsisamodelofreflectionthatprovidesastructurethatsupportsyoutoseparatefactsfromfeelings–butvaluesbothasequallyimportant.Whenyou’reinadifficultsituation,orfeelingstressedandoverwhelmed,itcansometimesfeelhardtounderstandwhat’shappened,andplanwhattodonext,becausethefeelingsandemotionsyou’redealingwithcangetinthewayofthefacts.Equally,inthesesituations,itcansometimesbehardtoreallyunderstandhowyou’refeeling,anddealwiththatappropriately,becauseyoumaybeignoringyouremotionswhileyoutryandestablishthefacts.TheFourFsmodelisverysimple,butfostercarershavefoundthatithasgiventhemavaluablestructuretoworkthroughthischallenge.

1. FACTS:Anobjectivedescriptionofwhathashappened2. FEELINGS:Adescriptionofthefeelingsconnectedtothefacts3. FINDINGS:Whatsensecanwemakeofthefactsandthefeelings?Whatdowelearn

fromlookingatboth?4. FUTURES:Whatcanweputintoaction?Whatcanwedobetterordifferentlynexttime?

TheFosteringNetwork(nodate)SocialPedagogyinpractice:Buildingresilience[online]https://www.thefosteringnetwork.org.uk/sites/www.fostering.net/files/content/spip-building-your-resilience.pdf

109

Box28:Summaryofkeyfindings:Placementpurpose,patternsandexperience

• AnexplorationoftheneedsandcircumstancesofthesampleofchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwithHead,HeartHandscarershighlightedaconsiderabledegreeofheterogeneity.

• AnalysisofthelengthofHead,Heart,Handsplacementshighlightedavastrangeinplacementlengthsandalsohighnumbersofplacementslastingforlessthanonemonth.Incontrast,22placementslastedformorethanfiveyearsandallstartedpriortothecommencementofHead,Heart,Hands.

• TherewasvariabilitybothwithinandacrosssitesintermsofthenumbersofchildrenwhowereplacedwiththeirHead,Heart,HandscarersatthecommencementoftheprogrammeandthosethatmovedintotheplacementfollowingthecompletionoftheLearningandDevelopmentCourses.TherewasalsovariabilitybetweenthesitesintermsofthenumberofplacementsthatcommencedpriortotheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursesandthenumberofchildrenthatwereplacedaftertheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.

• TherewasacohortofchildrenwhoremainedwiththeirHead,Heart,Handscarersthroughtotheendoftheprogramme.Thenumberofchildrenwhoremainedwiththeircarersattheendofourdatacollectiontimeperiodwassmallandrangedbetweenfourand17persite.

• TounderstandmoreabouttheexperienceofHead,Heart,HandsandtheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsepisodeforthechildrenplaced,casefileswereexaminedforindicationsofthenatureoftherelationshipbetweentheHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.Encouragingly,nearlytwo-thirdofthecasesweredescribedinpositiveterms(64%),aminoritywerenegative(10%)andtherestweredescribedinmixedterms(25%).Atotalof125negativestatementswereidentifiedin79cases.Themostfrequentlycitedwaschallengeintheplacementrelatingtoavarietyoffactors,whichwereindicatedtohaveadetrimentalimpactonthefosteringhouseholdrelationship(n=70:28%).

• ThedatasuggestthattheaveragenumberofplacementsexperiencedbythechildreninthesamplewashigherfollowingplacementwithaHead,Heart,HandscarerwhencomparedtotheaveragenumberofplacementspriortotheirHead,Heart,Handsepisode.Inaddition,theaveragedaysperplacementwerelowerafterHead,Heart,Hands.ThepatternthatemergesisofacohortofchildrenwithhigherlevelsofinstabilitypriortoHead,Heart,Hands,alsoexperiencedhigherlevelsofinstabilityfollowingHead,Heart,Hands.However,itshouldalsobenotedthatthesechildrentendedtoexperienceashorterHead,HeartHandsepisodes.Inthisway,itispossibletoquestiontheextenttowhichthesechildrenmightbenefitfromthesocialpedagogicpractices.

• InlightofthevariableuseofHead,Heart,Handsplacements,andtheheterogeneityofthesampleofchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem,ameaningfulanalysisofoutcomesatanaggregatelevelisnotviablebecauseitwouldnotbepossibletodirectlyattributechangesinoutcomestotheHead,Heart,Handscareepisode,particularlyforthosechildrenwhoseplacementwasparticularlyshort.

• SevenfostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Hands,includingTheFourFsandThreePshadprovidedthemaframeworkbywhichtheycouldreflectonplacementdisruptions.Thesefostercarersreportedfeelingmoreabletorecoverfromtheemotionalimpactofthosedisruptions,toreviewwhattheycoulddodifferentlynexttime,andcrucially,relinquishthemselvesfromasenseofsoleresponsibilityfortheplacementbreakingdownasaresult.

• ThereissomeevidenceinthecasefilesofHead,Heart,Handscarerssupportingchildrenandyoungpeoplewithallaspectsoftheirlives,includingemotionalwellbeingandeducationalsupport.Asnotedinpreviouschapters,acohortoffostercarersreportedthatsinceundertakingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursestheyfeltmoreconfidentinadvocatingfortheneedsofthechildrenplacedwiththem.Thisfindingiscorroboratedinthecasefileanalysis,whichidentifiedevidenceofHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersassistingwiththereferralprocessforadditionalsupportservices,forexampleChildandAdolescentMentalHealthServices.

110

9.ThecostsandvalueofHead,Heart,Hands

IntroductionHavingexploredthedifferentcomponentsoftheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfosteringhouseholdsandtherelationshipwiththewidersystem,wenowfocusonthecostsandvalueoftheprogramme.OurunderpinningconceptualandtheoreticalframeworktocarryoutthiscomponentoftheevaluationisdetailedwithinAppendixG,alongwithanoverviewoftheCostCalculatorforChildren’sServices(CCfCS)toolwhichwasusedtocarryoutthequantitative,secondaryanalysisofnationallyapplicabledatasetsandtoexplorethecostsofthecarepathwaysofthechildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarers(SSDA903datasetinEnglandandtheCLASdatasetinScotland).AsoutlinedearlierinthisreportanddiscussedindetailinthefinalHead,Heart,Handsimplementationreport(GhateandMcDermid,2016)theprogrammewasframedbythefundersandthedeliverypartnersas“exploratory”.Bythis,theymeantthateachsitewouldbeencouragedtodeveloptheirowndeliverymodelforsocialpedagogyinfostering,unconstrainedbycentralprescriptionaboutwhatformthatshouldtake.Inthisway,itwashopedlearningaboutarangeofdifferentinterpretationsofhowsocialpedagogycouldbedeliveredonthegroundinthespecificsettingoffostercarewouldemerge.AsexploredinmoredetailinChapter2,Head,Heart,Handswasnotaclearlydefinedprogrammeconsistingofacommonsetofidentifiablepractices“ofknowndimensions”(Fixsenetal.,2005),orasetofprescribedactivitiesimplementedwithconsistencyacrossallsites.Moreover,therearenocurrentplanstoscaleandgrowtheHead,Heart,Handsasadiscreteprogramme.Inthisway,developinga“singlecost”ofHead,Heart,Handswouldbemisleadingtoadegreethatitwouldmasksomeoftheflexibilitiesinherentintheprogramme.However,inpractice,activitiesacrosssitessharedsimilaritiesandthereweresomestandardisedelements,orfunctions,asoutlinedinPart1.Therewasacorepackageofresources(includinghumanresources–theSocialPedagogues)providedbythefundingandmoreorlessconsistentlyofferedineachsite.Therewasalsoanationalmanagementandsupportinfrastructurecreatedbythedeliverypartners.ToestimatethecostsandtoanalysethevalueoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,wehavehadtomovetowardscategorisingthekeyprogrammeinputs,whilestillacknowledgingtheimportanceofaflexibledesignwhichcanrespondtothespecificcontexts,whichhasbeenakeyfeatureoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammethroughout.While“Head,Heart,Hands”nolongerexistsintheformdescribedinthisreport,asnotedbyGhateandMcDermid,(2016)foursiteshavefirmplanstocontinuewithsomeelements,precipitatedbytheirparticipationintheprogramme.Indeed,thereisagrowinginterestinthepotentialforsocialpedagogytoinformChildren’sSocialCareServicesacrosstheUK.TheformationoftheSocialPedagogyProfessionalAssociation(SPPA)isanexampleoftheresponsetothisgrowinginterest(SeeAppendixCforfurtherinformationaboutSPPA).Therefore,thereisagrowingneedtounderstandtheeconomicimpactofsuchendeavours.Assuch,inthischapterweconsiderthekeyHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeinputstobecostedintermsoftheir“form”andtheir“function”andoutlineamenuofdifferentcosts,whichcanbeusedtoinformfuturedevelopmentsofsocialpedagogicpracticeintheUK,acrossdifferentcontexts.WealsoprovideasetofunitcostsfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Theunitcostshavebeencalculatedfollowingathoroughanalysisand

111

categorisationoftheprogrammeexpendituredata25.Inrecognitionofthecommercialsensitivityoftheexpendituredata,financialdatareportedinthischapterhavebeenaggregatedandrounded.TounderstandthevalueofHead,Heart,Handsweexplorewhetherthesecostscanbeoffsetbytheimpactandoutcomesachievedbytheprogramme.Thevalueoftheprogrammeisconsideredbothintermsoffinancialandsocietalchanges.Programmeinputs:CategorisationOurprevious,interimevaluationreportshavefocusedonourapproachtoexplorethecostinputsoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(Holmes,McDermidandTrivedi,2014;McDermid,HolmesandTrivedi,2015).WithinthesereportsweemphasisethenecessitytodistinguishbetweendifferenttypesofcostandtherationaleforcategorisingthecostinputsutilisingtheCOINSmethod(TheCostinImplementingNewStrategies)developedbySaldanaandcolleagues(2014).Asoutlinedthroughoutthisreport,theaimofthisevaluationistoexploretheimpactoftheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsdemonstrationprogramme,ratherthanofsocialpedagogyperse.Itisvitalthatthecostsoutlinedherearenotartificiallyhigh,becausetheyincludethecostsassociatedwiththedemonstrationprogrammeinadditiontothecostsofsocialpedagogicpractices.CategorisationusingtheCOINSmethod(summarisedinBox29)facilitatesadistinctionandthereforeseparation,ofthecostsassociatedwithbeinginvolvedinademonstrationprogramme,fromthoseassociatedwithprogrammedelivery.Box29:Categorisationofcostinputs

• Theongoingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice.Thesemayincludethecostsofthestafftimeassociatedwithneworadditionalprocesses,assessmentsorpractices;meetings,groupsorsessionsprovidedaspartofthepractice;andanyadditionalstaffrequiredtodelivertheapproachorintervention.

• Thecostsassociatedwithimplementingthenewpractice.Thesecostsmayincludethecostsincurredthroughtrainingorcoachinginthenewpractice;therecruitmentofnewstaff;andplanningandreviewactivitiesthatformpartoftheinstallationstageofimplementation.

• Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationorpilotprogramme.Thesecostsmayincludethecostsoftraveltoprogrammemeetingsorsteeringgroups;andstafftimetoundertakeadditionalmonitoring,reportingorevaluationactivities.

FormandfunctionInrecognitionofthehighlevelsofvariabilityacrosstheprogramme,wehadtodevelopaconceptualframeworktoestimatethecostsofHead,Heart,Handsthattookaccountofthevariability,andidentifiedclearlydefinedcorecomponentsthatcouldbetranslatedintoaunitcost.WhilstthewaythatHead,Heart,Handsappearedatalocallevelvaried,itwasevidentthatacoresetoffunctionswererequiredtointroducesocialpedagogicpractice.Eachsitecarriedoutthosefunctionsinarangeofdifferentformsthatalsoevolvedovertime.Therefore,aspartofouranalyticalprocesstomovetowardsdefiningthecorecomponentswhichconstitutethecostinputs,weundertookaniterativeprocesstoexplorethefunctionandformsofthedifferentelementsoftheHead,Heart,Hands

25TheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammespannedfourfinancialyearsandtheexpendituredatathatwereprovidedwereforthosefourfinancialyears.TheSocialPedagogueswereonlyinpostforuptothreeyears(Jan2013toDecember2015)butpreparatoryprogrammeactivitiescommencedpriortotheSocialPedagoguesbeinginpost.

112

programme.ThisworkwasalsointendedtobuildonthecorecomponentsandtheirflexibilitiesasshowninFigure2.Ouranalysisshowsthatwhilsttherewerebothvariationandsimilaritiesintheformsoftheactivity,eachformofactivityfulfilledspecificfunctions.Inthefirstinstanceasetoffunctionswereidentified.ThesewerethecoreactivitiesthatwererecognisedasbeingnecessaryfortheintroductionofHead,Heart,Handsinanyfosteringservice.Eachfunctionwasrealisedinarangeofformsineachsite.ItwasthestatedaimoftheSocialPedagogyConsortiumthattheseformswereboth“integrated”and“compensatory”(Fixsenetal.,2005).Integratedformsarethosethroughwhichtheunderpinningphilosophy,goals,knowledgeandskillsoftheoverallprogrammeareexpressedthroughthewayinwhichtheformisdelivered.Forexample,asnotedinpreviouschapters,theLearningandDevelopmentcoursesweredesignedtoencouragegroupworking,toreflecttheemphasisthatsocialpedagogictheoryplacedonthegroupasaresource.Compensatoryformsweredevelopedsothatweaknessesinoneformcanbeovercomebystrengthsinanother.ThesetoffunctionsandformsthathaveunderpinnedthecostanalysisaredetailedinTable12.

113

Table12:FunctionsandformsofHead,Heart,Hands

FunctionBasic(core)designcomponents

Form(s)Flexibilitiesimplementedinpractice

CostCategory

Socialpedagogicinteractionsandactivitiesundertakenwithfamilies,includingfostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeople.Thisincludesanydirectworkundertakenbythosewhosepracticeisinformedbytheirunderstandingofsocialpedagogy

SocialPedagogue(asdistinctfromaSocialPedagogicalPractitioner)asSupervisingSocialWorker

1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice

SocialPedagogicalPractitionerasSupervisingSocialWorker(thisincludesanySupervisingSocialWorkerwhohasattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourseandwhosepracticeisinformedbytheirunderstandingofsocialpedagogy)


Socialpedagogyinterventionswithfamilies:directworkwithfamiliesundertakenwithinbyaSocialPedagogue,whereSocialPedagogueisNOTtheSupervisingSocialWorker)


SocialPedagogyactivitiesandeventsincludingactivitydays,outdooractivitiesandsocialevents


Socialpedagogicpracticeatasitelevel.Thisiswhathasbeendescribedas'socialpedagogyinaction'amongsomeoftheimplementationevaluationparticipantsandincludesanyactivityorinteractionwheresocialpedagogicperspectivesareofferedtositestaff(asdistinctfromfosteringhouseholdswhichiscoveredabove)

Formalised(planned)socialpedagogicinputintoteammeetingssuchasreflectionexercisesintroducedintosometeammeetings.TheseactivitiesarelikelytobeundertakenbytheSocialPedagoguesandsocialpedagogicpractitioners


Informal(orunplanned)socialpedagogicinputbetweenfosteringservicestaff,andSocialPedagogues(andsocialpedagogicpractitioners).Thisincludes,forexample,specificconversationsaboutcasesandmoregeneralissuesandhowtheymightbeunderstood(meaningmaking)throughasocialpedagogiclens.


Reviewofpoliciesandprocedures(includingpaperwork)toreflectamoresocialpedagogicapproachundertakenthroughbothplannedinteractions(forexample,whereagroupisbroughttogethertoreviewsuchpaperwork)andunplannedconversationsaboutthepaperwork(anditsapplication)


InvolvementofSocialPedagoguesintherecruitmentandapprovaloffostercarers,includinginvolvementatpanels.

1.Ongoingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice

114

SocialPedagoguesinvolvementinexistingtraining 1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice

Ensuringflexiblelearningandconsolidationopportunities.Thisfunctionincludesthosemorestructuredinitialopportunitiestolearnaboutsocialpedagogicprinciplesandpractice,andformalandinformalwaysthroughwhichtoconsolidatethislearning

1daytastersession 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

2dayorientationsessions 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

8daycoresessions 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

Consolidation:OpengroupsforthosewhoattendedtheCorecoursesANDthosewhodidnot('ActionLearningSets''/MomentumGroups'/'DialogueGroups')

2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

Consolidation:OnetoonecatchupsessionswithSocialPedagogues


Initialorconsolidation:Developmentofresources,includingsocialpedagogybookletandmanual


NurturingoftheintegrityofsocialpedagogicpracticespecificallyfortheSocialPedagogues.Thiswouldincludeexplorationoftheinfluenceandpullofthecontextonpracticeandfindingabalancebetweenadaptabilityandintegrityofpractice

SocialpedagogicsupervisionoftheSocialPedagoguesundertakenbytheSPCSiteSupportLead

3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme(unlessadditionalSPCsupporthasbeencommissioned.InwhichCase1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice)

Groupsupervision(6monthly) 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Nurturingoftheintegrityofsocialpedagogicpracticespecificallyforsocialpedagogicpractitionersandsocialpedagogytrainedpractitioners.Theseactivitiesarespecificallyforthosewhomightidentifythemselvesasusingsocialpedagogyto(albeittodifferentdegrees)andmightincludetheformal(planned)andinformal(unplanned)explorationofhowsocialpedagogicpracticemightbeadoptedinrealsituations

FollowupgroupsforthosewhoattendedtheCorecourses('ActionLearningSets''/MomentumGroups'/'DialogueGroups')


SocialPedagogicconsultationoftheSiteProjectLeadbytheSPCSiteSupportLead

3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme(unlessadditionalSPCsupporthasbeencommissioned.InwhichCase1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice)

115

Stimulatingasupportivereceivingenvironment.Thisincludesanyactivitydesignedtopromoteandsupportthefurtherdevelopmentofsocialpedagogicpracticeacrossthesite.Activitiesthatmightincreasereceptivenessanddemystifies(dependentonthestartingpointoftheorganisation)andgeneratedemandforfurthertraining.Itisanongoingprocess

Awarenessraisingpresentationstootherteams(internal) 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

Awarenessraisingpresentationstootherteams(external) 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

Socialpedagogyconference 1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice

Championsprogramme(alsoreferredtoasthe'promoters'programme


AttendanceofSocialPedagoguesand/orsocialpedagogicpractitionersatmeetings(suchasseniormanagersmeetings)tohighlighttheinfluenceandimpactofsocialpedagogy


Developmentofmaterialsaboutsocialpedagogy 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

Leadershipanddirectionatthelocal(site)level.Thisincludesthemanagementandleadershipoftheprogrammeitself(intheformoftheSiteProjectLead)anddecisionmakingatalllevelsoftheorganisationhierarchy.Thisfunctionmightalsoincludeinfluencers(changeagents)throughsupportfromthosewhoaremostinfluential(asdistinctfrompowerful)withintheparticularorganisation.Theformsmayvarydependingontheparticularleadershipstylesofindividualsandoforganisations

Strategyorsteeringgroups 1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice

Openspaceevents 2.Thecostsofimplementingthenewpractice

HHHSiteProjectLeadoversight 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

SPCSiteSupportLead 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme(unlessadditionalSPCsupporthasbeencommissioned.InwhichCase1.On-goingcostsassociatedwiththenewpractice)

SupportfromCentralprogrammeteam 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Sustainabilityplanningandactionsatthelocallevel.InmanycasesthisincludesinputfromtheSPC


116

Leadershipanddirectionatthenational(programme)level.ThisincludestheensuringthemaintenancemomentumoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeasawhole,sharingofpracticeacrosstheprogramme,tankingandmotivation

AttendanceandhostingReviewandReflectionGroups 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

SPCSiteSupportLead 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Attendanceandhostingnationalpracticegroupmeetings 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Attendanceandhostingnationalconferences 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

TheoryofChangework 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Sustainabilityplanningandactionsatthenationallevel.InmanycasesthisincludesinputfromtheSPC.

3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

InvolvementoftheSPCinthenationalprogrammefunctions 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Evaluationandmonitoring,reflectionandreviewatnationalandlocallevels

Participationinandfacilitationofevaluationactivities 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

Completionoffundersreports 3.Thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofthedemonstrationprogramme

117

Adistinctionshouldbemadebetweentheactivitiesassociatedwithdifferentformsandtheirunitcosts(Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008;HolmesandMcDermid2012).Twodifferentformsmayrequiredifferenttypesofactivities,butthoseactivitiesmaytakeanequivalentamountoftime,andthereforeincurthesameunitcost.Werecognisethatinprovidingunitcosts,someofthevariabilityintheactivitiesrequiredmaybemasked.Itwasintendedthatbydefiningthecorecomponentsinthiswaycouldhelpusmovetowardstandardisedactivitiesthatwouldberequiredwhenundertakinganendeavourofthisnature,butallowingsomeflexibilitytotaketheparticularcontextintoaccount.Programmeinputs:CorecomponentsAsreportedinthefinalimplementationevaluationreport(GhateandMcDermid,2016)ithasbeenpossibletodistiltheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammetoitsmostbasiccorecomponents.Assuch,theprogrammehadthreecorefeaturesthatwereappliedina(relativelyspeaking)standardisedformacrossallsites:

• Acoretraining(‘LearningandDevelopment’)programmebasedonsocialpedagogicprinciples,valuesandmethodsforadefinedcohortof(approximately)40carersineachsiteand(notionally)witharoundeightstaff,designedanddeliveredbytheSPC.

• TheembeddingoftrainedSocialPedagogueswithinfosteringservices,doingamixofproject-relatedsocialpedagogicdevelopmentworkandsomesocialworkactivities.

• TheprovisionofexternalsupporttositesandtoindividualpedagoguesdeliveredbytheSPC.

TheroleoftheSPCtosupporttheprogrammeatbothanationalandsitelevelissummarisedinBox30belowandisexploredinmoredetailinthefinalevaluationimplementationreport(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Inaddition,therewereanumberofvariablyimplementedcomponents,including:

• whetherSocialPedagoguesappointedtotheprogrammewerealsoregisteredtopracticesocialwork(“dualrole”pedagogues)andthuscouldundertakestatutoryfosteringsocialworkinfosteringhouseholds;

• theamountofdirectworkundertakenbypedagogueswithfamiliesorwithchildrenandyoungpeople,andwhetherthiswasaloneorjointlywithothercolleagues;

• theextentofreviewandredraftingofpoliciesandoperationalproceduresbyHead,Heart,Handsprojectteamswithinsitefosteringservices;

• nurturingorganisationalconditionsandworkwithleadershipteams;• nurturingpracticesharinganddevelopment;• programmeawarenessraisingwithinsites.

118

Box30:TheroleoftheSocialPedagogyConsortium

Inthefollowingsectionsofthischapterweconsiderthedifferentprogrammeinputsatboththenationalandsitelevelwithaninitialfocusonthetimespentonthevariouscomponents.Wealsoexplorethe“inkind”inputsandthevalueofthem.InputsatanationallevelThemainsupportinfrastructureoftheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammewastheCentralDeliveryPartners,consistingoftheCentralLeadershipTeam,theCentralManagementTeamandtheSocialPedagogyConsortium(SPC)(seeChapter2).TheCentralManagementTeamwasresponsiblefortheoperationalleadershipoftheprogramme.Theyprovidedprojectsupport,overallgovernanceoftheprogrammeandensuredtheprogrammewascarriedoutontimeandtobudget.26TheSPCsupportedthedeliveryoftheprogrammeandtheirroleisoutlinedinBox30above.TheimplementationoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammewas,therefore,supportedbyarangeofnationalactivitiesorinputs.Manyoftheseactivitieswerespecificallyassociatedwithbeingpartofa26GiventhattheroleoftheCentralManagementTeamwastosupportthedemonstrationprogrammeandassuchwouldhavebeenclassifiedasCOINSCategory3,asdetailedabove,thesecostshavenotbeenincludedintheunitcostspresentedlaterinthechapter.Therationaleforthisapproachistoensurethatwedonotpresentartificiallyhighcoststhatcouldbetakenoutofcontext.

TextprovidedbytheSPC,2016“TheSPCcontributedto thedevelopment, setup (including theassessmentandselectionofsitesandrecruitmentofthesites’SocialPedagogues)andrunningoftheprogramme:thewritingoftheLearning and Development programme, including creation of materials and facilitation of thecourses;guidancetothecentralprogrammeteamnationally;andsupportforthesites,withoneortwoSPCsitesupportleadspersite.

Centraltothisrolewasbuildingandmaintainingstrongprofessionalrelationshipswithsiteprojectteams.AlongsidetheguidancefromlocalSocialPedagogues,theyprovidedformalandinformalsupporttothesiteteam,guidingtheirreflectionsandplanning,includinganynecessarylocaladaptations.SPCsitesupportleadsalsoengagedsitestakeholdersinobtainingfurtherlong-termsupportforsocialpedagogy.Importantly,theyaimedatanappropriatelevelofcoherenceandconsistencyacrosstheprogramme,takingintoaccountanyvarianceinthelocalcontextsandtheprofessionalbackgroundandpracticeculturesoftheemployedSocialPedagogues.Theywereinfrequent,regularcontactwiththesiteteams,locallycontextualised,for:monthlypedagogicalsupervisionfortheSocialPedagogues(and6monthlygroupsupervisionacrosssites);attendingsitestrategy/steeringgroupsandotherprogrammedevelopmentmeetings;guidanceondevelopingsocialpedagogicmaterials;developingand(co)-facilitatingotherprogramme-relatedcourses.

Nationally,theSPCsupportedtheFosteringNetworkindevelopingtheirunderstandingofsocialpedagogyandtheapplicationofsocialpedagogyinfostering.Thisincludedatwo-daysocialpedagogyintroductioncourse.TheSPCliaisedwiththecentralprogrammeteamremotelyonamonthlybasis,andmetonaveragefivetimesperyearforcoordinationandprogrammedevelopment.Theyalsoparticipatedinthequarterlyprogrammelearningnetworkmeetings,whichbroughttogethersiteprojectteams,theSPCandTheFosteringNetwork.AnSPCmemberservedontheProgrammeandAdvisoryBoards”.SocialPedagogyConsortium,2016

119

nationaldemonstrationprogrammeandtoensurethatlearningwasshared.Tomovetowardstheestimationofamenuofunitcosts,thenationalactivitiescarriedoutbytheSPCwereorganisedaccordingtotheCOINScategoriesoutlinedinBox29above.TheamountoftimespentoneachoftheseactivitiesbytheSPC,duringeachoftheprogrammeyearswasextractedfromprogrammeexpenditurespreadsheetsprovidedbyTheFosteringNetworkmanagementteam.TheamountofactivityandthecategorisationofthedifferentcomponentsaresummarisedinAppendixI.AsAppendixIshowsandaspreviouslydiscussedintheimplementationreport(GhateandMcDermid,2016),throughoutthedurationoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammetherewasasubstantialproportionoftimespentonactivitiesrelatedtothedemonstrationprogramme.Ofthetotal388daysspentonnationallevelactivitiesbytheSPC,morethanthree-quarters(79%:n=305)wereattributabletoprogrammerelatedactivitiesasopposedtotasksspecificallyfocusedonimplementingorsupportingpractice.Aswediscussinthefollowingsectionthisproportionisreversedwhenwefocusonsitelevelactivities,bothintermsoftheinvolvementoftheSPCandtheSocialPedagogues.Translatingtheseactivitiesintocostsassociatedwithnationalsupport,theproportionofexpenditureondemonstrationprogrammeactivitieswas80%.Thetotalexpenditureoverthecourseofthefouryearprogrammefornationalsupportwasintheregionof£250,00027.Itmightbeexpectedinaprogrammeofthissizeandambitionthatasizeableproportionoftimeandexpenditurewouldneedtobeallocatedtoprogrammewideactivitiesandthattheseactivitiesareessentialtoensurethattheoverallvisionisrealised.Furthermore,manyoftheactivitiesthathavebeencategorisedasdemonstrationprogrammeactivitiessubsequentlyinfluencedtheprogrammeandactivitiesatasitelevelandviceversa.However,thehighproportionofcostspresentedherereflectthefindingsoftheimplementationevaluationwhichsuggestedthat“Thereseemedattimestobefartoomany‘ballsintheair’andtoomanydifferentstructuresandstrandsofactivityforthecentralprogrammedeliveryteamtojuggle”(GhateandMcDermid,2016:135).InputsatasitelevelTheinputsatthesitelevelcomprisedboththeongoingsupportprovidedbytheSPCandtheappointmentoftheSocialPedagoguesinthesites.AshighlightedearlierinthisreportandpreviouslybyGhateandMcDermid(2016)boththeLearningandDevelopmentcoursesandtheSocialPedagogueswereconsideredtobethecorecomponentsoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(exploredfurtherinChapter11).SPCinputatthelocallevelDifferentmembersoftheSPCprovidedsupporttothesitesthroughoutthefouryearprogramme.Thetypeofsupporttheyoffereddifferedtomeettheevolvingneedsoftheprogrammeandthelocalsitecontext.DuringtheinitialstagesoftheprogrammetheSPChadthesoleresponsibilityofthedeliveryoftheinitialLearningandDevelopmentcourses.TheSPCalsoofferedsupporttotheSocialPedagoguesandtotheSiteProjectLeads.Theparticularformthesefunctionstookvariedacrossthesites.ThesupporttotheSocialPedagogueswaspartoftheoriginalprogrammedesign.ThenatureofthesupportprovidedbytheSPCwasdescribedasbeingroutinepracticeinothercountries,andwasinresponsetotheassumptionthattheSocialPedagoguerolewouldotherwise27Thisoverallcostincludesthetimespent,alltravelandsubsistence,aswellasthecostofproducingLearningandDevelopmentmaterials.

120

beisolated,basedpartiallyonthelearningfromtheearlierpilotprojecttointroduceSocialPedagoguesintoresidentialchildren’shomes(Berridgeetal.,2011).AsnotedinGhateandMcDermid(2016)whilstthisassumptionwascorrectinsomesitesandtheSPCsupportwasdescribedasvital,inothersitesthiswasnotreportedtobethecase.Likewise,thesupportprovidedtotheSiteProjectLeadvariedconsiderablyacrosstheprogramme.InsomesitestheSPCsiteleadtookavisiblyactiverole,forexamplechairingthelocalsteeringgroups.InotherstheSPCintentionallytookabackseatrole,advisingbehindthescenes.Althoughthefunctionandformoftheirsupportdifferedbetweensites,thetotalnumberofdayssupportprovidedtotheindividualsiteswassimilar,rangingfrom124-129,exceptintheYellowsitewhereitwasslightlyless,withatotalof114days.ThenumberofdayssupportprovidedbytheSPCtoeachsiteisbrokendownbyprogrammeyearinTable13.ThedatapresentedfurtherseparatesouttheactivityspecificallyrelatedtothedeliveryoftheLearningandDevelopmentcoursesinthesecondyearoftheprogramme.Table13AmountofSPCsitesupport(input)duringtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,byyearE Site(numberofdayssupport)

Programmeyear Blue GreenandRedF Orange Pink Purple Yellow

Year1 19 19 17 17 16 12

Year2(LearningandDevelopmentcourses) 47 41 54 50 49 56

Year2 25 25 18 19 20 13

Year3 18 19 16 19 23 18

Year4 17 25 23 19 19 15

Total 126 129 128 124 127 114

ETheexpendituredatafortheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammecombinedtheinputatthesitelevelfortheGreenandRedsites.ThesitelevelsupportprovidedbytheSPC,overthelifetimeoftheprogrammeconstitutedexpenditureintheregionof£650,000.ExplorationandanalysisofthesitelevelsupportprovidedbytheSPCresultedinallaspectsofthisworkbeingclassifiedaseither1or2(ongoingorimplementingnewpractice)usingtheCOINSmethodsofcategorisationoutlinedabove,incontrastwiththecategorisationofthenationallevelactivitiesdetailedinAppendixI.SocialPedagogueinputAsnotedinBox30therangeofworktobeundertakenbytheSocialPedagogueswaswrittenintothejobdescriptionsusedatthetimeoftheirrecruitment.Itwasstatedthattheirrolewouldincludeworkwithcarers,youngpeopleandfosteringhouseholds;withotherstaffatthesites;andwithwidersystempartnersandstakeholders.ThecostsassociatedwithrecruitingtheSocialPedagogueswereborneataprogrammelevel,whereastheemploymentcostsweresharedbetweentheprogrammebudgetandthesites(witheachcontributing50%ofthetotalemploymentcostsforthetwoSocialPedagoguepostsineachsite).Thesitesweregivenadegreeofflexibilitytodecidehow

121

theSocialPedagogues’timewasspentandthisevolvedovertime,althoughtherewereclearguidelinesthatamaximumof50%oftheirtimewastobespentoncasework.InfiveofthesitestheSocialPedagogueheldcases(intheroleofsupervisingsocialworkers),butinmostofthese,theSocialPedagogueshadareducedcaseload.IntwositestheSocialPedagoguescaseloadconstituted(almost)afullcaseloadfora0.5fulltimeequivalentworker(inrecognitionofthe50%fundscontributedbythesites).AsnotedbyGhateandMcDermid(2016)SocialPedagoguerolesthatcombinedthedevelopmentofsocialpedagogywithroutineoperationalsocialworkwerefoundtobethemostoptimal,particularlywhenmanagersassistedwiththedelicatebalancingoftimethatwasrequiredforthetworolestobeachieved.IntwositestheSocialPedagoguesdidnotholdcasesbutcarriedoutsomedirectworkwithfamilies,althoughasnotedinChapter11theamountofdirectworkwithfamilieswaslessthananticipatedatprogrammeinception.Theemploymentcosts(includingon-costs)variedbetweensitesandrangedfrombetween£36,000and£44,000,perSocialPedagogue,perannum,muchofthisvariationwasattributabletodifferencesinpensioncontributionpolicies.InputsinkindThelevelofcommitmenttotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,inparticularbytheSiteProjectLeadshasbeenhighlightedinourpreviousevaluationreports.Ofparticularrelevance,asweexplorethecostinputstotheprogrammeandconsiderhowthelearningcanbetakenforwardtofutureiterationsofsimilarprogrammes,istheomissionofanallocatedbudgetatthesiteleveltosupporttheimplementationoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Assuch,theSiteProjectLeadsandotherkeypersonnel(suchastheStrategicSiteLead)withinthesitescommittedtimetotheprogrammewithoutaformalallocationoftimeorbudget.Thistimecommitmentwasrequiredforlocalsiteactivitiesandalsorepresentationatnationalprogrammemeetings,forexample,ReviewandReflectionGroups.FurtherdetailsaboutthenumberofnationalmeetingsthatwereheldthroughouttheprogrammeandwhowererequiredtoattendthesearedetailedinAppendixJ.Thesiteswerealsorequiredtofundarangeoflocalprogrammespecificevents,againthesewereunfundedbytheprogramme.TimeasaresourceAsreportedinearlierinterimevaluationreportsfocusedonthecostsandsustainabilityoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(Holmes,McDermidandTrivedi,2014;McDermid,HolmesandTrivedi,2015)wehavehighlightedtheneedtounderstand“timeuse”asaresourceandacost.Previousresearchtoexploretimeusewithinchildren’ssocialcareserviceshasidentifiedcomparablelevelsofactivityforlegislativeledprocessestosupportchildrenandtheirfamilies,bothwithinandbetweenlocalauthorities(Selwynetal.,2006;BeechamandSinclair,2007;Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008;HolmesandMcDermid,2012)Examplesincludetheongoingprocessofsupportingafostercareplacementbyboththechild’ssocialworkerandthesupervisingsocialworker.Thispreviousworkhasledtothecategorisationofpractitionertimeuseaccordingtotheneedsandcircumstancesofthechildrenandtheirfamilies,theservicesreceivedandvariationsbylocalauthoritypolicyandpractice.Beingabletocategorisetimeuseinthisway,fromthebottomup,facilitatesacomparisonofthetimerequired(andthereforecoststosupportdifferenttypesofcases).OverthecourseoftheevaluationtheHead,Heart,Handssitesprovidedexampleswheresomeprocesseswerestreamlined,forexamplelowerlevelsofactivityandtimespentbythechild’ssocial

122

workerandthesupervisingsocialworkerasaresultoffostercarersincreasedconfidence.Bycontrast,exampleswerealsoprovidedoftheadditionaltimetakentosupportplacementsthatrequiredextrainput.Inthequotebelow,apractitionerexplainedtheirperceptionofthetimerequiredtoembedsomesocialpedagogicpracticesindirectworkingwithchildrentosupporttheirplacement:

“Itistimeconsuming…itisnotsomethingthatcanbedoneinathreehoursession…itcouldeventakeamonthortwobutitissomethingthathastobedoneovertimesothatyoubuildandestablishandcreateanenvironmenttoshareandexperienceandthenre-evaluateitagain.”(Children’ssocialcarestafffocusgroupattendee).

AshighlightedintheearliersectionsofthisreporttheneedforflexibilityandvariabilityacrossHead,Heart,Handsatbothaprogrammeandsitelevelwasemphasisedthroughoutthedurationoftheprogramme.Thisreflectsthewiderliteraturewhicharguesfortheneedforsocialpedagogicpractitionerstorespondtotheparticularneedsofthosetheysupport(Lorenz,2008;CameronandMoss,2011).Inthisway,wheredirectworkwascarriedout,thelevelofinputintoeachfosteringhouseholdvariedconsiderably.Assuch,itwasnotpossibletodetermineorcategorisean‘average’leveloftimeusefromthebottomuptosupportHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhouseholds.GiventherangeofvariabilitywehaveinsteadincorporatedthecostofdirectworkbytheSocialPedagoguesfromthetopdownwithintheoverallcostsoftheirroles,detailedabove.UnitcostestimationInthesectionsabovewehaveexplainedandcategorisedthevariousinputsoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Thisinformationwasthenusedtoestimateaunitcostpersite,peryear,foreachHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhousehold.Theestimationanduseofunitcostsinchildren’ssocialcareserviceshasgrownoverthepastdecadeandtherationalefortheiruseisclearlyarticulatedbyBeechamandSinclair(2007).ThecomplexityofestimatingunitcostsanddifficultiesattributingthemtooutcomesisalsosummarisedbyBeechamandSinclair(ibid).Despitethesecomplexitiesanddifficulties,itiswidelyregardedthattheestimationanduseofunitcostsinchildren’ssocialcareintroducestransparencyintotherelativevalueofservicesandinterventions(economicandsocietal)andcanassistwithstrategicplanningandcommissioningofservices(Beecham,2000;BeechamandSinclair,2007;Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008;HolmesandMcDermid,2012).Toassistreadersthatareunfamiliarwithunitcosts,adefinitionisprovidedinBox31.Box31Definitionofaunitcost

Unitcosts‘summarise’theamountofresources(forexample,staff)absorbedtoproduceaunitofoutputforthatservice.These‘outputunits’oftenmakeuseoftimeperiodsofservice:fromtheannualcostofaspecificintervention,tothecostperhourofasocialworker.AdaptedfromBeechamandSinclair(2007)

123

Theunitcosts(persite,peryear,foreachHead,Heart,Handsfosteringhousehold)areshowninTable14andprovideadistinctionbetweentheunitcostswithandwithoutthecostscategorisedasCOINSCategory3(thecostsassociatedwithbeingpartofademonstrationprogramme).Table14Head,Heart,Handsunitcostsperyear,persite,foraHead,Heart,HandsfosteringhouseholdF

Site

Unitcost Blue GreenandRedG Orange Pink Purple Yellow

UnitcostPERYEARincludingthenationalcostscategorisedasCOINS3

£3,066 £3,264 £2,218 £2,426 £2,441 £2,074

UnitcostPERYEARminusthenationalcostscategorisedasCOINS3

£2,831 £3,012 £2,066 £2,244 £2,254 £1,919

FTheexpendituredatafortheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammewascombinedfortheGreenandRedsitessoitwasnotpossibletoaccuratelydisaggregatetheunitcostsforthesesites.Thevariabilityintheunitcostsbetweensitesisasaresultofarangeoffactors,includingthedifferentlevelofsupportprovidedtothesitesbytheSPC(asdetailedearlierinthischapterinBox30);thesalarypaidtotheSocialPedagoguesandthenumberoffostercarersthatparticipatedintheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,whichrangedfrom29to48(thenumberofcarerspersiteisprovidedinAppendixE).Thecostshavebeenaveragedacrossthefourfinancialyearsoftheprogramme,althoughtheactualcostswerehighestinyeartwowhentheLearningandDevelopmentcourseswerebeingdelivered.Valueoftheprogramme:OutcomesandimpactAttheheartofvalueformoneyargumentsistheextenttowhichthecostsincurredthroughimplementinganewpracticecanbedirectlyattributabletoaprogrammeandmayleadtofinancialbenefits,alongwithimprovedoutcomesforchildrenandyoungpeople(societalbenefits).Thepotentialimpactandoutcomescanbeorganisedintotwobroadtypes:

1. Childleveloutcomeswhichrelatetotheimpactofthenewpracticeonindividualchildren.Forexample,improvedplacementstabilityresultinginareductioninplacementchangesandtheassociatedcostsofthesemovesoranimprovedplacementexperiencewhichresultsinimprovedoutcomesandpotentiallylongertermcostsavoidedtothepublicpurse.

2. Organisationaloutcomeswhichrelatetochangesinwiderorganisationalfunctionsasaresultofthenewpractice.Onesuchexampleisthereductioninthecostsassociatedwiththerecruitmentandretentionoffostercarers.

AttributionofoutcomestotheprogrammeThecomplexityandheterogeneityoftheprogrammehavealreadybeendiscussedatlengthinthepreviouschapter,alongwiththeconsequentialdifficultiesofattributingthesetotheprogrammewhichhavebeenexacerbatedbytheshortepisodeswithHead,Heart,Handscarersforacohortofthechildren.Furthermore,aswehavepreviouslyreported,sitesstatedthatthepotentialimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonsubsequentplacementtrajectorieshadbeenlessenedasaresultofwidersystemicandmarketpressuresandchanges.Thiswasaparticularlypertinentissueforthe

124

independentprovidersiteswhereelementsofplacementdecisionmakingsatoutsideoftheorganisation(i.e.decisionswerebeingmadebytheplacinglocalauthorities).Thesearekeyfactorswhenexploringvalueformoneydebatesandtheattributionofcostsavoided.Thedifficultiesassociatedwiththeattributionofcostsavoidedandtheuseofcosteffectivenessanalysesforchildren’ssocialcareprogrammeshaspreviouslybeenhighlightedbyBeechamandSinclair(2007).Valueformoneyanalysesatanaggregatelevelmasktheheterogeneityoftheprogrammeandassuchareopentomisinterpretation.Nevertheless,wehaveusedindividualcaretrajectoriestoillustratethecostsassociatedwithdifferentpathwaysofchildreninthesample,thesearedetailedinTables15to17below.ThesecostshavebeencalculatedusingtheCostCalculatorforChildren’sServices(seeAppendixGformoredetails)andincludetheongoingsupportcostsforchildren’ssocialcareprocessesaswellasthefeesandallowancespaidtocarers28.ChildleveloutcomesandcostsavoidedExistingevidenceinrelationtolookedafterchildrensuggeststhatthosechildrenwithhigherlevelsofneedaremorelikelytoincurhighercosts.Thesehighercostsaretheresultoftheneedformorespecialisedplacementsandadditionalsupport(suchasChildandAdolescentMentalHealthServicesandtherapeuticinterventions)alongwiththecostsincurredthrougheventssuchasplacementbreakdowns(Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008;HolmesandMcDermid,2012).Asaresult,aggregatedlocalauthoritybudgetscanbeskewedbyasmallnumberofchildrenwithhigherneeds,andlesspositivecareexperiences.Tothisend,itisreasonabletoexpectthatimprovingtheexperienceofcareforbothchildrenandyoungpeopleandfostercarersislikely(butnotexclusively)toleadtolowercosts,notonlytochildren’ssocialcaredepartments,butalsototheirpartneragencies,asaresultofimprovedoutcomesrelatedtoeducationandemotionalwellbeing.TheprocessofplacementchangeandmanagedmovesThepreviouschaptersofthisreportprovideadetailedexplorationandanalysisofrelationshipswithinthefosteringhouseholdsandtheimportanceoffocusingontheprocessofplacementchange.Ifwerevisitourearlieranalysisofplannedplacementchanges(managedmoves),wecanconsiderthefindingsfromthecasefileanalysisthatahigherproportionoftheplacementchangesexperiencedbythechildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,Handscarerswerecarriedoutinapositive,plannedway.WereturntothecasestudyforRyan(seeChapter8)andhisexperienceofaplannedmovefromaHead,Heart,Handsplacement.DetailedinBox26arethesocialcarecostsincurredforRyan’scarejourney,fortheelevenmonthshewasplacedwithhisHead,Heart,Handscarers.

28Furtherinformationabouttheconceptualframework,theestimationofunitcostsforlookedafterchildrenandthereasonsforvariationinunitcostsaredetailedinWard,HolmesandSoper(2008).

125

Table15CarejourneycostsforRyan

DuringHead,Heart,Handsplacement Unitcost Occurrences Subtotal

Process1Decidechildneedstobelookedafter £972 1 £972Process2Careplan £240 3 £720

Process3OngoingsupportG £51H 336(days) £17,123

Process4Exitcare £415 1 £415Process5Movetoasubsequentplacement N/A

Process6Review £618 1 £618Process7Legal N/A

Process8Transitiontoleavingcare N/A

Total £19,848Costpermonth £1,804

GProcess3iscalculatedasaunitcostperdayandisthenmultipliedbythenumberofdaysinplacement.Process3includesboththeongoingsupporttotheplacementandtheplacementfeesandallowances.HThedailyunitcostfortheHead,Heart,Handsplacementincludestheprogrammeunitcost,perfostercarer,peryeardetailedinTable14.AsdetailedinChapter8,RyanmovedfromhisHead,Heart,HandsplacementtolivewithhisauntwhenshewasgrantedaSpecialGuardianshipOrder.Movingontolivewithhisauntinaplannedandpurposefulwayislikelytohavereducedthecoststothesite,whencomparedwithalongertimeperiodofbeinglookedafter.AtpresenttherearenotanypublishedunitcostsofSpecialGuardianshipOrdersandthefinancialarrangementsforgrantingthemarevariablebetweenlocalauthorities(Wadeetal.,2014).However,thecostsassociatedwithadequatelysupportedreturnstobirthfamilymembershavebeenestimatedalongwiththepotentialcostsavoidedofpreventingchildrenfromoscillatinginandoutofcare(Holmes,2014).WecanusethesameapproachtobreakdownthecostsofthecaretrajectoriesforRubyandAshley(asdetailedinChapter8).ThecostsforRubyareseparatedforpriortoandduringherHead,Heart,Handsplacement.

126

Table16CarejourneycostsforRuby

BeforeHead,Heart,Handsplacement

Unitcost

Occurrences Subtotal DuringHead,Heart,Handsplacement

Unitcost

Occurrences Subtotal

Process1Decidechildneedstobelookedafter

£972 1 £972 Process1Decidechildneedstobelookedafter

N/A

Process2Careplan £240 3 £720 Process2Careplan £240 5 £1,201

Process3OngoingsupportI

£44 251 £11,149 Process3Ongoingsupport

£51J 982 £50,044

Process4Exitcare N/A Process4Exitcare N/A

Process5Movetoasubsequentplacement

N/A Process5Movetoasubsequentplacement

£310 1 £310

Process6Review £618 3 £1,855 Process6Review £618 5 £3,092

Process7Legal(obtaincareorder)

£4,185 1 £4,185 Process7Legal(ongoing)

£10 982 £9,810

Process8Transitiontoleavingcare

N/A Process8Transitiontoleavingcare

N/A

Total £18,881 Total £64,457

Costpermonth £2,360 Costpermonth £2,014IProcess3iscalculatedasaunitcostperdayandisthenmultipliedbythenumberofdaysinplacement.Process3includesboththeongoingsupporttotheplacementandtheplacementfeesandallowances.JThedailyunitcostfortheHead,Heart,Handsplacementincludestheprogrammeunitcost,perfostercarer,peryeardetailedinTable14.Ruby’scaretrajectorycostshavebeenincludedtoillustratepotentiallyattributablevalueformoney,atacaselevel,ratherthansystemwide.AsdetailedinChapter8,RubyexperiencedapositiveepisodeofcarewithherHead,Heart,Handscarersandheroutcomeswerepositiveonapositivetrajectory.SosoonafterthecompletionoftheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeitisnotpossibletoascertainthelongertermimpactofHead,Heart,Handsontheoutcomesforthechildrenandyoungpeopleastheymoveontosubsequentplacementsandintotheiradultlives.However,wecandrawontheexistingevidencebaseintermsofimprovedlifechancesandbetterlongertermoutcomesforlookedafterchildrenasaconsequenceofapositivecareexperience(Demos,2010).ThecostsforAshleyarebrokendowntoshowthethreepartsofhercarejourney:preHead,Heart,Hands,herHead,Heart,Handsplacementandthenhersubsequentplacementwithotherfostercarers.

127

Table17CarejourneycostsforAshley

BeforeHead,Heart,Handsplacement

Unitcost Occurrences

Subtotal DuringHead,Heart,Handsplacement

Unitcost Occurrences

Subtotal AfterHead,Heart,Handsplacement

Unitcost

Occurrences Subtotal

Process1Decidechildneedstobelookedafter

£972 Process1Decidechildneedstobelookedafter

£0 Process1Decidechildneedstobelookedafter

£0

Process2Careplan £240 8 £1,921 Process2Careplan £240 1 £240 Process2Careplan £240 3 £720

Process3OngoingsupportK £44 1520 £67,518 Process3Ongoingsupport

£51L 45 £2,293 Process3Ongoingsupport

£44 627 £27,851

Process4Exitcare £0 Process4Exitcare £0 Process4Exitcare £0

Process5Movetoasubsequentplacement

£310-£650M

5 £2,030 Process5Movetoasubsequentplacement

£650 1 £650 Process5Movetoasubsequentplacement

£310 1 £310

Process6Review £618 8 £4,947 Process6Review £618 1 £618 Process6Review £618 3 £1,855

Process7Legal(obtaincareorder)

£4,185 1 £4,185 Process7Legal(ongoing)

£10

45

£450

Process7Legal(ongoing)

£10

627

£6,264

Process7Legal(ongoing) £10 1520 £15,185

Process8Transitiontoleavingcare

£0 Process8Transitiontoleavingcare

£0 Process8Transitiontoleavingcare

£2,478 1 £2,478

Total £96,758 Total £4,251 Total £39,479

Costpermonth £1,975 Costpermonth £2,834 Costpermonth £1,974KProcess3iscalculatedasaunitcostperdayandisthenmultipliedbythenumberofdaysinplacement.Process3includesboththeongoingsupporttotheplacementandtheplacementfeesandallowances.LThedailyunitcostfortheHead,Heart,Handsplacementincludestheprogrammeunitcost,perfostercarer,peryeardetailedinTable14.MTheunitcostsofplacementchange(Process5)rangefrom£310-£650toaccountforvariationsaccordingtothefrequencyandtimeframeofpreviousmoves.

128

Thecostsassociatedwithplacementchangehavebeenestimatedtorangefrom£250to£1,500permove(Ward,HolmesandSoper,2008).Thisrangetakesintoaccounttheneedsofthechild,theplacementtypethattheyaremovinginto,andtheirpriorplacements(withthecostsofplacementchangebecomingincrementallyhigherforchildreniftheycontinuetoexperienceplacementinstability).ThesecostsareillustratedforAshleywitharangeofincreasingplacementchangecostsforthefiveplacementchangespriortoherHead,Heart,HandsplacementandsubsequentmovesintoandthenoutofHead,Heart,Hands.Theplacementchangecostsatthetopendofthisrange(£1,500)wouldbeattributableforchildrenwhomoveintoresidentialprovisionfollowingaperiodofinstability,abreakdownofthesemuchhighercosts,bothintermsofplacementchangecostsandescalatingplacementcostshavenotbeenshownatanindividualchildlevelbecausethenumberofchildrenmovingintoresidentialprovisionfollowingHead,Heart,Handsconstitutedasmallproportionofthesample,neverthelessaproportionthatiscomparabletothenationallookedafterpopulation.OrganisationaloutcomesWehavediscussedinsomedetail,bothinthisreportandinGhateandMcDermid(2016)thatvariationsinthewayinwhichdifferentorganisationsimplementthesamemodelorapproacharetobeexpectedinanynewprogrammeorapproach(PawsonandTilley,1997;Munroetal.,2011;2012;Saldanaetal.,2014)andthesevariationshaveimpactedontheoutcomesachieved,thecostsincurredandtheattributionofthesetotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Furthermore,somesiteshaveembarkedonactivitiesandinnovationsthatarenotpartofHead,Heart,Hands,butincludeafocusonsocialpedagogy.Forexample,atleasttwositeshavesubsequentlyemployedadditionalSocialPedagoguesinotherserviceareas.TheHead,Heart,Handsdemonstrationsitesrepresentadiverserangeoffosteringservices,varyinginsizeandtype(includingindependent,voluntaryandlocalauthorityprovision),alongwiththeheterogeneityofthecharacteristicsoffostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhowereengagedintheprogramme.Assuch,wearefacedwithamixedpictureofthepotentialorganisationaloutcomesandcostsavoidedasadirectandattributableconsequenceoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.SystematicanalysisoforganisationaloutcomesatasitelevelcannotbedirectlyattributabletotheprogrammegiventhelimitedscopeandreachoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Forexample,sitelevelfiguresabouttherecruitmentandretentionoffostercarers(Ofsted,2015)canonlybeappropriatelyusedwherewholecohortsoffostercarershavebeeninvolvedinaprogrammeofthisnature.However,thesitesdidprovidedataaboutpositiveorganisationaloutcomesthatweredirectlyattributabletotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,andassuchprovidesomeevidenceofcostsavoided,atanindividualcaseorcarerlevel,ratherthanacrosswholesitebudgets.Specificallyexampleshavebeenincludedindetailinourpreviousevaluationreports(Holmes,McDermidandTrivedi,2014)andincludethefollowing:potentialfostercarersapproachingsiteshavingheardabouttheprogrammeandthenbeingrecruitedasnewcarers(Pinksite)andcloseworkingwithbirthfamilieswhichdirectlyledtoareductionincomplaints(Redsite).Nevertheless,thesitesalsoprovidedexamplesofHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersbeingsuspendedfollowingallegations,

129

circumstanceswhichhavesubstantialtimeandresourceimplications29.Thisfindingwascorroboratedbyourcasefilesanalysis(seeChapter8).However,fromthedataitwasnotpossible,andthesitesindicatedthatitwouldnotbeappropriate,todeterminewhethertheseallegationsweredirectlyattributabletotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Referringbacktoourinterimreport(McDermid,HolmesandTrivedi,2015)andtheearliersectionofthischapterfocusedon‘timeasaresource’thesitesprovidedexamplesofchangesinpracticethathadimpactedonthetimespentsupportingHead,Heart,Handsplacements.Althoughthepictureismixed,withexamplesofbothincreasesandreductionsinactivitiestomeettheneedsofspecificplacements,theinterviewsandcasefileanalysisprovideamorenuancedpictureintermsofimprovementsinthequalityofrelationships.Inasmallnumberofcasesfostercarersreportedthattheirrelationshipswiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerhadimproved.Itmightbeexpectedthatwheretheserelationshipswereworkingwell,issuessuchasallegationsmaybedealtwithmoresatisfactorilyandthatthisconsequentlyimpactsontheretentionoffostercarers,afindingthatisevidencedelsewhere(McDermidetal.,2012).However,fostercarersalsoreportedthattherewasinsufficientdiffusionoftheapproachacrossthewiderservice.Somefostercarersreportedthatcircumstances,suchasallegations,hadbeenaddressedinamannerwhichisatoddswithsocialpedagogy.Assuch,itispossibletoarguethattheeconomicimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonorganisationaloutcomeswillbelimiteduntiltheapproachisdispersedacrossmorepartsoftheorganisation.SustainabilityAstheprogrammereacheditsconclusioninDecember2015,fourofthesevensiteshaddevelopedclearplanstocontinuewithsocialpedagogybeyondthelifetimeoftheprogramme,andtheremainingthreereportedthatwhilenoplansareinplace,itistheirintentionthatsocialpedagogywillstillfeatureaspartoftheirorganisationalpractice.Inthiswayitispossibletoarguethatatalocallevel,sitesfeelthattherehasbeensufficientevidenceoftheimpactofsocialpedagogy,fortheirlocalcontext,tocontinuewiththeapproachtodifferingdegrees.

However,despiteplanswithinsitestocontinue,wereturntoourwiderevaluationfindingsaboutthereachoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeandcommunicationacrossorganisations.Asmallnumberoffostercarersandfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationatWave3raisedconcernsabouttheextenttowhichseniormanagersanddecisionmakersacrossthewidersitewerecommittedtosocialpedagogybeyondthelifetimeoftheprogramme(n=6:11%).ThiswasparticularlyprominentinsitesthathadtakenthedecisiontonotcontinuewiththeSocialPedagogueposts.InthesesitesasmallnumberoffostercarersintheinterviewsampleraisedconcernsregardingtheextenttowhichsocialpedagogicpracticecouldembedanddevelopwithoutthesupportofaSocialPedagogue(n=9).Thelackofinvestmentofresourcestofundthepostsbeyondthelifetimeoftheprogrammewasalsointerpretedbythefostercarersasanindicatorthattheseniormanagersatthesitewerenolongercommittedtotheapproach.Conversely,fostercarersinsiteswhereSocialPedagoguesweremoreintegratedintothefosteringteamsappearedtobemorehopefulaboutthepotentialforsocialpedagogytocontinuewithintheirsite.Furthermore,echoingthefindingsofGhateandMcDermid(2016)asmallnumberoffostercarers(n=11:19%)notedthattherewasalackofplanningforsustainabilitywithintheirsite.Thisviewwas

29Furtherdetailshavenotbeenincludedheretoensuretheanonymityofspecificcases.

130

compoundedbyconcernsoverlimitedresourcesacrossthesector,andsomefostercarersnotedthatcommitmenttoandengagementwithsocialpedagogymaybereplacedbyalternativeprogrammes,ascapacitytoinvestinmorethanoneapproachmaybelimited.TheseconcernsarecertainlynotuniquetotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,butresonatewithvalueformoneydebatesacrosschildrensocialcareservicesnationallyandrecentreferencestoa“systemunderpressure”wherebydifficultdecisionshavetobemadeatalocallevelaboutwhichservicestoinvestin(SpringConsortium,2016).

ThefindingsthroughoutallWavesoftheevaluationindicatedtheimportanceofsitescommunicatingtheircommitmenttosocialpedagogytofostercarerstomaintainenthusiasmfortheprogramme.AllofthefostercarersintheinterviewsamplethatmovedfrombeingEngagedAdopterstoCautiousOptimists,orindeedCautiousOptimiststoDefendedSceptics,reportedthattheirlossofenthusiasmwasduetoconcernsthatthesitewasnolongerascommittedtosocialpedagogyastheywereatthecommencementoftheprogramme.Onefostercarercommented:

“IreallyenjoyedthecourseandIwasveryenthusiasticwhenwedidit,itwasgreatanditopenedmyeyestoalotofnewthings.Andthenafterthecourseitwasabitof,yesadisappointment.Ifeelithasbeenfadedawayabit.”(Fostercarerinterviewee).

Conversely,theOrangesitehadgonetoconsiderableefforttoinvolvefostercarersincontinuationactivitiesbeyondtheformalendoftheprogramme.Thisincludedfostercarersco-facilitatingtrainingforotherfostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaff.NinefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromtheOrangesitereportedbeingconfidentinthesite’scommitmenttotheapproach.Onlyonefostercarerintheinterviewsamplefromtheothersitesheldthisview.Thefindingsfromourevaluationsuggestthat,wheresitesintendtocontinueinvestinginsocialpedagogicpractice,itisessentialtofindarangeofmethodstoensurethatfostercarersareawareofthiscommitmentandthatplansareinplacetoconsidertheimplicationsoffostercarersmovingonandmaintainingacriticalmassoflearning:

“Ifthere’snoadditionalmoneyfortrainingandsustainingthenyou’vegotyourcoregroupofcommittedfostercarersandsocialworkersbutoncetheyleave,then,well,where’sthenextgenerationcomingfrom?”(Children’ssocialcarestafffocusgroupattendee).

ValueformoneyforfutureprogrammesOurrationalefornotcalculatingasinglecostoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeandforseparatingoutthecostsassociatedwithbeingademonstrationprogrammehavebeendetailedatthestartofthischapter.Giventhegrowingnationalinterestinsocialpedagogyanditspotentialapplicationwithinchildren’ssocialcareservices,wehavesoughttosummarisea“menu”ofkeycostinputstoinformfuturevalueformoneydebatesandtofacilitatelocallevelevaluationofpractice.

131

Returningtothefindingspresentedearlierinthisreport,thetwokeyinputs,asdeterminedbyevaluationparticipants,weretheSocialPedagoguesandtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.AllowingforthehighercoststhatareevidentduringtheearlystagesofanewinterventionandtakingforwardthelearningfromboththeHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeandothersmallerscalesocialpedagogyprojectswehavesummarisedtheinputsandassociatedapproximatecostsinTable18below.Tobuildonthefindingsreportedinthischapterandtoinformfuturevalueformoneydebatesaboutsocialpedagogicpracticeitwillalsobenecessarytoidentifyclear(quantifiable)outcomeindicatorsandtocontrolforsomeoftheheterogeneitydetailedthroughoutthisreport.Forexample,afocusonlongtermfostercareplacements,orforacohortofchildrenwithspecificneeds.Table18Potentialcostinputsforfutureprogrammes

Input Unitcost(approximate) Considerationsforfutureapplicationofcomparableprogrammes

LearningandDevelopmentcoursesN

£30,000persiteforacohortofapproximately40attendees

Theappropriatenumberofpeopletoattendthecoursestoensurea“criticalmass”.Thereachandpotentialimpactofthecoursesneedtobecontemplatedfroma“teamaroundthechild”perspective.

SocialPedagogues£39,000(perSocialPedagogue,peryear)O

WhethertheSocialPedagoguesarecaseholding,andifso,theappropriateunitcostwouldbetheproportionoftheirsalarydirectlyattributabletotheirSocialPedagogicRole,assuchitislikelythatthecostinputwouldbeaproportionofthecostofemployingaSocialPedagogue.ThenumberofSocialPedagogues,wheretheyarepositionedandtheirrolesandresponsibilities.AllowingtimeforexternallyfacingactivitiestoensuretheSocialPedagoguesarenotisolatedintheirroles.

SPCsupport £20,000(perannum)

ThelevelofactivityrequiredtosupportboththeSocialPedagoguesandtheLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Theneedformomentumactivities,usingtheformandfunctiontable(Table12)asthebasisforunderstandingthedifferenttypesofactivities.

Siteleadershipandsupport

20-40%ofaseniormanager’ssalarycosts

Itwillbeessentialtoincludesufficientresourcetoleadandsupporttheprogrammeatasitelevel.Thelevelofinputwillbedependentonthesizeandnatureofthesite.However,suggestedallocationwouldbe20-40%ofaseniormanager’stime.

NThecostsoftheLearninganddevelopmentcoursesincludethetimeforbothpreparationanddelivery.OThisisinclusiveofsalaryon-costs.

132

Box32:Summaryofkeyfindings:Costsandvalueformoney

• ThecoreprogrammeinputsforHead,Heart,Handswereidentifiedtobe:theLearningandDevelopmentcourses;theembeddingoftrainedSocialPedagoguesandtheprovisionofexternalsupporttosites.

• AunitcostfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehasbeenestimatedandrangedfrom£1,919to£3,012perannumforafosteringhousehold.

• Variationsinunitcostswereattributabletoarangeoffactors.TheseincludethedifferentlevelofsupportprovidedtothesitesbytheSPC;thesalarypaidtotheSocialPedagoguesandthenumberoffostercarersthatparticipatedintheHead,heart,Handsprogramme.

• Toexplorethevalueoftheprogramme,organisationalandchildleveloutcomeswereexaminedtodeterminewhethertheycouldbedirectlyattributedtotheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.

• Itwasevidentthatvalueformoneyanalysesatanaggregatelevelmasktheheterogeneityoftheprogrammeandassuchareopentomisinterpretation.

• Individualcostcasestudiesprovidesomeillustrativeexamplesofpotentialcostsavoidedatacaselevel.However,therewerealsosomecaseswheretherewasnoevidenceofcostsavoided.

• Head,Heart,Handsnolongerexistsintheformdescribedinthisreport,althoughfourofthesevensiteshaddevelopedclearplanstocontinuewithsocialpedagogybeyondthelifetimeoftheprogramme.

• Toinformfuturedebatesaboutsocialpedagogicpracticeandwhetheritprovidesvalueformoney,weincludeinthischapteratable(Table13)ofpotentialcostinputsforfutureprogrammes,alongwithkeyconsiderationsforhowtheinformationcanandshouldbeinterpreted.

133

10.Evaluationparticipants’viewsoftheprogrammedesign

Asnotedabove,ourpreviousevaluationreports(Ghate,McDermidandTrivedi,2013;McDermid,HolmesandTrivedi,2015)havehighlightedtheneedtodistinguishbetweensocialpedagogyperse,theapproach,philosophy,framework,orsetofvaluesunderpinningpractice,andtheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,theparticularsetofactivitiesundertakenbytheCentralProgrammeTeamandtheCentralDeliveryPartners,designedtointroducethatapproachtosevenfosteringservicesintheUK.AfullandextensiveanalysisoftheimplementationofHead,Heart,Handsisavailableelsewhere(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thissectionofthereportwillexploretheviewsofthefostercarersandfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationofelementsoftheprogrammedesign.LearningandDevelopmentTheInitialHead,Heart,HandscoursesTheinitialHead,Heart,HandsCorecourseswereidentifiedbypreviousevaluationreportsasacorecomponentoftheprogrammeandforsomeitwasthehighpointoftheentireventure(GhateandMcDermid,2016).OverallthefostercarerswhotookpartintheevaluationwerepositiveabouttheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses.Wehaveexploredtheadvantagesofdeliveringthesetofostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaffabove.Thegeneralconsensusamongtheinterviewsamplewasthattheexperientialandparticipatoryapproachtolearningwaspositive(n=13:23%)enablingfostercarerstoengagewiththematerialandtogettoknoweachotherasagroup.Thesessionsthemselveswerecharacterisedasengagingandfun.Onlytwofostercarersreportedtheydidnotenjoythisstyleoflearning.Onereportedthattheyfoundtheparticipatorymethods“uncomfortable”,whiletheotherreportedthatthereflectiveelementstookuptoomuchtimewhichcouldhavebeendedicatedtothematerial.

Thefostercarersintheinterviewsamplehaddifferingviewsaboutthecontentofthecourses.Asmallnumber(n=4)reportedthatthecourseswerenotlongenoughandtheyhadanappetitetolearnmorefollowingthecorecourse.AllofthesefostercarerswereEngagedAdopters,therefore,theirdesireformorelearningmaybeasmuchareflectionontheirenthusiasmfortheapproach,thanofthecoursesthemselves.Otherfostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestafffromtwositesreportedthattrainingwentintotoomuchdepth,wasrepetitiveattimesandreliedtoomuchonthetheoreticalaspectsofsocialpedagogy(n=14:25%).ContinuousdevelopmentandlearningAsnotedinGhateandMcDermid(2016),thesitesprovidedarangeofcontinuouslearningopportunitiestocementthelearningforthecohortwhoattendedthecorecourses,andaswaytospreadsomeofthelearningtoothercarersandotherstaffwhohadnotbeenabletoparticipate.Theparticularwaytheseactivitieswereundertakenacrossthesitesvariedconsiderably.However,themajorityoffostercarersintheinterviewsampleacknowledgedthatcontinuouslearningofsomekindwasvitaltoensurethattheycontinuedwiththeapproachandwereabletoexpandtheirunderstandingofsocialpedagogy(n=37:65%).Almosthalfofthefostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsampleattendedoneofthecontinuouslearninggroupsatleastonce,andthemajorityfoundthesehelpful.ExplorationoftheimplementationofHead,Heart,Hands,howeverfoundthatsmallgroupworktendedtostartwellbutattendanceweakenedovertime(GhateandMcDermid,

134

2016).Thehighproportionoffostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsamplewhoengagedintheseactivities,maysuggestthattheevaluationinterviewsampleconsistedofparticularlyengagedfostercarers,whomaynotbetypicalofthewiderfostercarerpopulationinthesites.Threecarersintheinterviewsamplefoundthegroupstoberepetitiveandnothelpfulandasmallproportionoffostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthattheyfounditdifficulttoattendthegroupsbecauseofothercommitmentsorpracticalreasons,suchasthesessionsbeingatinconvenienttimesorcompetingdemandssuchaschildcareneeds(n=7:12%).Otherfostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthattheyhadfoundself-directedlearninghelpful(13=23%),throughdoingtheirownreadingorutilisingthecoursematerialsorsocialpedagogybookletsdevelopedatthesites.ItwasevidentfromthedatathattheLearningandDevelopmentcourseswerecentraltotheexperienceofHead,Heart,Handsforthefostercarersinthesample.Whenaskedabouttheprogramme(asdistinctfromsocialpedagogy)allofthefostercarersmadereferencetoeithertheinitialHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcoursesorthecontinuouslearningactivities.Giventheimportanceplacedonthesocialpedagoguesthemselvesinotherevaluationreports(GhateandMcDermid,2016)itisperhapssurprisingthatonly21fostercarersandsixchildrenandyoungpeoplementionedthemintheinterview.Fewerstill(n=3)madereferencetothevarietyofactivitydaysandsystemicworkundertakenbythesites.TheSocialPedagoguesElsewhereinthisevaluationtheSocialPedagogueswereidentifiedtobeanactiveingredientoftheprogramme(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Itisperhapssurprisingthenthatonlyathirdofthefoster

carers(n=21:36)andsixchildrenandyoungpeoplewhowereinterviewedatWave3mentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviews.Onthewhole,thosefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhomentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviewswerecomplementary.TheSocialPedagoguesweredescribedbyevaluationparticipantsaskindandfriendly,ashavingexpert

Box33:SocialPedagoguesinHeart,Heart,Hands“SocialPedagogueswereinmanywaysthemostimportantanddistinctive-andcertainlywerethemostinnovative-aspectoftheimplementationmodelofHead,Heart,Hands.Embeddedwithinfosteringteams(exceptinonesitewheretheywereemployedwithinthevirtualschool),SocialPedagogueswereexpectedtobeakey‘activeingredient’oftheprogramme,bringingwiththemspecialiseddegree-leveltrainingandskills.Thejobdescriptionsusedatthetimeoftheirrecruitmentemphasisedthattheywouldworkinavarietyofways,includingwithcarers,youngpeopleandfosteringfamilies;withotherstaffatthesites;andwithwidersystempartnersandstakeholders.Theywereexpectedtoworkbothindependently,butalso,importantly,alongsideotherstaffto‘model’howsocialpedagogycouldbeusedinpractice.Mostdidsomedirectworkalthoughsometimesthiswaslimited.Critically,notallpedagoguesintheprogrammewereregisteredwiththeEnglish/Scottishsocialworkaccreditationbodies(HCPC/SSSC),andsoitwasknowninadvancethatsomewouldnotbeabletopracticeas‘supervisingsocialworkers’orholdstatutoryresponsibilitiesforfosteringcases.”From:GhateandMcDermid,2016

135

knowledgeofsocialpedagogicpracticesandanon-judgementalapproachtoworking.AnumberoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplereportedthatthecontactthattheyhadwiththeSocialPedagogueshadincreasedtheirunderstandingoftheapproach.Thosefostercarersandfrontlinechildren’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromthesitesthathadceasedemployingSocialPedagoguesattheendoftheprogrammeexpresseddisappointmentthattheirpostswerenotcontinuing.ThesefostercarersraisedconcernsaboutthesustainabilityoftheapproachwithoutthepresenceoftheSocialPedagogues(n=9:16%)Box34:Summaryofkeyfindings:Evaluationparticipants’viewsoftheprogrammedesign

• TheinitialHead,Heart,Handscorecourseswereidentifiedbypreviousevaluationreportsasacorecomponentoftheprogrammeandforsomeitwasthehighpointoftheentireventure(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thegeneralconsensusamongtheinterviewsamplewasthattheexperientialandparticipatoryapproachtolearningwaspositive(n=13:23%)enablingfostercarerstoengagewiththematerialandtogettoknoweachotherasagroup.Thesessionsthemselveswerecharacterisedasengagingandfun.

• Onlytwofostercarersreportedtheydidnotenjoythisstyleoflearning.Onereportedthattheyfoundtheparticipatorymethods“uncomfortable”,whiletheotherreportedthatthereflectiveelementstookuptoomuchtimewhichcouldhavebeendedicatedtothematerial.

• Otherfostercarersintheinterviewsamplewereoftheviewthattrainingwentintotoomuchdepth,wasrepetitiveattimesandreliedtoomuchonthetheoreticalaspectsofsocialpedagogy(n=14:25%).Threeofthesefostercarersexpressedfrustrationsthatthecoursesdidnotsufficientlyexplorehowtoimplementtheapproachesinpractice,ortakeintoaccountthecomplexitiesoftheirchildren’sneeds.

• Themajorityoffostercarersintheinterviewsampleacknowledgedthatcontinuouslearningofsomekindwasvitaltoensurethattheycontinuedwiththeapproachandwereabletoexpandtheirunderstandingofsocialpedagogy(n=37:65%).Almosthalfofthefostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsampleattendedoneofthecontinuouslearninggroupsatleastonce,andthemajorityfoundthesehelpful.ExplorationoftheimplementationofHead,Heart,Hands,howeverfoundthatsmallgroupworktendedtostartwellbutattendanceweakenedovertime(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thehighproportionoffostercarersintheevaluationinterviewsamplewhoengagedintheseactivities,maysuggestthattheevaluationinterviewsampleconsistedofparticularlyengagedfostercarers,whomaynotbetypicalofthewiderfostercarerpopulationinthesites.

• Itisperhapssurprisingthatonlyathirdofthefostercarers(n=21:36)andsixchildrenandyoungpeoplewhowereinterviewedatWave3mentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviews.Onthewhole,thosefostercarersandchildrenandyoungpeoplewhomentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviewswerecomplementary.

136

PART3:Implementationinsights

11.ImplementationinsightsandtheirinfluenceontheimpactoftheHead,Heart,HandsProgramme

IntroductionAlongsidethemodulesofresearchdesignedtoassessthefinalresultsofHead,Heart,Handsoncarersandonyoungpeople(inotherwords,theimpactoftheprogramme),theevaluationofHead,Heart,Handsincludedasubstantialmoduleoflongitudinalresearchontheimplementationoftheprogramme,(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Thisworkwasdesignedtodescribehowtheprogrammewasputintopracticeatsitelevel,identifythecorefeaturesoftheprogrammeasimplemented,andevaluatetheweaknessesandstrengthsthatemergedovertimeintheimplementationmodelandtheimplementationprocess.Afulldescriptioniscontainedinthefinalreportonimplementation:(http://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf);andasummaryofkeyfindingsisalsoavailableathttp://cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Summary.pdf.Theimplementationfinalreportcontainedsubstantialdetailandanalysisaboutthedesignoftheprogrammeandabouthowan“implementationlens”,andtheory,frameworksandmethodsfromtheemergingscienceofeffectiveimplementation(Fixsenetal.,2005;Ghate,2015)wereusedtoilluminateaspectsoftheprogramme’sdesignanddelivery.Thatdetailisnotrehearsedhere,andreadersaredirectedtotheimplementationreportforthefullpicture.Rather,thispartofthereportonimpactprovidessomeselectedimplementationinsightsthatmayassistintheinterpretationofsomeofthemoststrikingimpactfindings.TheimplementationresearchinbriefTheimplementationresearchinvolvedallsevensitesinthreewavesofdatacollectionbetween2013and2016,withover230individualscontributingdataatthedifferenttimepoints.Itfocusedontheprofessionalandorganisationalstakeholdersinsitesratherthanoncarersandchildrenandyoungpeople,andfocusedonimplementationoutcomesforsitesandforthesystemratherthanonoutcomesfortheintendedultimatebeneficiaries,whichwerefosteringhouseholds.Theimplementationresearchincluded:SiteProjectLeads,thesocialpedagogyconsortiumsitesupportleads,theprogrammeSocialPedagogues,supervisingsocialworkersbasedinfostering,children’ssocialworkersandchildren’ssocialcaremanagers,strategicdecisionmakersinlocalauthoritiesandalsostaffatTheFosteringNetworkandfromthefunders’consortium.Fulldetailsofthemethodsused,thesamplefromwhichdatawerecollected,andthedetailedfindingscanbefoundinthefullreportandthesummary.Theimplementationstudywascompletedandreportedsomemonthsbeforethefinalimpactdatawereavailable.Theimplementationreportwasthuswritteninadvanceofhavingafullpictureofthefinaloutcomesforcarers.Notwithstanding,itconcludedthattheimplementationoftheprogrammehadbeenachievedwithmixedresults.Positivefindingsincludedthat:

137

• The“LearningandDevelopment”Coretrainingcoursesforcarersandstaffweregenerallywellreceived.

• ProfessionalSocialPedagoguesweresuccessfullyintegratedintotheworkofseveralsitesandwereviewedbysitesas“corecomponents”(i.e.essentialactiveingredients;GhateandMcDermid,2016:18)ofapedagogicapproachinfostercare.

• Infoursites,definiteplansforsustainingandscalinguptheapproachinlocally-appropriatewayshadbeenmadebytheendoftheperiod.

• Organisationalcommitmentwasstrengthenedwheretherewasseentobealignmentandpotentialforblendingsocialpedagogywithotherpromisingapproachestoworkinginchildren’sservices.

Buttheimplementationstudyalsoshowedthatimplementingthiskindoffluidandintangibleapproachwaschallengingatalllevels(GhateandMcDermid,2016:42-43;66-67;139-140).Whilstallstakeholdersfirmlyendorsedtheprinciplesandaspirationsofsocialpedagogyasfarastheyunderstoodthem,notallwereequallypersuadedofthedifferencefrom“goodpracticeasusual”.Keyareasofimplementationchallengeincluded:

• Alackofclarityandagreementabouthowtodefineandimplementaspecifically“socialpedagogicapproach”tofostering.

• Planningandagreeingkeyparametersatearlystagestoensurethatroles,responsibilitiesandmethodswereasclearaspossible.

• Strongleadershiptopreventfluidityandflexibilityinthedesignleadingtounnecessaryover-complexity.

• SocialPedagoguesneedingongoingandtime-consumingsupportinthedifficultroleof“changeagent”.

• Findingeffectivewaystokeepupthemomentumandinterestamongstcarersandstaffonceinitialcorecourseswereover.

• Reachingandinfluencingthewidersystemofcarearoundfosteredchildrenalsoremainedmoreofanaspirationthanareality,andthedegreeofpositive“disturbance”tothelocalsystem(i.e.perturbationtobusinessasusual,requiredforchange;(GhateandMcDermid,2016:17)wasgenerallyfelttobelowerthanwasrequiredtoachievechangeonasubstantialscale.

Belowweexploretwosetsoffactorsthatbearonthesuccessoftheprogrammefortheintendedultimatebeneficiaries;thedesignoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,andthesocialpedagogiccontentthatwasdeliveredaspartoftheprogramme.ImpactfindingsandimplementationinsightsImpactfinding:Thequalitativedata,collectedfromcarersparticipatingintheprogrammebymeansofin-depthinterviewsandgroupdiscussions,tendedtofindstrongerpositiveresultsthanthequantitativedata,whichincludeddataonthecostsoftheprogramme,analysisofthecasefilesandmanagementinformationdata.Thisisnotuncommoninthesocialcarefield,wherequalitativeresultsoftengiveamuchmorepositivepicturethanstructuredmeasurement;seeMoranandGhate,

138

(2013:14),foradiscussionofthisphenomenon.Itmayalso,inthisstudy,reflecttheparticularnatureofthequalitativeinterviewsub-sample,asnotedinChapter3.Thissaid,anoverarchingmessagefromthequalitativeresearchwasthatHead,Heart,Handswasadefiniteenhancementtogoodpractice,especiallyforaparticularlyenthusiasticgroupof“EngagedAdopters”.Thisgroupconstitutedbetweenhalfandjustlessthanthreequartersofthesampleof76fostercarerinterviewees,dependingonthewaveofdatacollectionunderconsideration.ThesecarersrespondedparticularlypositivelytotheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,aboutwhichtheyspokeenthusiastically,andtotheideasandprinciplesofsocialpedagogythatwerecommunicatedthroughthesecoursesandthroughothersocialpedagogicactivitiesovertime.Intheirinterviews,evenrelatively“small”changesweredescribedasmakingaconsiderableimpactonhowthesecarersarticulatedandconceptualisedgoodpracticeinfostering.Manyofthemodelsandframeworksofferedinthetraining(theCommonThird,theThreePsetc.)werementionedashavingbeenmemorableanduseful.Theothersinthesamplewhoexpressedmorequalifiedenthusiasmorevensomescepticism(the“CautiousOptimists”andthe“DefendedSceptics”)evenso,rarelyexpresseddisagreementwiththecorevaluesorprinciplesofsocialpedagogy.Therewasabroadconsensusthatsocialpedagogywasconsistentwithwidelyacceptedprinciplesofgoodfostercare,evenwherepracticeintherealworlddepartedfromtheseideals.Notably,however,EngagedAdoptersalsotendedtoreportthehighestconfidenceinthestandardoftheirfostercare,andinthequalityofrelationshipswithfosteredyoungpeoplepriortotheprogramme’sinception.Thiswasconfirmedbothbyqualitativeinterviewdataandbycasefileanalysisforthesefosteringhouseholds.Severalimplementationinsightssupportthisfinding,relatedbothtothedesignoftheprogrammeandtoitssocialpedagogiccontent:

• TheLearningandDevelopmentCorecourses-akeyelementofthedesignoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme(GhateandMcDermid,2016:38)-werereportedbysitesintheimplementationresearchtohavebeenlargelywellreceived(GhateandMcDermid,2016:90-94).Inrespectofcontent,theimplementationanalysisalsofoundnostakeholderswhowereunsupportiveoftheprinciplesandcentraltenetsofsocialpedagogyastheyunderstoodthemfromtheprogrammetrainersandSocialPedagogues.Indeed,mostprofessionalstakeholdersbelievedthatsocialpedagogywasco-terminouswithwhatwasgenerallyregardedasgoodpractice(GhateandMcDermid,2016:76;130).Thetrainingseemstohavebeenaverypositiveelementofthedesign,well-executedandwell-received,andforatleastsomecarers,resultedinacommittedgroupofsupportersofsocialpedagogywhoexpressedtheintentiontotaketheapproachforwardintheirownpractice.Furthermore,asmallnumberoffostercarerswereinvitedtoco-facilitateadditionalsocialpedagogytrainingdevelopedbytheindividualsitesandthiswasreportedashighlypositiveforsustainmentoftheapproach;(GhateandMcDermid,2016:118-120).Thesefostercarersalsoreportedintheimpactresearchthatco-facilitationoftrainingservedthedualpurposeofconsolidatingtheirownlearning,andreassuringthemthatthesitewascommittedtosocialpedagogybeyondthelifeoftheprogramme.However,despitethispositivepicture,anumberoffostercarerswhowereinterviewedfortheimpactstudyraisedconcernsthatalackofdiffusionof

139

socialpedagogicthinkingamongthewiderchildren’ssocialcarestaffwithwhomtheycameintocontacthadledtoincongruencesintheapproachofdifferentmembersoftheteamaroundthechildinrelationtospecificissuesarisingduringthecourseoftheprogramme.Thesefindingsresonatewithandappeartoconfirmthefindingsoftheimplementationstudy,whichsuggestedthatthereachoftheprogrammewasdeepforaminority,butnotwide,inthesenseofreachingamajorityofstakeholdersacrossdemonstrationsites.Cautionwasexpressedbyallsiteleadsandmanychildren’ssocialcarestaffthattheprogrammemayhavebeenmosteffectiveforcarerswhereitwasalreadybuildingonstrongpractice,andmanynotedthatthenumbersofcarerswhocontinuedtotakepartoverthelifetimeoftheprogrammeafterthetrainingfinished,wassmallandconfinedtoadistinctgroupofself-selectedparticipants(GhateandMcDermid,2016:103).Intermsofimplementation‘stages’therefore(seeGhateandMcDermid,2016:19-25foradescriptionoftheconceptofstagesandhowtheyweredefinedintheimplementationresearch),notallsitesconsideredtheyhadmanagedtocompletethestageof‘fullimplementation’,whichwasdefinedasfullengagementinthenewthinkingandpracticesofallthosewhohadbeentrainedaspartoftheprogramme.Head,Heart,Handsmaythereforehavebeenahighly-praisedimprovementorenhancementtopracticeforsome,ratherthanatransformativeexperienceforthemany,andmayperhapsnothavereachedthosewhowerefindingfosteringmorechallengingwithquitethesameforce.

Impactfinding:Casefileanalysisshowedthatjustlessthanhalfofthecasesincludedintheresearch(whichcovered70%ofallchildrenplacedwithcarerswhowereofficiallyparticipatingintheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme),madementionofsocialpedagogybeingimplementedinsomeshapeorformbyorwiththefosteringhousehold(47%)andtherest(53%)containednoreferencetosocialpedagogy.Therewererelativelyfewdirectmentionsoftheterm“Head,Heart,Hands”oroftheSocialPedagoguesthemselvesinthecasefiles(n=46:30%).Qualitativeimpactdataalsoindicated,surprisingly,thatmanyofthecarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewedfortheimpactstudyalsofailedspontaneouslytomentiontheSocialPedagoguesoranyactivitiesledbythem.Onlyathirdofthefostercarers(n=21:36%)andsixchildrenandyoungpeoplewhotookpartintheevaluationatWave3mentionedtheSocialPedagoguesintheirinterviews.Wehavealreadydiscussedthelimitationsofrelyingoncasefileandwithin-interviewmentionsoftheProgrammeasanindicationofitssignificance.Giventhatallthesecasesinvolvedcarerswhowereofficiallytrainedontheprogramme,thisfindingmayindicatethelevelofuptakeoradoptionbycarersandstaffofthelearningandactivitiesoftheprogramme,oritmayreflectawarenessorsalienceofthelearningandactivitiesinthemindsofthosepreparingthecasefilenotes,orsomecombinationofthesetwofactors,asnotedearlierinChapter7.Itmayalsoreflectatendency(notuniquetoHead,Heart,Hands)forgenerallylowuptakeofinnovationinpracticesettings,whichwehavenotedpreviously(Pithouseetal.,2002).Whatevertheexplanation,thatonlyhalfthefilesmakementionofsocialpedagogyatallisperhapsdisappointing,takingintoaccounttheoriginalobjectivesandaspirationsoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Itmayhavebeenthecasethatsocialpedagogicactivitiesweretakingplaceinthefosteringhouseholdsbutnotbeingnoticedandrecordedbychildren’ssocialcarestaff;butthefactthatstaffresponsibleforcontributingtocasefileswerenotrecordinganyinnovativeactivityrelatedtotheprogrammesuggeststhattheHead,Heart,

140

Handsprogrammewasrelativelylow-profilewithinthecontextofbusinessasusualinthedemonstrationsites.Impactfinding:relatedly,inthecostdataanalysis,theteamwereunabletodisaggregateforcostspurposesdifferenttypesofprogrammeactivitywithprecisionduetothedifficultyinascertainingwhatactivitieshadtakenplaceinindividualcases.Thiswasnotrecordedatindividualcaselevel,andindeed,wasneverspecifiedatgrouplevelbutleftopentolocaldevelopment.Thiswasanoutfalloftheconsiderablefluidityintheprogrammedesignandtheimpossibilityofisolatingcorecomponentsandcoreinputsatthelevelofspecificityrequiredforthiskindofanalysis.However,analysisofcostinputsindicatesaverysubstantialamountoftimeandthereforemoneyspentoncentralprogrammeactivities(seeChapter9).Severalimplementationinsightsmayhelptomakesenseofthesefindings:

• Theimplementationanalysishighlightedthefluidand“emergent”shapeoftheprogramme(GhateandMcDermid,2016:6;65-67;132).Althoughthisallowedgreatscopeforlocaldevelopmentandexperimentation,italsocreatedanumberofdifficulties.Isolatingthecorecomponentsthatwereconsideredtobeessentialtotheproperandeffectivedeliveryofsocialpedagogyinfosteringpracticewasachallenge,withaclearpictureofwhatmighthavebeentheactiveingredientsoftheprogramme(asopposedtolocallyvariableapproaches)onlyemergingasthefouryearprogrammedrewtoaclose(seeGhateandMcDermid,2016:29-31).Thisfluiditywasassociated,inevitably,withdifficultiesforallstakeholders(attimes)indefiningtheshapeoftheprogrammeoridentifyingwhattheprogramme“was”andhenceinwhatrespectsitwasmakingadistinctandvalue-addedcontributiontotheroutinebusinessof“fosteringasusual”intheparticipatingsites.Socialworkstaffinsiteswhowerenotthemselvescloselyinvolvedinthesmallprojectdeliveryteamsoftenreportedduringtheimplementationstudythattheystruggledtoarticulatethekeyelementsoftheprogramme,ortodescribewhatsocialpedagogyinactionwouldlooklike.Asaresult,theymayhavestruggledtorecogniseornoticeanythingdonedifferentlywiththeHead,Heart,Handsdemonstrationsamplefamiliesasaresultoftheprogramme,ortoattributeanynoveltytotheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeinparticular.Itwasnotedintheimplementationanalysisthattheoverlyfluiddesignoftheprogrammeprobablyconstraineditseffectiveness;unfortunately,wearenotabletodeterminewhetherthefailuretomentionsocialpedagogyinhalfthecasefilesindicatespoorpenetrationoftheapproachinthesample,orpoorrecognitionofHead,Heart,Handsinputsthatwerebeingmade,orboth.

• Theimplementationanalysis,basedonasubstantialdatasetcollectedfromsites,personnel

andotherstakeholdersinHead,Heart,Hands,attemptedtoisolatelikelycorecomponentsofthedesignofHead,Heart,Hands.ItconcludedthatSocialPedagogues,inparticular,wereacorecomponent(GhateandMcDermid,2016:33-38;136)andcertainlysitesthemselvesgenerallybelievedtheprogrammecouldnothavefunctionedwithouttheprofessionalinputoftheSocialPedagogues.SocialPedagoguesthemselvesalsobelievedtheirinputshadbeencritical(GhateandMcDermid,2016:136-138).Thelackofmentionofthesocialpedagoguesincasefilenotesandcritically,lackofspontaneousmentionbysomefostercarers

141

interviewedforthequalitativeresearch,seemshowevertoindicatethattheSocialPedagoguesthemselves(notjusttheprogramme’sdesign)werealsonotespeciallyprominentorvisibletoprofessionalcolleagues,evenwithinthedemonstrationprogrammesample.ThisraisesimportantquestionsabouttheextenttowhichtheSocialPedagogueswereinfactableto‘reach’thewholesampleoffamilieseffectively.IfSocialPedagogueshadbeenactivelyhelpfulinthelivesofHead,Heart,Handsfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem,arguably,onewouldexpecttofindthemmentionedandacknowledgedbycarersandyoungpeoplemoreoftenthanwasinfactfound.

• Theimplementationanalysishoweverhadalreadypickedupmanycomments,especially

fromSiteProjectLeadsandfromchildren’ssocialcarestaff,butalsofromsomeSocialPedagogues,regardingadegreeofdissatisfactionabouttheextenttowhichtheSocialPedagogueshadbeendirectlyengagedinworkwithfamilies(GhateandMcDermid,2016:108-111)duringthelifetimeoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.Itwasfeltthatwhiletheyhaddonesomeoutstandingworkwithasmallnumberoffamilies,theyhadnotbeenabletodoasmuchhands-onworkwithfamiliesandwithspecificyoungpeopleashadbeenhoped.Variousexplanationswereoffered(GhateandMcDermid,2016:77;80-88)includingthatmuchtimehadbeenconsumedforpedagoguesservicingtheactivitiesassociatedwiththecentralprogramme(forexample,writingreports,attendingmeetings);theirrolewasnotclearandnotalwayswell-acceptedatfirst;thatnotallSocialPedagogueslikeddirectworkasmuchasotheractivities;andthatthoseSocialPedagogueswhowereregisteredtoholdcasesintheUKalsohadasignificantworkloadassociatedwiththis,albeitthatsiteswenttogreateffortstominimisetheeffects.SocialPedagoguesthemselvesalsonotedthatinsomesites,theyhadfounditdifficulttogaindirectaccesstofosteringhouseholds,especiallywhentheywerenot‘dualrole’case-holding.Whatevertheexplanation,theimpactfindingsappeartoprovidefurtherconfirmationthatSocialPedagoguesintheprogrammewerenotabletobeaswidelyandnoticeably‘present’andinvolvedinfosteringcaseswithinthesampleoffamiliesasmighthavebeendesirable.ItmaybethatouroriginalidentificationofSocialPedagoguesascorecomponentsoftheprogrammedesignwas,tosomedegreeandinsomeplaces,moreanaspirationthanarealityatthelevelofindividualfamiliesandindividualcasesinthesample.ItmayalsoindicatethatSocialPedagoguesweremoreactiveandvisibleatthesitelevel(andespeciallytotheHead,Heart,Handsprojectteamsandthoseclosetothem)thantheyweretofamiliesandtosupervisingsocialworkersingeneral.

Impactfinding:qualitativeimpactdataindicatedthatmanyfostercarers,evenwhenenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogyanditspromise,continuedtobefrustratedthatthewidersystemofcareonfosteringserviceswasnotsupportiveofthechangesinthinkingandpracticethatwereimpliedbytakingasocialpedagogicapproach.Somefostercarersfeltaloneandsomewhatunsupportedintheirattemptstousesocialpedagogyonanongoingbasisintheirpractice.Theycitedinstanceswherestaffwhowerepartoftheteamaroundthechild(includingsupervisingandchildren’ssocialworkers)tookaviewthatwascontrarytothatimpliedbyasocialpedagogicapproach,forexampleasdescribedinearlierchaptersofthisreport,inmattersofriskmanagement(Chapter7);situationswhereallegationsagainstcarershadbeenmadewheresocialpedagogicprincipleshadbeenside-lined;andagenerallackofchild-centerednessandover-relianceonformulaicandbureaucratic

142

proceduresthatdidnotsitwellwiththemorereflectiveandcreativechild-centredandperson-centredapproachimpliedbysocialpedagogy(Chapter7).Severalimplementationinsightsmayhelptomakesenseofthisfinding:

• Implementationsciencelearningisincreasinglyrevealingtheimportanceofagood“fit”orappropriatedegreeofalignmentbetweenaninnovationandtheexistingsystem(GhateandMcDermid,2016:18;Ghate,2015)sothatthechancesofnewpracticesbeingacceptedandsupportedareoptimised.Activitiestopromotemutualunderstandingsothatfitisoptimisedbetweendifferentsortsofpersonnelinasystemaregenerallyessential.FindingsfromtheimplementationresearchonHead,Heart,Handsaffirmthisprinciple:theyindicatedaweaknessintheexecutionofanotherwisegooddesignintentionoftheprogramme.IthadbeenintendedaspartofthedesignthatfostercarersparticipatingintheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeshouldbeaccompaniedattheLearningandDevelopmentcoursebythesupervisingsocialworkerfortheircase.Intheevent,relativelyfewfostercarerswerematchedinco-learningsituationsinjointHead,Heart,Handstrainingwiththesupervisingsocialworkersresponsibleforsupportingtheircare(GhateandMcDermid,2016:92-94).Thiswasnotedbymanyasamissedopportunity,becausewhereithadhappened,staffandcarersalikedescribethepowerfulandpositiveeffectsinimprovingmutualunderstandingandbuildingbetterrelationshipsbetweenthesekeyadultsinfosteredchildren’slives.Practicalissuesincludedlimitedplacesonthecourse,limitedtimeavailabilityanddifficultiesinschedulingallcontributedtotheproblem,butitmayalsohavebeenthatsomesupervisingsocialworkersinsomesitessimplyfeltunabletoprioritisetheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses.

• Theimplementationstudynotedthatdespitetheinitialaspirationsoftheprogramme,and

earlyattemptstobuildsystemsoutreachintotheprogramme’sdesign,Head,Heart,Handshadinthefinaleventnottoanysubstantialdegreegainedanytractionorinfluencethatcouldproperlybedescribedas“systemic”(GhateandMcDermid,2016:113-127)andthatthisobjectivehadperhapsbeenoverambitiousforanewandrelativelysmallscaleprogramme.Forexample,othermembersofthewiderteamaroundchildren,suchaschildren’ssocialworkers,children’ssocialcaremanagersandsoon,wereevenlesslikelytoattendthein-depthHead,Heart,Handstrainingthansupervisingsocialworkersworkinginthefosteringservice.Reasonsforthisincluded,inevitably,practicalconstraintsoftimeandavailability,limitednumberswhocouldattendthecourse(withthemajorityofplacesreservedforcarers)butitalsoreflectedalackofstrategicplanningandoutreachinsomesites,wherebytherewasnotalwaysaclearvisionofwhat“system”outreachmightlooklike,andnotaclearplanforwhooughttobeinvited(GhateandMcDermid,2016:68).

• Manysiteshadbeguntoreviewpoliciesandprocedures,andhadmadepromisingmovesin

thisdirection(GhateandMcDermid,2016:122-126)resultinginmeetingprotocolsandrecordingmaterialssuchaskeyformsthatweresocialpedagogicallyinfluenced,and(accordingtothereportsofstakeholders)promotedmorereflectionandanalysisandlessmechanisticand“tick-box”approaches.However,implementationscienceevidenceshowsthatchangestopoliciesandprocedures,whilstnecessaryforsystemchange,arenoton

143

theirownsufficienttoachieveit.Theimpactfindingsconfirmtheimplementationinsightthatwhilstsiteshadbeguntoengageininnovationonpaperandinprocesses,theactivestageof‘performanceimplementation’ofinnovation(i.e.thestageinvolvingactualbehaviourchangebasedonchangedprocesses)hadlargelynotbeenreached,andwouldbelikelytotakesomewhilelongerandmoreplannedandfocusedefforttoreachandinfluencethewidersystemsthatsurroundfostercarersandyoungpeople.AsFixsenetal.,(2005:6)note:“Employeebehaviouris(not)changedbysimplyalteringa(service’s)formalstructureandsystems”.

ConclusionsTheresearchontheimpactoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,liketheimplementationresearch,hasrevealedmixedresults.Theoverridingpictureisofaninnovationthathasenhancedgoodpracticeforsome,butnottransformeditwidely,inspiteofthestatedobjectivesoftheprogramme,asdescribedintheimplementationresearch,tobe‘transformational’(GhateandMcDermid,2016:74).Thecontentwaswell-received:no-onearguedwiththeprinciplesandgeneralideasofsocialpedagogy.Aspectsofthedesignwerealsowellreceivedintheimpactresearch,withtheCoreLearningandDevelopmentcoursesinparticularmuchpraisedandfelttohavebeenwell-delivered.Butitisclearfromtheimpactresearch,andisfurtherilluminatedbytheimplementationresearch,thatthemagnitudeofdisturbanceofthisprogramme,bothattheleveloffostercarers,andatthelevelofsitesandthewidersystemofcare,wasnotasgreataswasoriginallyhoped(GhateandMcDermid,2016:138-139).SocialPedagogues,thoughcorecomponentswhenviewedthroughanorganisationallens,forexampleappearedtobelessprominentaschangeagentswhenviewedthroughthelensofindividualcarers,andofindividualcasefiles.Perhapstheyweresimplyspreadtoothintomakeasubstantialimpactatthislevel.Therealsoremainedasmallbutdistinctgroupoffostercarerswhocouldnotisolatehowsocialpedagogicfosteringwasdifferenttogeneralgoodpractice,andwhowerescepticalaboutitslikelyimpactintheirownpracticeevenwhilstendorsingthegeneralvaluesandprinciples.Staffintheimplementationstudymadesimilarpointsandhadsimilarreservations.Itwasalsostrikingthatoverhalfthefosteringcasefilesmadenomentionoftheprogrammeorthefactthatthefamilywastakingpartinit;andcritically,mostcarers–eventhosewhoweredefinitelyenthusedbysocialpedagogy–stillfeltbytheendoftheprogrammethatthewidersystemwithinwhichtheyofferedcaretoyoungpeoplewasnotwell-informedaboutsocialpedagogyandnotalwayssupportivetoattemptstoprovidecarethatwassocialpedagogicallyinformed.Ofcourse,thesetypesofeffectstaketimetofilterthroughasystem;nevertheless,therewasasenseinsomesitesthatmorehadbeenhopedforinthisregard.Itmaybethatthecostsanalysis,initsfindingofthehighspendonprogrammeadministrationandprocessstructuresandactivities,givessomedeeperinsightintothereasonsforthelimitedreachandlimitedlevelofpositivedisturbancecreatedbytheprogrammeasawhole.Combinedwiththeinsightsfromtheimplementationresearch,whichnotedthatSiteProjectLeadsandpedagoguesallspentsubstantialtimeonservicingtherequirementsofthecentralprogramme,thereisastrongsuggestionherethatperhapsnotenoughofthesubstantialprogrammeeffortwasdeployedon“front-line”developmentofsocialpedagogy;thatis,indirectworkandfacetofacecontactwithfostercarersandwithstaffintheteamsaroundfosterchildren.Itmayalsobe,aswenotedintheimplementationresearch,thatthedecisiontolimittrainingtojust40carersandaroundeightstaffineachsitewassimplytoosmallanumbertohavesubstantiallyandpositivelydisturbedbusinessas

144

usualinthelargersites.CombinedwiththelowlevelofmatchingachievedontheHead,Heart,Handscoursesbetweencarersandsupervisingsocialworkerssothattheycouldengageinco-learning(thoughverypowerful,whereithappened),thelowlevelsofreachtootherpersonnelinteamsaroundthechild(forexample,children’ssocialworkers)meantthatthethree“pointsofthetriangle”(thefostercarers,supervisingsocialworkerandchild’ssocialworker)werenotreachedwithequaleffect,andthelevelofdiffusiontothewidersystemsofcarewaslow.

145

PART4:ConclusionsandrecommendationsInthispartwebringtogethersomeofthekeythemesandprominentfindingsdetailedintheproceedingchapterstoprovideasummativeanalysisoftheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonfostercarersandthechildrenandyoungpeopleplacedwiththem.Wehighlightkeylearningforfuturesimilarendeavours.Wealsofocusonfindingsthatmayberelevanttootherprogrammesorinitiativesthatmaynotfocusonsocialpedagogy,butseektofurtherimprovethelivesofchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedinfostercare.Wealsoprovidesomerecommendationsfromtheresearchonimpactandcostsfortheparticipatingsiteswhointendtocontinuewithdevelopmentofsocialpedagogicpractices,andthosesitesthatmayseektointroducesocialpedagogyinthefuture.Conclusionsbasedonthedetailedresearchintotheimplementationoftheprogrammecanbefoundelsewhere(http://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf;GhateandMcDermid,2016).

12.Conclusion:TheimpactofHead,Heart,Hands

Ashasbeenhighlightedthroughoutthisevaluation,Head,Heart,Handswasahighlyambitiousandcomplexendeavour.Theprogrammesetitssightshighinaimingtodevelopacohortoffostercarersabletodemonstratesocialpedagogicpractices(andachieveimpactthroughthosepractices)andachievesystemschangeandculturalshift(asoutlinedinBox1).Theconsiderableflexibilityandlatitudegiventothelocalsitesaddedfurthercomplexitytothetasksetfortheparticipatingfosteringservices,aswellastotheevaluation.Thoseinvolvedindeliveringtheprogrammeatnationalandlocallevelswereresoluteandpassionateininvolvementandshouldbecongratulatedfortheireffortsoverthecourseoftheprogramme.Moreover,aswenotedinrelationtotheimplementationthefactthatallsevensiteswerestillparticipatingintheprogrammeatitsendwasanachievementinitself.TheaimoftheimpactelementoftheevaluationwastoascertainhowfartheHead,Heart,HandsprogrammeachievedtheaimsandobjectivesoutlinedinBox1.Inthisconclusionweprovideourassessmentoftheextenttowhichthoseobjectivesweremet,basedontheevidenceofimpactprovidedintheprecedingchapters30.Objective1Todevelopaprofessional,confidentgroupoffostercarerswhowillbeabletodemonstratethatbyusingasocialpedagogicapproachtheywilldevelopthecapacitytosignificantlyimprovethedaytodaylivesofchildrenintheircareImpactofHead,Heart,HandsonfosteringpracticePreviousresearchhashighlightedtherisksofinsufficientknowledgetheoriesandpracticesaimedtosupportvulnerablechildrenamongsomefostercarersandthedetrimentaleffectsthismayhavetheonchildrentheycarefor.Uncertaintyaboutwhyparticularchildrenrespondinparticularwaysmayleadtoinappropriateresponses,andultimatelyinchildrennotreceivingthesupportandcarethey30Somefindingsarerelevanttotwoormoreobjectives.Intheinterestsofclarity,wehaveusedourownjudgementtoassestowhichobjectivesomefindingsaremorepertinent.

146

need.Forinstance,somestudieshavenotedthataninadequateunderstandingoftheprinciplesofattachmentamongsomefostercarershasresultedinlessthanoptimalcare.Moreover,fostercarersinthesestudieshavereportedthatalackofknowledgeleadstoasenseofanxietyabouttheirownskillsascarers(AllenandVostanis,2005;Osman,ScottandClark,2008).Itisclearthatfostercarersareavitalresourceandplayasubstantiveroleinthelivesoflookedafterchildren,andmustbeadequatelyequippedtocarryoutthisrole.As,Boddynotessupportiverelationshipsthatensurethatchildrenincaremeettheirfullpotential“dependsoninvestinginaworkforce–ofresidentialorfostercareworkers–thatisadequatelyequippedtomeettherelationshipneedsofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithinthecaresystem”(Boddy,2011:110).Elsewhere,authorshavenotedthatitisessentialthattrainingisnotmerelydelivered,butresultsinchangesinpractice,andultimatelyonoutcomesforvulnerablechildrenandyoungpeople(MacReaandSkinner,2011).Thefindingsoutlinedintheprecedingchaptersareencouragingregardingthecontributionthatsocialpedagogymadetoincreasingtheparticipatingfostercarers’knowledgeoffosteringpracticeandconfidence.Almostaquarteroftheinterviewparticipantsreportedthattheyhadlearntnewapproachesortoolsthathadbeenusedwithintheirhousehold.CommonlycitedtoolsweretheCommonThird,LifeworldOrientationandtheDiamondmodel(Chapters5and6).Morecommonlycitedamongtheevaluationparticipants,however,wastheviewthatthetheoreticalapproachesexploredthroughHead,Heart,Handsprovidedatheoreticalandpracticalframeworkthroughwhichtheycouldthinkabouttheirexistingknowledgeaboutgoodpractice.InWave1oftheevaluationwenotedthat,accordingtoShoveandPantzar(2012)socialpracticeisformulatedofthreecoredimensions:

a. Material:physicalentities,objectsandactivities.b. Competency:skills,knowledgeandtechniques.c. Meaning:symbols,values,ideasandaspirations.

Itwasarguedthatprogrammesandinterventionsthatseektoinstigateorinformachangeinpracticecommonlyfocusonthematerial,sometimesfocusoncompetencies,andarelesslikelytofocusonthemeaningdimensionofpractice.Incontrast,whileHead,Heart,Handsexploredallthreedimensionsofpractice,itfocusedonthemeaningdimensiontoagreaterdegreethanothertrainingthefostercarersmayhaveattended.Thisthemecontinuedthroughouttheevaluation,wherebytheparticipantsinWave3reportedthattheymaynothavedramaticallychangedwhattheyweredoingwiththechildrenandyoungpeopleonadaytodaybasis,theyweremorereflective,thoughtfulandintentionalintheiractions.Inthisway,Head,Heart,Handswasdescribedbysomefostercarersintheinterviewsampleasenhancingtotheirpractice,enablingthemtoapplyprofessionalknowledgeandskillsasdifferentcircumstancesarose.Thesefostercarerswereoftheviewthatputtinglabelsonthingstheywerealreadydoingwasinitselfhelpfulinmakingthemmoremindfuloftheirexistingbehaviours(Chapter6).AthirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthattheprovisionofatheoreticalframeworkthroughHead,Heart,Handsvalidatedtheirexistingapproachtocare,givingthemmoreconfidencethattheircurrentpracticewasalongtherighttracks.ItwasalsoreportedthatthecommonlanguagepromptedthroughHead,Heart,Handsenabledsomeoftheparticipatingfostercarersto

147

articulatetheirpracticeintheirownmindsthroughreflection,andtoothermembersoftheteamaroundthechild.Theresultwasaproportionoffostercarersintheinterviewsamplewhofeltmoreassuredintheirownskills,andthereforemoreconfidentliaisingwithchildren’ssocialcarestaffandadvocatingforthechild(Chapter7).Inessence,thedevelopmentofaconceptualframeworkandbeingmoreabletodescribethehowandwhyofthingstheywerealreadydoing,createdamoreprofessionalandconfidentperceptionoftheirroleasacareramongthesefostercarers.Aspectsoftheprogrammedesignhadalsocontributedtoimprovingasmallnumberofparticipants’confidence.Forexample,thoseparticipatingfostercarerswhowereinvitedtocontributetoHead,Heart,Handseventssuchaspresentationsandmeetings,reportedthatthishadalsoincreasedtheirconfidence.Thefindingsofthisevaluationregardingthelinkagesbetweenfostercarers’self-perceptionofknowledgeandtheirlevelsofconfidence,raisesimportantimplicationsforthetrainingoffostercarersmoregenerally.Anumberofstudieshavenotedthatfeelingsofinadequacy,especiallyfollowingplacementbreakdowns,isanotablefactoramongfostercarersthatchoosetoceasefostering(McDermidetal.,2012).Acohortoffostercarerswhoaremoreassuredoftheirownskills,and,asfoundinthisevaluation,whoareabletocriticallyreflectondifficultcircumstances,maybemorelikelytocontinuefostering.Thefindingsofthisevaluationsuggestthathighqualitytrainingwhichprovidesboththeoreticalandpracticalframeworksforfostercarersisessentialforhighqualityfostercare.TheoverarchingmessagefromtheinterviewswithmembersoffosteringhouseholdswasthatHead,Heart,Handswasanenhancementtogoodpractice.AsdetailedinChapter8,ourquantitativeanalysishighlightedtheheterogeneityofthesampleofchildrenplacedwithHead,Heart,HandscarersandthevariabilityinwhichtheHead,Heart,Handsplacementswerebeingused.Thevariablelengthoftheplacement,withmanyofthembeingshortterm,resultedincomplexitiesinattributingsubsequentcareplacements,trajectoriesandoutcomestoHead,Heart,Hands.However,asnotedinChapter6,asmallgroupoffostercarersexpressedfrustrationsthatthecoursesdidnotsufficientlyexplorehowtoimplementtheapproachesinpractice,ortakeintoaccountthecomplexitiesoftheirchildren’sneeds.Whilethesefostercarerswereintheminorityofthosewhoparticipatedintheevaluation,theirexperiencessuggestthatsitesintroducingsocialpedagogymaybenefitfromsupportingcarersinnotonlyunderstandingtheprinciplesoftheapproach,butalsoinusingtheminarangeofcontextsforarangeofchildrenaswell.ReceptivenesstosocialpedagogyTheevaluationparticipantsweregenerallyreceptivetosocialpedagogyespeciallyaparticularlyenthusiasticgroupof“EngagedAdopters”.Thisgroupconstitutedbetweenhalfandjustlessthanthreequartersofthesampleof76fostercarersinterviewedoverthecourseoftheevaluation,dependentonthewaveofdatacollection.Therewereothersinthesamplewhoexpressedmoresubduedenthusiasmorevensomescepticismabouttheapproach(the“CautiousOptimists”andthe“DefendedSceptics”).Asnotedinthepreviouschapter,thequalitativeelementsoftheevaluationwerehighlypositiveandalmostallofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3reportedthattheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourseshadpositivelyinfluencedtheminsomeway.Onlythreefostercarerswhowereinterviewedreportedthattheprogrammehad

148

noimpactonthematall(Chapter6).However,ashighlightedinChapters3and11,thehighlypositiveperspectiveofthoseweinterviewedmayreflecttheparticularnatureofthesample.However,thefindingspresentedinthepreviouschapterssuggestthatthemajorityofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationwereabletodemonstratesocialpedagogicpracticeshadbeenassimilatedintotheirownfosteringapproaches,albeittodifferingdegrees.Thisisapositivefinding.TheextentofimpactamongfostercarersOntheotherhand,thecasefileanalysisfoundthataroundhalfofthecasefilerecordsidentifiedatleastonewaythatsocialpedagogicpracticeswereinusedinthefosteringhousehold.AsexploredinChapter3,itislikelythatthenatureanddetailofrecordingaboutHead,Heart,Handsandreferencestosocialpedagogywasaffectedbyanumberoffactors,andreferencesincasefilesmaybeanimperfectguidetowhatwasactuallytakingplaceinindividualhouseholdsandinindividualcases.Nevertheless,thedatashowthatthreeyearsintotheprogramme,therewasevidencethataroundhalfofthecaseshadused,orwerestillusingsocialpedagogicpractices.Anumberofstudieshavehighlightedthatthereisalackofevidencethatfostercarertraininghasameasurableimpactonfostercarerpracticeorchildren’soutcomes(Sellick,ThoburnandPhilpot,2004;Sinclairetal.,2005,MacReaandSkinner,2011;Everson-Hocketal.,2012;Schofield,nodate).Otherstudieshavenotedthatevenwherefostercarersreportenjoyingthetraining,theextenttowhichlearningistransferredintopracticeisgenerallylow(Pithouseetal.,2002,Schofield,nodate).Therefore,whiletheestimationthatonlyhalfofthefostercarerswhoattendedtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourseswerelikelytocontinuetousesocialpedagogicapproachesmightontheonehandbeconsidereddisappointingfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme,whencomparedwithothersimilarendeavoursthisfindingcomparesfavourably.Injudgingwhethertheglassishalffullorhalfempty,and,inviewofthefindingsoutlinedinChapter9,somequestionsareinevitablyraisedregardingthelevelofinvestmentrequiredtoachieveimpactforwhat,insomesites,wasarelativelysmallproportionoftheirtotalpooloffostercarers.Ourpreviousevaluationreportshavehighlightedthevariabilityofthereachoftheprogrammeacrossthetotalpooloffostercarerswithintheservice(s);(GhateandMcDermid,2016:102-103).Weestimatedthattrainingupto40fostercarersineachsite(assetoutintheoriginalprogrammedesign)amountedtoareachofbetween11%and82%ofallfostercarersacrossthesevensites.Insmallersiteswhereitwaspossibletotrainahigherproportionoftheoverallpool,areachofaround50%couldbeseenassubstantial.However,inlargersiteswhereonlyasmallproportionoffostercarerscouldbeengagedintheLearningandDevelopmentcourses,andwhereonlyaroundhalfofthosewereknowntohaveusedsocialpedagogicapproachesoverthecourseoftheevaluationperiod,theoverallproportionoffostercarerspractisinginasocialpedagogicwaycouldbeconstruedasrelativelyminor.Whileitwasnevertheaimoftheprogrammetotrainallfostercarersinsocialpedagogicpractices,itisvitaltoquestiontheextenttowhichsatisfactorylevelsofimpactcanbeachievedthroughreachingarelativelysmallproportionoffostercarers.MoreoverasnotedinChapter8,forsomechildren,Head,Heart,Handsaccountedforarelativelysmallpartoftheiroverallcareexperience.Inthesecases,theimpactthatwemightrealisticallyexpecttheprogrammetohaveonchildren’soverallcareexperience(includingplacementstability)withinthetimeframeoftheevaluationis

149

limited.Ontheotherhand,thisevaluationwascarriedoutuptothreemonthsafterthecompletionoftheprogramme,whichmaybetooshortatimeframetobeconclusiveabouttheimpactoftheprogrammeonchildrenandyoungpeople.Theoverallimpactonsocialpedagogicpractices,andthevalueformoneyarguments,maythereforelookdifferentiftheapproachbecomesfurtherembedded,andifmorechildrenareexposedtosocialpedagogicfostercare.Thisisanareathatwarrantsfurtherinvestigation(Berridgeetal.,forthcoming).Objective2Todevelopsocialpedagogiccharacteristicsinfostercarers.Fostercarerswillhaveanintegrationof“Head,Heart,Hands”todevelopstrongrelationshipswiththechildrentheylookafter.TheimpactofHead,Heart,HandsonrelationshipswithinthefosteringhouseholdThesectionabovehasalreadyoutlinedanumberofwaysinwhichHead,Heart,Handsenrichedfostercarersprofessionalknowledge(Head)andpracticalactionsandactivities(Hands).Theevaluationhasalsonotedthattheprogrammehadhadapositiveimpactonthewaythatfostercarersthinkaboutrelationshipswithinthefosteringhousehold(Heart).AlmostathirdofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadempoweredandencouragedthemtoexpresswarmth,respectandgenuineaffectionfortheyoungperson.ItwasnotedthatthefostercarersinterviewedexpressedaffectionforthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredforpriortoHead,Heart,Hands,andmuchofwhatwasdiscussedaspartoftheLearningandDevelopmentcourseswasnotentirelynew.Rather,theLearningandDevelopmentcoursesaimedtoenabletheattendeestocriticallyreflectontheirrelationshipsandtodrawonsocialpedagogictheoriestofurtherenhancerelationalwork.Assuch,fostercarersinterviewedinWave3reportedthatwhiletheyhadnotnecessarilychangedtheirbehaviourstowardsthechildrenandyoungpeopletheycaredfor,theyhadbeenreminded,andthereforebecomemoreconsciousofthesignificanceofthecarer-childrelationship,sinceHead,Heart,Hands.OtherfostercarersreportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadencouragedthemfurthertoinvesttimeandeffortintonurturingtheirrelationshipwiththeyoungpersonandhadgiventhemtheoreticalandpracticaltoolstodoso.Inthisway,theprogrammehadprovidedalanguageandaframeworkinwhichtothinkaboutthatrelationship.InChapter5wenotedthatasmallnumberofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheinterviewsreportedthattheyhaddevelopedtheabilitytoreflectontheirrelationshipwiththechildandonincidentsandexchangesintheirshareddaytodaylives.Thesefindingsarepositiveinthelightofrecentconcernsregardingthequalityofsupportprovidedtolookedafterchildrenandtheneedtoreturntorelationshipbasedapproaches(c.f.Ruch,Turney,andWard,2010;Munro,2011;Murphy,DugganandJoseph,2012).Twokeyareasthatwerehighlightedasbenefittingfromamorereflectiveapproachwerecommunicationanddealingwithdifficultsituationsandconflict.Anumberoffostercarers,whoparticipatedininterviews,reportedthatHead,Heart,Handshadassistedthemtobemorereflectiveabouthowtheycommunicatedwiththechildoryoungpersontheycaredfor.ThisnotionwasenhancedthroughtheLifeworldOrientationmodel,wherebyfostercarersacknowledgedtheindividualchildren’sownexperiencescreateafilterthroughwhichtheyinterpretanyinterpersonalcommunication.SeventypercentofthesurveyrespondentsandnearlyhalfofthefostercarersinterviewedreportedthatsinceattendingtheHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopment

150

courses,theyhadbecomemuchlessquicktoreacttocircumstancesastheyarose(Chapter6).TheLifeworldOrientationwascitedbyathirdoftheparticipatingfostercarersasausefulremindertounderstandpreciselywhatemotionsaparticularchildmightbeexpressingthrough“difficult”behavioursandtoensurethatthecorrectresponsewasgiven,ratherthansimplyactingoninstinct.Theevaluationhasalsoprovidedexamplesfromanumberofchildrenandyoungpeople,whodescribethepositiveimpactthatacalmer,morereflectiveapproachhadontheirrelationshipswiththeirfostercarer.Alessreactiveapproachtodealingwithconflictwasalsohighlightedbysomechildrenashelpingthemtalkabouttheirdifficultiesandthinkabouttheirownbehaviour(Chapter6).ThepositiveimpactthattheCommonThirdhadontheabilityofsomechildrentoopenuptotheirfostercarersandfurtherdeveloptheirrelationshipswasexploredinChapter5.Intheintroduction,wehighlightedthedistinctivecircumstancesinwhichfostercarerspractice.Fostercarersoperateinauniquespacebetweentheprofessionalandthepersonal:theyhavea“professional”roleincaringforsomeofthemostvulnerablechildrenwithinaregulatedandstructuredorganisationalcontextofchildren’ssocialcare,whilstofferingahighly“personal”defactofamilyenvironmentinwhichthosechildrenandyoungpeoplecanbenurtured.AsmallnumberoffostercarerswhotookpartintheinterviewsreportedthattheyhadbeenencouragedtosharemorepersonalinformationwiththeirfosteredchildrenasaresultofHead,Heart,Handsandtousetheirpersonalrelationshipwiththechildtohelpthemtogrowanddevelop.ModelssuchastheThreePswerereportedtohaveassistedfostercarersinestablishingwheretheboundariesbetweentheprofessional,personalandprivatemightbeforeachindividualchild,andforeachindividualfostercarer.Thefindingsofthisevaluationsuggestthatsocialpedagogymaymakeaparticularcontributiontoassistfostercarerstonavigatetheirwaythroughthisuniquespaceoftheprofessionalandthepersonal.Inadditiontotheenhancementoffostercarerpracticeoutlinedabove,theemphasisplacedontheuseofselfor“Haltung”withinsocialpedagogyappearedtospeaktothoseparticularcircumstancesthatfostercarersfindthemselvesin.Siteslookingtointroducesocialpedagogymaywishtoemphasisehowthisparticularaspectofsocialpedagogymaymakeauniquecontributiontothefieldoffostercare.SocialpedagogyandexistingapproachestofosteringThroughouttheevaluationitwasevidentthatparticipantsidentifiedresonancesbetweentheirexistingapproachestofosteringandtheprinciplesandvaluesthatunderpinsocialpedagogy.Indeed,onlytwofostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatthesocialpedagogicapproachthatHead,Heart,Handsprovidedwasentirelynew.Theparticipantsacrosstheevaluationrarelyexpresseddisagreementwiththecorevaluesorprinciplesofsocialpedagogy.Asnotedinpreviouschapters,allwereagreedthatsocialpedagogywasconsistentwithwidelyacceptedprinciplesofgoodfostercare,evenwherepracticeintherealworlddepartedfromtheseideals.AsnotedinChapter4,giventhereportedpre-existingresonanceswithsocialpedagogyfoundamonganumberoffostercarersinthesample(andthemeansthroughwhichthesamplewereidentified),itispossibletoquestiontheextenttowhichHead,Heart,Handsbuiltonalreadystrongfoundationsorespecially(althoughnotexclusively)appealedtofostercarerswithaparticularcaringandlearningstyle.

151

Forexample,KeganandLahey(2009)notethatindividualstendtoadoptoneoftwoapproacheswhenproblemsolving31.Thefirstgrouplookfor“technical”solutions,inwhichthecompletionofaparticulartaskinvolvesfollowingaparticularroutineorsetofprocesses.Thesecondgrouptendtolookfor“adaptivesolutions”wherebytheydrawonaseriesoftheoriesandideasandincorporatetheseintotheircurrentmind-settosolvetheproblemathand.Unlikeotherformsoffostercarertraining,socialpedagogyfocussesontheoreticalandmoralunderpinningsthatinformbehaviours(aspreferredbythosewithanadaptivemind-set),ratherthanseekingto(solely)changethosebehavioursthroughapredeterminedsetofactionsoractivities(aspreferredbythosewithatechnicalmind-set).Therefore,traininginsocialpedagogyisnotassimpleas“walkingpeoplethroughthekeysteps”andrequireshighlyskilledfacilitatorstoengageattendeesthatarecomfortablewiththisstyleoflearning.ItwasclearthattheLearningandDevelopmentcourseswereahighlightoftheprogramme,andmanyofthefostercarerswhoparticipatedintheevaluation,reportedthatinparticular,theexperientialandparticipatorystyleofthesessionsenabledthemtobeintroducedtosocialpedagogyinaninterestingandengagingway.However,itshouldbenotedthatthisstyleoflearningwasnotsuitableforall.Someparticipantsreportedthatthisparticularmethodeitherfrustratedthemattheamountoftimetaken,ormadethemfeeluncomfortable(Chapter10;andseealsoGhateandMcDermid,2016:90-91).Itmightbeinferredfromtheevaluationthattheparticularpracticeandlearningapproachesadvocatedbysocialpedagogymaynotbesuitableforallfostercarerssuchasthosewhomaybepredisposedtomoretechnicalapproaches.Moreover,anysocialpedagogiclearninganddevelopmentmaybenefitfromconsideringhowthoseattendeeswithamoretechnicalmind-setmaybenefitfromtheapproach.Tothisend,itisperhapsunsurprisingthatwordssuchas“reinforced”and“reminded”appearedthroughoutthedatacollectedand,therefore,throughoutthisreport.TheevidenceinthisevaluationsuggeststhatHead,Heart,Handsbuiltonalreadystrongfoundationsandwasmostpositiveforthosefostercarerswhonotonlyidentifiedwiththecorevaluesofsocialpedagogy,whohadanadaptivelearningstyle,andexperiencedrelativelypositiverelationshipswithintheirhousehold.Thosefostercarerswhomightbedescribedas“EngagedAdopters”wereemphaticaboutthepositiveimpactthattheprogrammehadhadontheirownself-perceptionasfostercarers(asnotedabove).TheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonthosehouseholdswho(arguably)couldmostbenefitfromadditionalsupportwashowevernotfullytestedwithinthedemonstrationprogrammeandthisremainsanareathatrequiresfurtherexploration.Objective3ToimplementsystemchangeandculturalshiftwhichwillsupportsocialpedagogicpracticeandrecognisethecentralroleoffostercarersinshapingthelivesofchildrenwithintheircareThisreportandinparticular,theimplementationevaluationfoundthat,Head,Heart,Handshadnotgainedtractionorinfluencethatcouldproperlybedescribedas“systemic”(GhateandMcDermid,2016).Manysiteshadmadepromisingmovesinthisdirectionbyreviewingsomepoliciesandprocedurestoalignwithsocialpedagogicpractices(GhateandMcDermid,2016).However,implementationscienceevidenceshowsthatchangestopoliciesandprocedures,whilstnecessaryforsystemchange,arenotontheirownsufficienttoachieveit.Thesefindingsareinlinewithother

31Inthiscontext,“problemsolving”isusedinitsbroadestsenseandcanrefertoeverydaydecisionmakingandimplementinganynewpractice,inadditiontoaddressingspecificchallengesanddifficulties.

152

similarevaluations,whichhavesuggestedthatthereisalackofevidenceontheimpactofsocialpedagogyonwiderorganisationalcontexts(Cameron,2016).Ashasbeenhighlightedthroughoutthisreport,thesystematicdiffusionoftheapproachamongchildren’ssocialcarestaff(andothersintheteamaroundthechild)wasreportedtobeweak(Chapter7),butthisisperhapsunsurprisinggiventheprogrammedesign.Thecoreprogrammeactivitieswereprimarilyundertakenwithfostercarers.Whileworkwascarriedoutwithsocialcarestaff,prioritywasgiventofostercarersontheLearningandDevelopmentCourses.Socialcarestaffthemselvesnotedthattheywouldhavelikedtohavemoreopportunitytoengagewiththeprogramme,butworkloadandotherpressuresmadethatdifficultattimes.Inthisway,fostercarersweretheprimary“unitofinfluence”fortheprogramme.Fostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkersalikeagreedthatmuchwouldbegainedfromensuringaswideadiffusionofsocialpedagogicpracticesaspossible,particularlyamongallthoselookingtosupportthefosteringhousehold,includingsupervisingandchildren’ssocialworkers.GiventhepositivefindingsregardingtheimpactofHead,Heart,Handsonaproportionfostercarers,thefindingsofregardingtheimpactoftheprogrammeonthewidersystemaredisappointing.Previousresearchontheeffectivenessoffostercarertraininghashighlightedthatitisnotsufficientsimplytotrainfostercarers.Thesystemasawholehastosupporttheirapproach.Iffostercarersaretoapplyprinciplesgainedthroughlearninganddevelopmenttheevidencesuggeststhat,socialworkersneedtobetrainedinthesameapproach(Wilsonetal.,2004).Indeed,somecarersreportedthatalackofcongruenceintheapproachestakenbysocialcarestaffandothermembersoftheteamaroundthechildunderminedtheirowneffortstointroducesocialpedagogyintotheirownpractice,andresultedinthemfeelingfrustratedthatotherswerenottakingasimilarview.Theimpactoftheprogrammewillinevitablybelimitedunlessthewidersystemsupportsthechangesmadebyfostercarers.Indeed,inChapter8wesuggestthatanypromisingsignsontheimpactofsocialpedagogicpracticesonchangesinplacementswill,forsomechildren,notberealisedacrossalargergroupofchildren,unlessthosemakingthedecisionsaboutwhereachildistolivearealsotakingasimilarapproach.Evidencepublishedelsewheresuggeststhatthemosteffectiveapproachtoimprovingchildren’soutcomesistoensurethatallagenciesareworkingtogetherandinanintegratedway(Lusheyetal.,forthcoming).Itispossibletosuggestthatunlessaholisticapproachtosocialpedagogictrainingisundertaken,wherebyallagenciesarefamiliarwiththeapproach,theimpactonchildrenandyoungpeoplemaynotbefullyrealised.Shouldasimilarprogrammetointroducesocialpedagogicpracticesbeundertaken,greaterattentionmustbepaidtoensuringthatgreaterdiffusionoftheapproachisachieved.Intheimplementationevaluationofthisprogramme,weconcludedthatsocialpedagogymaybelesssuitedtoimplementationbymodularor“bolt-on”means,andmoresuitedtoablendedimplementationmodelthatisincorporatedintobasiceducationandtrainingforstaffandforfostercarers;(GhateandMcDermid,2016:141)Itisourviewthattheobjectiveofsystemchangewasoverambitiousforaprogrammeofthisscaleandlength.Asnotedintheimplementationevaluation,evaluationparticipantsreportedthatduringtheearlystagesoftheprogrammeanarrativeoftransformationwasoftenusedatintroductoryevents.Withthebenefitofhindsight,someoftheexcitementsurroundingtheintroductionofthe

153

programmemayhaveperhapsbeenunhelpfulinthelongerterm,settingtheexpectationofsystemicchangetoohighandevenalienatingsomewhofeltwholesalecriticismofexistingpracticewasimplied(GhateandMcDermid,2016:74).Asnotedinthepreviouschapterthequalitativeimpactdataindicatedthatmanyfostercarers,evenwhenenthusiasticaboutsocialpedagogyanditspromise,continuedtobefrustratedthatthewidersystemofcarewasnotsupportiveofthechangesinthinkingandpracticethatwereimpliedbytakingasocialpedagogicapproach.Somefostercarersalsoexpresseddoubtsabouttheextenttowhichtheirservicewouldcontinuetoinvestintheapproach,eveninthefoursitesthathadcommittedtodosobeyondthetimeframeoftheprogramme.Thesesitesmaybenefitfromensuringthatfostercarersareawareofcontinuationplans,toavoidunnecessarydisappointmentorfrustration.Systemchangeandculturalshifttakestime.Indeed,thisisoneofthekeychallengestointroducingsocialpedagogicpracticesintotheUK.Sincesocialpedagogyiswellestablishedinothercountries,itwillinevitablytaketimeforfamiliarityandunderstandingoftheapproachtobuildup.AsnotedinChapter5insiteswherearangeofapproachesandtrainingmodelsarebeingused,itisunlikelyandunrealistictoexpectfrontlinestafftopreferenceoneapproachoveranother.ThedevelopmentoftheSocialPedagogyProfessionalAssociationisoneresponsetothischallenge.Shouldasimilarprogrammebeattemptedagain,muchmaybegainedfromensuringthatrealisticexpectationsaboutwhatmightbeachievedwithinagiventimeframe,maypreventstakeholders(includingfostercarers,socialworkersandothers)frombecomingdisappointedanddisengagedintheprogramme.Objective4Toprovideaplatformfortransformationoftherolethatfostercarersplayaspartofthechild’snetworkTheevaluationfindingsaremixedregardingtheextenttowhichthisobjectivewasachieved.Inasmallnumberofcases,therewassomeevidencethatrelationshipsbetweenfostercarersandtheirsupervisingsocialworkershadimproved.Thegeneralviewacrossevaluationparticipantswasthattheco-learningapproachthatwasauniquefeatureoftheprogrammedesign,wasakeyfactorinenhancingtherelationshipsbetweenparticipatingfostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkers.Thebenefitsoftheprogrammeweremostdramaticallyarticulatedwherethishadbeenthecase.Wherethiswasworkingwell,theresultwasthatfostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkersunderstoodtheothermoreclearly,andcreatedamoreequitableandeffectiveworkingrelationships.AnumberoffostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkerswhoparticipatedintheevaluationreportedthatHead,Heart,Handsfacilitatedasharedapproachandasharedlanguagebetweenfostercarersandthesocialworkerwhosupportsthem.Asmallnumberoffostercarerswhoparticipatedinaninterview,andsupervisingsocialworkersfromfourofthesitesreportedthattheyhadstartedtousesomeHead,Heart,Handsmodels,suchastheThreePsandtheFourFsintheirsupervision.Inparticular,children’ssocialcarestaffwhoparticipatedintheevaluationfromfourofthesitescommentedthat,intheirview,theuseofasharedlanguagenotonlyraisedthestatusoffostercarers,butallowedsupervisingsocialworkersandthefostercarerstheysupporttoworkmoreeffectivelyasateam.Thesefindingsarehighlyencouragingregardingtheapplicationofco-learningapproachesperse.Thislearningmayberelevanttoarangeofprogrammesorinnovationsthatseektoinformfosteringpractice(c.fSebbaetal.,2016).

154

Moreover,attendanceofmoreseniorsocialcarestaffatHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentactivitiesinasmallnumberofsites,providedfostercarersanopportunitytobreakdown(perceived)barriersbetweenthemselvesandsocialcaredecisionmakers.Inthosesitesthatinvolvedfostercarersinthereviewsofpoliciesandprocedures,fostercarersreportedthatthisprocessofco-productionnotonlyassuredthemofthesites’commitmenttosocialpedagogy,butalsoreassuredthemthattheircontributionasfostercarerswasvaluedbythesites.Inonesiteadditionaltrainingwasco-facilitatedbyfostercarers,whoreportedthat,notonlydidthisapproachenhancetheirownconfidenceandunderstandingofsocialpedagogy,butcreatedamoreequalrelationshipbetweenfostercarersandchildren’ssocialcarestaff.Thisapproachwasviewedextremelypositivelybythefostercarersfromthissite,reassuringthemthatthefosteringservicewascommittedtotheapproachbeyondthelifeoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme.However,inlightofthefindingsnotedabove,thenumberoffostercarers(andsocialcarestaff)whowereabletobenefitfromthesepositivefindingswaslimited.Wherefewstaffwereabletoaccesslearninganddevelopmentopportunities,thenumberoffosteringhouseholdsabletobenefitfromcongruenceinapproachwaslimited.WhilethosefostercarerswhoattendedLearningandDevelopmentwithsupervisingsocialworkerswereabletobenefitgreatly,theconversewasalsoevidentfromthedata.FourfostercarerswhotookpartintheevaluationatWave3reportedthattheirrelationshipwiththeirsupervisingsocialworkerremainedunchanged,andforothers,frustrationsarosewheresupervisingsocialworkerscontinuedtobeunengagedintheprogramme.Asnotedthroughoutthisreport,fostercarersdonotoperateinavacuumandfosteringhouseholdsarepartofawidernetworkofrelationshipswhichincludechildren’ssocialcareprofessionals,teachers,healthprofessionalsandotheradultsworkingtosupportthem.Thesenetworksoperatewithinwiderlocalorganisationalcontextsandnationallegislativeandregulatorystructures.Asnotedabovethewidersystemicchangesachievedbytheprogrammewereembryonicatbest,anddespitesomeexamplesofgoodpracticeregardingtherolethatfostercarersplaya“transformation”maynotbepossibleuntilwidersystemschangeisachieved.OtheraspectsofthedesignoftheLearningandDevelopmentprogrammewerehighlightedasbeingparticularlyvaluable.Thelengthofthecoursesandtheemphasisonthegroupasaresourceenabledsomefostercarerstodevelopsupportivepeerrelationships.Theserelationshipswerehighlightedasbeingimportantforthefostercarerstonotonlyprovidemutualexplorationandencouragementintheuseofsocialpedagogy,butalsofacilitativesupportregardingfosteringperse.Asnotedelsewhereinthisandotherresearch,thedevelopmentofpeersupportbetweenfostercarershasbeenfoundtobehighlybeneficialforboththecarersthemselvesandthechildrenandyoungpeopletheysupport(LukeandSebba,2013;McDermidetal.,forthcoming).Whilefosteringcanbehighlyrewarding,thechallengesofcaringforsomechildrenandyoungpeoplecanextendbeyondnormativeexperiencesofparenting(Murray,Tarren-SweenyandFrance,2011).Assuchrecognitionoftheuniqueroleoffostercarers,andtheprovisionofsupportforthatroleisessential(McDermidetal.,2012).Thedevelopmentofpeersupportivenetworksmayprovideopportunitiesforthisroletoberecognisedandmaintained.ConcludingremarksTheanalysisoftheimpactdatasuggeststhatHead,Heart,Handsenabledasmallandparticularlycommittedgroupoffostercarerstomakesmallchangeswhichhadabigimpactonindividual

155

fosteringhouseholds.Theseimpactsmaybefurtherrealisedoncemoretimehaselapsed.Inthelightofthediscussionaboveaboutthereachoftheprogramme,theanalysissuggeststhattheoverallimpactoftheprogrammewasdeepratherthanwide.Arelativelysmallproportionoffosteringhouseholdsreportedthattheprogrammehadreapedsubstantialbenefits,butfromthewiderperspectivethesebenefitsarelessevidentfromthequantitativeorcostanalyses.Thesignificanceofenhancingfostercarers’practiceshouldnotbeunderplayed.Fostercarersareavitalresourcesupportingcountlessvulnerablechildrenandyoungpeople.Thefindingsalsosuggestthataspectsofsocialpedagogymayofferauniquecontributiontoassistfostercarersinidentifyinganddevelopingtheirdistinctiveroleintheteamaroundachildinfostercare.Howeveritwasalsoclearthatsiteswishingtointroducesocialpedagogymaybenefitfromexploringhowthemaximumnumberoffostercarersmightbenefitfromthemostpositivelearningfromtheprogramme(includinglearningrelatedtobothitscontentanditsdesign).Theywouldalsoneedtopaycloserattentiontoensuringthatthesystemsareinplacetosupportthem,toensurethatchildrenandyoungpeopleplacedinfostercareareabletothriveandflourish.RecommendationsSitescontinuingwith,orexploringtheintroductionofsocialpedagogymaywishtoconsider:• Howtoreachtheoptimumproportionofteamaroundthechildpersonnelincludingfoster

carersandthosewhomakedecisionsaboutthechild’splacementandpathways.• Waystoensurethatallchildren’ssocialcarestaffworkingwithfosteringhouseholdsareaware

andsupportiveofsocialpedagogicprinciples.• Acleararticulationoftheuniquecontributionthatsocialpedagogycouldmaketofostercare

andwiderpractice.Itmaybeofbenefittoexplorethesynergiesbetweensocialpedagogyandexistingpractice,aswellasemphasisingtheareaswhichmaybeenhancedthroughanadoptionoftheapproach.

• Waystoreassurefostercarersandothersoftheservice’scommitmenttosocialpedagogy.Itmayalsobeofbenefittoensurethatallpartieshavearealisticviewofwhatmightbeachievedwithinagiventimeframe.

• Siteswhohaveparticipatedintheprogrammemayalsobenefitfromensuringthatfostercarersareawareofcontinuationandsustainabilityplans,toavoidunnecessarydisengagement.

• Thatfostercarers,andsocialcarestaffareproficientinnotonlyunderstandingtheprinciplesoftheapproach,butinimplementingthemaswell.Anexplorationofhowdifferentprinciplesmaytranslateintodifferentcircumstancesmayalsobeofbenefit.

• Toinformthevalueformoneydebates,itwouldbenecessarytocontrolforsomeoftheheterogeneityhighlightedinthisreportinfuturesimilarprogrammes.

Sitesexploringprogrammestoenhancepracticeforlookedafterchildrenmaybenefitfrom:• AclearlydevelopedTheoryofChangeattheoutsetoftheimplementationofanynewpractice,

orinnovationwithdefinedandmeasurableoutcomesandassociatedindicators.• Theinvolvementoffostercarers(andotherrecipients)withkeyaspectsofprogrammes,

includingacontributiontotrainingandgivingpresentationsatawarenessraisingevents.This

156

mayincreasefostercarersandothersconfidenceinthemselves,helptodevelopfurtherskills,andreassurethemoftheirvaluetotheservice.

• Thedevelopmentofprogrammesthatincludeanelementofco-learningbetweenmembersoftheteamaroundthechild.

• Opportunitiesfortrainingandotherprogrammestofacilitatepeersupportbetweenfostercarers.

• Explorehowexperientialandparticipatorymethodsmightbeintroducedtotraining,whileensuringthosewithamoretechnicalmind-setareofferedpracticalandimplementablestrategiesandsolutions.

157

References

Allen,J.andVostanis,P.(2005)‘Theimpactofabuseandtraumaonthedevelopingchild.Anevaluationofatrainingprogrammeforfostercarersandsupervisingsocialworkers.’AdoptionandFostering29,3,68-81.

Bazalgette,L.,Rahilly,T.andTrevelyan,G.(2015)AchievingEmotionalWellbeingforLookedafterChildren–AWholeSystemApproach.London:NSPCC.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/achieving-emotional-wellbeing-for-looked-after-children.pdf

Beecham,J.(2000)UnitCosts–NotExactlyChild’sPlay:AGuidetoEstimatingUnitCostsforChildren’sSocialCare.UniversityofKent:DepartmentofHealth,DartingtonSocialResearchUnitandthePersonalSocialServicesResearchUnit.

Beecham,J.andSinclair,I.(2007)CostsandOutcomesinChildren’sSocialCare:MessagesfromResearch.London:JessicaKingsley.

Bengtsson,E.,Chamberlain,C.,Crimmens,D.andStanley,J.(2008)IntroducingSocialPedagogyintoResidentialChildCareinEngland:AnEvaluationofaProjectCommissionedbytheSocialEducationTrust(SET)inSeptember2006andmanagedbytheNationalCentreforExcellenceinResidentialChildCare.London:NCERCC.

Berridge,D.,Biehal,N.,Lutman,E.,Henry,L.andPalomares,M.(2011)RaisingtheBar?EvaluationoftheSocialPedagogyPilotProgrammeinResidentialChildren’sHomes.London:DepartmentforEducation.

Blythe,S.L.,Jackson,D.,Halcombe,E.J.andWilkes,L.(2011)‘Thestigmaofbeingalongtermfostercarer.’JournalofFamilyNursing18,2,234-260.

Boddy,J.(2013)UnderstandingPermanenceforLookedAfterChildren:AReviewofResearchfortheCareInquiry.TheCareInquiry.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://thecareinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/understanding-permanence-for-lac.pdf

Boddy,J.(2011)Thesupportiverelationshipin‘publiccare’:TherelevanceofsocialpedagogyIn:Cameron,C.andMoss,P.(eds.)SocialPedagogyandWorkingwithChildrenandYoungPeople:WhereCareandEducationMeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Boddy,J.,Statham,J.,Warwick,I.,Hollingworth,K.andSpencer,G.(2016)‘Whatkindoftrouble?Meetingthehealthneedsof‘troubledfamilies’throughintensivefamilysupport.’SocialPolicyandSociety15,2,275-288.

Cameron,C.(2016)‘SocialpedagogyintheUKtoday:Findingsfromevaluationsoftraininganddevelopmentinitiatives.’PedagogiaSocial.RevistaInteruniversitaria27,199-223.

158

Cameron,C.(2013)‘Crossnationalunderstandingsofthepurposeofprofessional-childrelationships:Towardsasocialpedagogicalapproach.’InternationalJournalofSocialPedagogy2,1,3-16.

Cameron,C.,McQuail,S.andPetrie,P.(2007)ImplementingtheSocialPedagogicApproachforWorkforceTrainingandEducationinEngland:APreliminaryStudy.London:ThomasCoramResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation.

Cameron,C.andMoss,P.(eds.)(2011)SocialPedagogyandWorkingwithChildrenandYoungPeople:WhereCareandEducationMeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Cameron,C.,Petrie,P.,Wigfall,V.,Kleipoedszus,S.andJasper,A.(2011)FinalReportoftheSocialPedagogyPilotProgramme:DevelopmentandImplementation.London:ThomasCoramResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation.

Cashmore,J.A.andPaxman,M.(2006)‘Predictingafter-careoutcomes:Theimportanceof"felt"security.’ChildandFamilySocialWork11,3,232-241.

Cavazzi,T.,Guilfoyle,A.andSims,M.(2010)‘Aphenomenologicalstudyoffostercaregivers’experiencesofformalandinformalsupport.’IllinoisChildWelfare5,1,125-141.

Courtney,M.andThoburn,J.(eds.)(2009)ChildreninStateCare.TheLibraryofEssaysinChildWelfareandDevelopment.Surrey:AshgatePublishingLtd,Aldershot.ISBN978-0-7546-2587-2.

Coussée,F.,Bradt,L.,Roose,R.andDeBie,M.(2010)‘TheemergingsocialpedagogicalparadigminUKchildandyouthcare:Deusexmachineorwalkingthebeatenpath.’BritishJournalofSocialWork40,3,789-805.

Day,L.,Bryson,C.,White,C.,Purdon,S.etal.,(2016)NationalEvaluationoftheTroubledFamiliesProgramme–FinalSynthesisReport.London:DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/560499/Troubled_Families_Evaluation_Synthesis_Report.pdf

DepartmentforEducation(2014)ChildrenLookedAfterbyLocalAuthoritiesinEngland:GuidetotheSSDA903Collection1April2014to31March2015.London:DepartmentforEducation.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/369750/SSDA903_GuidanceNotes_2014_15_v1.1.pdf

Eichsteller,G.andHolthoff,S.(2012)‘Theartofbeingasocialpedagogue:Developingculturalchangeinchildren’shomesinEssex.’InternationalJournalofSocialPedagogy1,1,30-46.

Eichsteller,G.andHolthoff,S.(2011)Conceptualfoundationsofsocialpedagogy:atransnationalperspectivefromGermanyIn:Cameron,C.andMoss,P.(eds.).SocialPedagogyandWorkingwithChildrenandYoungPeople:WhereCareandEducationMeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

159

Everson-Hock,E.S.,Jones,R.,Guillaume,L.,Clapton,J.,Goyder,E.etal.,(2012).‘Theeffectivenessoftrainingandsupportforcarersandotherprofessionalsonthephysicalandemotionalhealthandwell-beingoflooked-afterchildrenandyoungpeople:Asystematicreview.’Child:Care,HealthandDevelopment38,2,162-74.

Farmer,E.,Lipscombe,J.andMoyers,S.(2005)‘Fostercarerstrainanditsimpactonparentingandplacementoutcomesforadolescents.’BritishJournalofSocialWork35,237–253.

Fernandez,E.andBarth,R.(eds.)(2010)HowdoesFosterCareWork?InternationalEvidenceonOutcomes.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Fixsen,D.L.,Naoom,S.F.,Blase,K.A.,Friedman,R.M.andWallace,F.(2005)ImplementationResearch:ASynthesisoftheLiterature.Tampa,FL:UniversityofSouthFlorida,LouisdelaParteFloridaMentalHealthInstitute.TheNationalImplementationResearchNetwork(FMHIPublication#231).Accessed24/10/2016athttp://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature

Ghate,D.(2015)FromProgrammestoSystems:DeployingImplementationScienceandPracticeforSustainedRealWorldEffectivenessinServicesforChildrenandFamilies.JournalofClinicalChildandAdolescentPsychology.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15374416.2015.1077449

Ghate,D.andMcDermid,S.(2016)ImplementingHead,Heart,Hands:EvaluationoftheImplementationProcessofaDemonstrationProgrammetoIntroduceSocialPedagogyintoFosterCareinEnglandandScotland.MainReport1stEditionAugust2016.ReporttoTheFosteringNetwork.London:TheColebrookCentreforEvidenceandImplementationandLoughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.cevi.org.uk/docs2/Implementing_Head_Heart_Hands_Main_Report.pdf

Goodman,R.(1997)‘Thestrengthsanddifficultiesquestionnaire:Aresearchnote.’JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry38,581–586.

Hämäläinen,J.(2012)‘Socialpedagogicaleyesinthemidstofdiverseunderstandings,conceptualisationsandactivities.’InternationalJournalofSocialPedagogy1,1,3-16.

Hannon,C.,Wood,C.andBazalgette,L.(2010)ToDelivertheBestforLookedafterChildrentheStateMustbeaConfidentParent:InLocoParentis.London:Demos.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.demos.co.uk/files/In_Loco_Parentis_-_web.pdf?1277484312

Hatton,K.(2013)SocialPedagogyintheUK,TheoryandPractice.LymeRegis:RussellHousePublishingLtd.

Hemmelgarn,A.L.,Glisson,C.andJames,L.R.(2006)‘Organisationalcultureandclimate:Implicationsforservicesandinterventionsresearch’.ClinicalPsychology:ScienceandPractice13,1,73-89.

160

Höjer,I.,Sebba,J.andLuke,N.(2013)TheImpactofFosteringonFosterCarers’Children:AnInternationalLiteratureReview.Oxford:ReesCentrePublications.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.afkcp.org.au/files/rees_centre_review_impact_of_fostering_on_carers_children.pdf

Holmes,L.(2014)SupportingChildrenandFamiliesReturningHomefromCare:CountingtheCosts.London:NSPCC.

Holmes,L.andMcDermid,S.(2012)UnderstandingCostsandOutcomesinChildWelfareServices:AComprehensiveCostingApproachtoManagingyourResources.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Holmes,L.,McDermid,S.,Soper,J.,andWard,H.(2010)ExtensionoftheCostCalculatorforChildren’sServicestoIncludeCostCalculationsforallChildreninNeed.ResearchBrief.London:DepartmentforEducation.

Holmes,L.,McDermid,S.andTrivedi,H.(2014)ExploringtheCostsofHead,Heart,HandsandInformingDebatesaboutSustainabilityoftheProgrammeandthePotentialCostsAvoidedasaResultofHead,Heart,Hands.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch:LoughboroughUniversity.

Holthoff,S.andJunkerHarbo,L.(2011)KeyConceptsinSocialPedagogy–OrHowtoSeeEverydayLifeinChildren’sResidentialHomesfromaSocialPedagogicalPerspective.UK:ThemPraSocialPedagogyandDenmark:VIAUniversityCollege.

HouseofCommons:ChildrenSchoolsandFamiliesCommittee(2009)LookedAfterChildrenVol.1.London:TheStationeryOffice.

Ivanova,V.andBrown,J.(2010)‘SupportneedsofAboriginalfosterparents.’ChildrenandYouthServicesReview32,1796-1802.

Kegan,R.andLahey,L.L.(2009)ImmunitytoChange.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPublishingCorporation.

Kleipoedszus,S.(2011)Communicationandconflict:animportantpartofsocialpedagogicrelationships.In:Cameron,C.andMoss,P.(eds.).SocialPedagogyandWorkingwithChildrenandYoungPeople:WhereCareandEducationMeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Leeson,C.(2007)‘Mylifeincare:experiencesofnonparticipationindecisionmakingprocesses.’ChildandFamilySocialWork12,268–277.

Lorenz,W.(2008)‘Paradigmsandpolitics:Thecaseofsocialpedagogy.’BritishJournalofSocialWork38,4,625-644.

Luke,N.andSebba,J.(2013)SupportingEachOther:AnInternationalLiteratureReviewonPeerContactBetweenFosterCarers.Oxford:TheReesCentreforResearchinFosteringandEducation.

161

Lushey,C.,Hyde-Dryden,G.,Holmes,L.andSong,M.(forthcoming)EvaluationofNoWrongDoor.ReporttotheDepartmentorEducation.London:DepartmentforEducation.

MacRea,R.andSkinner,K.(2011)‘Learningforthetwentyfirstcentury:maximisinglearningtransferfromlearningdevelopmentactivity.’SocialWorkEducation:TheInternationalJournal30,8,981-994.

McDermid,S.(2008)‘ThenatureandavailabilityofchildleveldataonchildreninneedforusebyChildren’sServicespractitionersandmanagers.’Research,PolicyandPlanning26,3,183-192.

McDermid,S.,Baker,C.andLawson,D.withHolmes,L.(forthcoming).TheEvaluationoftheMockingbirdFamilyModel–FinalEvaluationReport.ReporttotheDepartmentforEducation.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.

McDermid,S.,Holmes,L.,Kirton,D.andSignoretta,P.(2012)TheDemographicCharacteristicsofFosterCarersintheUK:Motivations,BarriersandMessagesforRecruitmentandRetention.London:ChildhoodWell-beingResearchCentre.

McDermid,S.,Holmes,L.andTrivedi,H.(2015)InformingDebatesabouttheSustainabilityoftheHead,Heart,HandsProgramme.ReporttoTheFosteringNetwork.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.

McDermid,S.,Trivedi,H.,Blackmore,J.andHolmes,L.(2015)DevelopingtheArtofSocialPedagogy:TheViewsandExperiencesofFosterCarersandtheChildrenandYoungPeopleofHead,Heart,Hands:TheSecondYear.ReporttoTheFosteringNetwork.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/ccfr/publications/HHH%20Impact%20on%20FC%20%20CYP%20T2%20FINAL.pdf

McDermid,S.,Trivedi,H.andHolmes,L.withBoddy,J.(2014)EvaluationoftheHead,Heart,HandsProgramme:IntroducingSocialPedagogyintoUKFosterCare:InterimReportConstructingSocialPedagogicPracticeintheEveryday:TheEmergingViewsandExperiencesofFosterCarersandtheChildrenandYoungPeopleTheyCareFor.ReporttoTheFosteringNetwork.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.

McInerny,A.(2009)‘Somebodytoleanon:peermentoringasasupportmechanismforfostercarers.’CriticalSocialThinking:PolicyandPractice1,249-263.

McLeod,A.(2007)‘Whoseagenda?Issuesofpowerandrelationshipwhenlisteningtolooked-afteryoungpeople.’ChildandFamilySocialWork12,278–286.

Milligan,I.(2009)IntroducingSocialPedagogyintoScottishResidentialChildCare:AnEvaluationoftheSycamoreServicesSocialPedagogyTrainingProgramme.Glasgow:ScottishInstituteforResidentialChildCare(SIRCC).Accessed24/10/2016atwww.sircc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Social_Pedagogy_Final.pdf

162

Moore,N.,Jakhara,M.,Bowie,J.andMarriott,J.(2013)SocialPedagogy:AScopingProjectforDerbyshireCountyCouncil.SummaryReport.Derby:InternationalCentreforGuidanceStudies(iCeGS),UniversityofDerby.

Moran,P.andGhate,D.(2013)DevelopmentofaSingleOverarchingMeasureofImpactforHome-Start:AFeasibilityStudy.London:ColebrookeCentreforEvidenceandImplementation.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.cevi.org.uk/docs/Impact_Measure_Report.pdf

Morgan,R.(2006)AboutSocialWorkers:AChildren’sViewsReport.NewcastleuponTyne:CommissionforSocialCareInspection.

Munro,E.(2011)TheMunroReviewofChildProtectionFinalreport:AChildCentredApproach.London:DepartmentforEducation.

Munro,E.R.andHardy,A.(2006)PlacementStability:AReviewoftheLiterature.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.

Munro,E.R.,Lushey,C.,NationalCareAdvisoryService,Maskell-Graham,D.andWard,H.withHolmes,L.(2012)EvaluationoftheStayingPut:18PlusFamilyPlacementProgramme:Finalreport.London:DepartmentforEducation.

Munro,E.R.,Lushey,C.,WardH.andNationalCareAdvisoryServicewithSoperJ.,McDermidS.,Holmes,L.,Beckhelling,J.andPerren,K.(2011)EvaluationoftheRight2BCared4Pilots:FinalreportLondon:DepartmentforEducation.

Murphy,D.,Duggan,M.andJoseph,S.(2012)‘Relationshipbasedsocialworkanditscompatibilitywiththeperson-centredapproach:Principled‘v’instrumentalperspectives.’BritishJournalofSocialWork43,4,703-719.

Murray,L.,Tarren-Sweeny,M.andFrance,K.(2011)‘Fostercarerperceptionofsupportandtraininginthecontextofhighburdencare.’ChildandFamilySocialWork16,149-158.

NationalAuditOffice(2014a),Childrenincare,HC787.London:TheStationeryOffice.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Children-in-care1.pdf

Nutt,L.(2006)TheLivesofFosterCarers:PrivateSacrifices,PublicRestrictions.London:Routledge.

Ofsted(2015)FosteringinEngland,2014-2015.London:Ofsted.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fostering-in-england-1-april-2014-to-31-march-2015

Osman,J.,Scott,T.andClark,J.(2008)‘Theknowledgeofcaring:revisitingtheneedforknowledgesupportofcarers.’ChildandFamilySocialWork13,262-273.

Pallett,C.,Scott,S.,Blackeby,K.,Yule,W.andWeissman,R.(2002)‘Fosteringchanges:Acognitivebehaviouralapproachtohelpfostercarersmanagechildren.’AdoptionandFostering26,1,39-48.

163

Pawson,R.andTilley,N.(1997)RealisticEvaluation.London:Sage.

Petrie,P.(2011)Interpersonalcommunication:Themediumforsocialpedagogicpractice.In:Cameron,C.andMoss,P.(eds.)SocialPedagogyandWorkingwithChildrenandYoungPeople:WhereCareandEducationMeet.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Petrie,P.(2007)‘Fostercare:Aroleforsocialpedagogy.’AdoptionandFostering31,1,73-80.

Petrie,P.,Boddy,J.,Cameron,C.,Wigfall,V.andSimon,A.(2006)WorkingwithChildreninCare:EuropeanPerspectives.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Pithouse,A.,Hill-Tout,J.andLowe,K.(2002)‘Trainingfostercarersinchallengingbehaviour:acasestudyindisappointment?’ChildandFamilySocialWork7,203-214.

Ruch,G.,Turney,D.andWard,A.(eds)(2010)Relationship-BasedSocialWork:GettingtotheHeartofPractice.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Saldana,L.,Chamberlain,P.,Bradford,W.D.,Campbell,M.andLandsverk,J.(2014)‘Thecostofimplementingnewstrategies(COIN):Amethodformappingimplementationresourcesusingthestagesofimplementationcompletion.’ChildrenandYouthServicesReview39,177-182.

Schofield,G.(nodate)ThePhysicalandEmotionalHealthandWell-beingofChildrenandYoungPeopleGrowingupinFosterCare:SupportandTrainingforCarers:P9-LAC5.4ExpertPaperonSupportandTrainingforFosterCarersSubmissionfortheNICE/SCIEPublicHealthGuidanceConsultation.EastAnglia:CentreforResearchontheChildandFamily,UniversityofEastAnglia.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph28/evidence/ep9-support-and-training-for-foster-carers-gillian-schofield-430082749

Schofield,G.andBeek,M.(2009)‘Growingupinfostercare:Providingasecurebasethroughadolescence.’ChildandFamilySocialWork14,225-266.

ScotXed(2015)LookedAfterChildrenDataSpecification–2016UpliftDataCoverage–1stAugust2015–31stJuly2016.Edinburgh:ScottishExchangeofData.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/ScotXed/ChildrenandYoungPeople/LookedAfterChildren/SurveyDocumentation2016

Sebba,J.,Berridge,D.,Luke,N.,Fletcher,J.,Bell,K.,Strand,S.,Thomas,S.,Sinclair,I.andO’Higgins,A.(2015)TheEducationalProgressofLookedAfterChildreninEngland:LinkingCareandEducationalData.London:NuffieldFoundation.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://reescentre.education.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EducationalProgressLookedAfterChildrenOverviewReport_Nov2015.pdf

Sebba,J.,Luke,N.,Rees,A.,Plumridge,G.,Rodgers,L.,Hafesji.K.,Rowsome-Smith,C.,McDermid,S.andTrivedi,H.(2016)EvaluationofTheLondonFosteringAchievementProgramme,FinalReport.ReporttotheLondonSchoolsExcellenceFund–ChildreninCare.OxfordUniversityandLoughboroughUniversity.Accessed24/10/2016at

164

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_fostering_achievement_evaluation_final_report.pdf

Sellick,C.,Thoburn,J.andPhilpot,T.(2004)WhatWorksinAdoptionandFosterCare?London:Barnardos.

Selwyn.J.,Sturgess,W.,Quinton,D.andBaxter,C.(2006)CostsandOutcomesofNon-infantadoptions.London:BritishAssociationforAdoptionandFostering.

Sinclair,I.(2005)FosteringNow:MessagesfromResearch.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Sinclair,I.,Baker,C.,Lee,J.andGibbs,I.(2007)ThePursuitofPermanence:AStudyoftheEnglishCareSystem,QualityMattersinChildren'sServicesSeries.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Sinclair,I.,Baker,C.,Wilson,K.andGibbs,I.(2005)FosterChildren:WhereTheyGoandHowTheyGetOn.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Sinclair,I.andWilson,K.(2003)‘Matchesandmismatches:Thecontributionofcarersandchildrentothesuccessoffosterplacements.’BritishJournalofSocialWork33,7,871-884.

Skinner,K.andSmith,M.(2013)EvaluationofEarlyAdoptersofSocialPedagogyProjectinSuffolkCountyCouncil2012-2013.Edinburgh:UniversityofEdinburgh.

Skuse,T.andWard,H.(2003)OutcomesforLookedAfterChildren:Children'sViewsofCareandAccommodation.InterimreporttotheDepartmentofHealth.Loughborough:CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversity.

SpringConsortium2016Children’sSocialCareInnovationProgramme:InterimLearningReportJanuary2016.London:SpringConsortium.

Stephens,P.(2009)‘Thenatureofsocialpedagogy:AnexcursioninNorwegianterritory.’ChildandFamilySocialWork14,3,343-351.

Sünker,H.(2006)‘Democraticeducation:Educatingfordemocracy.’TransnationalCurriculumInquiry3,2,16-30.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/tci/article/viewFile/26/47

TheCareInquiry(2013)MakingNotBreaking:BuildingRelationshipsforourMostVulnerableChildren.TheCareInquiry.Accessed24/10/2016athttp://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Care%20Inquiry%20-%20Full%20Report%20April%202013.pdf

TheFosteringNetwork(2011)Head,HandsandHeartBringingupChildreninFosterCare:ASocialPedagogicApproach:FundingProposal.London:TheFosteringNetwork.

165

Wade,J.,Dixon,J.andRichards,A.(2010)SpecialGuardianshipinPractice.London:BritishAssociationforAdoptionandFostering.

Wade,J.,Sinclair,I.,Stuttard,L.andSimmonds,J.(2014)InvestigatingSpecialGuardianship:Experiences,ChallengesandOutcomes,ResearchReport,DFE-RR372,London:DepartmentforEducation.Accessed24/10/2016athttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/377448/DFE-RR372_Investigating_special_guardianship.pdf

Ward,H.,Holmes,L.andSoper,J.(2008)TheCostsandConsequencesofPlacingChildreninCare.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

Wilson,K.,Sinclair,I.andGibbs,I.(2000)‘Thetroublewithfostercare:Theimpactofstressfuleventsonfostercarers.’BritishJournalofSocialWork30,193-209.

Wilson,K.,Sinclair,I.,Taylor,C.,Pithouse,A.andSellick,C.(2004)FosteringSuccess:AnExplorationoftheResearchLiteratureinFosterCare.London:SocialCareInstituteforExcellence.

166

AppendicesAppendixA:Theresearchquestions

1. WhatchangesdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeofferchildrenandyoungpeoplein

fostercare?

a. WhatimpactdothechildrenandyoungpeopleinfostercarebelievethattheHead,

Heart,Handsprogrammehasontheirdailylives?

b. WhatimpactdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehaveonoutcomesfor

childrenandyoungpeople,includingtheiremotionalwellbeing,behaviour,school

attendance,friendships,self-confidenceandambitions?

c. WhatimpactdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehaveontheextenttowhich

childrenandyoungpeopleinfosterplacementsfeelloved?

d. WhatimpactdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehaveonplacementstability,

anddisruptionsinplacements?

2. WhatchangesdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeofferfostercarers’andtheir

practice?

a. WhatimpactdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehaveonfostercarers’

knowledge,skillsandpractice?

b. WhatimpactdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammehaveonfostercarers’self-

confidence?

c. TowhatextentistheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeimplementedbyfostercarers

includingthedemonstrationoftheattributesidentifiedbytheprogramme?

d. Towhatextentdosocialcareprofessionalsandthosefromotheragencies

understandfostercarerstobeprofessionalswithinateamsupportingachildor

youngperson,inboththeoryandpractice?

e. Towhatextent(ifany)doesthequalityofcareprovidedchangewiththe

implementationoftheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammefromtheperspectiveofthe

fostercarers,thechildrenandyoungpeoplethemselves,supervisingsocialworkers

andotherprofessionals?

3. WhatchangesdoestheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeofferthesystemofsupporting

childrenandyoungpeopleinfostercareandtheircarers?

a. Towhatextentarechildren’ssocialworkersawareofsocialpedagogicprinciplesand

implementingthemwithintheirownpractice?

167

b. Towhatextenthassocialpedagogyimpactedthewayinwhichchildren’ssocial

workersworkwithfostercarers?

c. Whatimpactdoestheintroductionofsocialpedagogicprincipleshaveonthe

selection,assessmentandapprovalprocess?

d. Whatimpactdoestheintroductionofsocialpedagogicprincipleshaveonthe

retentionoffostercarers?

e. Whatimpactdoestheintroductionofsocialpedagogicprincipleshaveonthe

perceptionsofotherprofessionalsaboutthefostercareprovidedinthe

demonstrationareas?

f. Whatimpactdoestheintroductionofsocialpedagogicprincipleshaveonthe

engagementofotherserviceswiththeseprinciples?

g. Howeffectivearethesystemsandprocessesimplementedtointroduceandsupport

socialpedagogicprinciples?

h. Towhatextentdosocialpedagogicprinciplesimpactonthereviewofcareplansand

achievementofimprovements,andthecarepathwaysofchildrenandyoungpeople

inthedemonstrationareas?

168

AppendixB:TheattributesofaHead,Heart,Handsfostercarer

HEAD1. Anunderstandingofchilddevelopmenttheoriessuchasattachmentandofchildren’s

behaviour.Knowingwhychildrenandyoungpeoplebehavethewaytheydo.Iftheirbehaviourisdifficult,understandingwhyandwhatemotionstheymightbeexpressingthroughsuchdifficultbehaviours.

2. Knowledgeaboutwhatresponsesmightbringoutthebestinchildrenandyoungpeopletheycarefor.Understandingtheimpactoftheirownresponseonthechild.

3. Anabilitytoreflectontheirrelationshipwiththechildandonincidentsandexchangesintheirshareddaytodaylives.

4. Anabilitytodescribetherelationshipandcommunicationbetweenthemselvesandthechild.Somethingthatismorethananinstinctivereactiontoachildwhichmayworkornotwork–understandingwhyitdoesworkandbeingabletodescribeitandrepeatit.

HANDS

5. Practicalsharingofactivitiesbothinandoutsidethehome.

6. Confidenceinworkingwithart/craftbasedactivitiesandunderstandingabouthowactivitiescanbeusedtobuildarelationship(asintheCommonThird).

7. Allowingandencouragingchildrentolearnbymakingmistakes.Knowinghowtoenablerisktakingbehaviourthatwillnotharmthechild.

HEART

8. Showingwarmth,respectandhighregardforthechild.

9. Anon-judgementalapproachtothechild’sbehaviouralongsideanabilitytobeauthoritativewhennecessaryandbefirmaboutboundaries.

10. Showinggenuinecareforthechildthroughappreciationofbothstrengthsanddifficulties,showingaffection,prideintheirachievementsandconcernwhenthingsarenotgoingwellforthechild.

11. Showingpersistencewhenthingsgowrong,notgivingup.

12. Beingreliableand‘there’forthechild–providingasafeandnurturingplaceforchildren.

13. Usingtheirpersonalrelationshipwiththechildtohelpthemgrowanddevelop.

Source:TheFosteringNetwork,2011.

169

AppendixC:TheSocialPedagogyProfessionalAssociation

“TheCentrefortheUnderstandingofSocialPedagogyatUCLInstituteofEducationhasbeenawardedamajorgranttosetupaSocialPedagogyProfessionalAssociation(SPPA).TheintentionistoscaleupthealreadypositivedevelopmentofsocialpedagogyintheUKbymeansofamembershiporganisationwhichwillbeself-sustainingandself-governing.Overthenextthreeyears,andthroughwideconsultation,wewilldevelopnationaloccupationalstandardsandprofessionalqualifications.OurpartnersThemPraandJacarandawilljoinusintakingthisworkforward,particularlyindevelopinganddisseminatinghighqualitysocialpedagogytrainingacrosstheUK.WeintendtobuildaframeworkforasocialpedagogycareerintheUK.Thisworkhasgrownoutofsustainedconsultationsoversomeyears,throughtheCentreforUnderstandingSocialPedagogy(CUSP),withinhighereducationinstitutionsandthroughtheSocialPedagogyDevelopmentNetwork.SPPAaimstoprovidesustainabilityandscaleupmajorachievementsinprojectssuchastheHead,Heart,Handsprogrammeinfostercare,butrecognisesthatsocialpedagogyisabroadlybasedprofessionwithapplicabilityacrossawiderangeofsettingsandacrossthelifecourse.ThefirsttaskistocreateStandardsforSocialPedagogy,whicharecalledSOPs(StandardsofProficiency)forthosewhoarepractisinginthefieldandSETs(StandardsofEducationandTraining)forthosewholeadoneducatingpractitioners,managersandothers.WewilladvertiseopportunitiestohelpdefinesocialpedagogyfortheUKviatheSocialPedagogyDevelopmentNetwork(SPDN)databaseandtheSPDNmeetingin2016.NextwewillcreateSPPAitselfandwillencourageeveryonetobecomemembers.SPPAwillbelaunchedtowardstheendof2016.SPPAwillbetheUKreferencepointforallthoseinterestedinpromotingsocialpedagogyintheUK.SPPAwillhaveaqualityassuranceroleasitwill‘hold’andperiodicallyrevisitthestandardsforpracticedeveloped.Itwillprovideanumbrellaassociationfordifferentcommunitiesofpractice,andthosewiththeoreticalorpolicyconcerns,tocometogether,ininterestgroupsandmoregenerally.SPPAwillbesustainedthroughmembershipfees.LookoutfortheSPPAwebsitethroughsocialpedagogywebsitesandFacebookpageonceitbecomeslive.Finally,throughourworkwiththeCrossfieldsInstitute,wewilldevelopOfqualapprovedaccreditedqualificationsforpracticeinsocialpedagogy.ThesewillinitiallybedeliveredbyThempraandJacaranda.ThisisaUKwideprojectandweaimtomakequalificationsapplicableacrossthefournations,takingintoaccountdifferentthresholdsandLevelsineachcountry.Intime,SPPAwillsupportthedevelopmentofsocialpedagogyqualificationsatBAlevelandbeyond.”SPAAinfotakenfrom:http://www.thempra.org.uk/news/scaling-up-social-pedagogy/

170

Site

Type(private,voluntary,public)

Scale

Structure(simple,mixed,complex)

Priorfamiliaritywithsocialpedagogy

(minimal,moderate,extensive)

LocusofHead,Heart,Handswithinsitestructure

(embedded,mixed,external)

Ofsted/CareInspectoraterating(outstanding,vgood,good,satisfactory,inadequate)

Geographyanddemographics(large,

medium,small)

Numberofapproved

fostercarers(in2013)

Uponprogramme

commencementAttheendpfthe

programme

Yellow

PublicLocalAuthority,England

MediumUrban.Innercitypopulation<500,000Manywithlow-income,highneedscommunities,andagrowingaffluentpopulation. 110

ComplexChildren'sservicesdepartmentbasedonthe'Unitmodel'.Twofosteringunitsheadedbyconsultantsocialworkers

ExtensivePreviouslyemployedSocialPedagoguesintheLookedAfterChildrenservice.OneofthetwoSiteProjectLeadswasaSocialPedagogue.

ExternalVirtualSchool

Ofstedrated'Good'(October2012)

Nofurtherinspections

Pink

PublicLocalAuthority,Scotland

LargeUrbanCitywithapopulation<1mMixedaffluent/lessaffluent. 350

MixedFamilyBasedCareservicedividedintofiveteams

Minimal-ModerateEmployedSocialPedagoguesinresidentialservice.

MixedSpecialistfosteringteamwherebothSocialPedagoguesbased,butmostcarersinHead,Heart,Handsingeneralfostering.

CareInspectoraterated'VeryGood'(July2014)

CareInspectoraterated'Good'(November2014)

Blue

PrivateIndependentFosteringProvider,England

Medium(spreadout)Rural/sub-urbaninfourgeographicallydistantlocationsMixedruralandurbanpopulation;widegeographicspread. 135

Simple3(of4)officesparticipatinginprogramme

MinimalEmployedaqualifiedSocialPedagogueasafosteringsocialworkerinoneoffice.

EmbeddedThreeofthefourfosteringteamoffices.

Ofstedrated‘Outstanding’(May2012)

Ofstedrated‘Good’(October2014)

AppendixDCharacteristicsofthesevensitesinHead,Heart,Hands

171

Purple


LargeRural/Sub-urban.Population,c.1m.acrossalargegeographicalareaclusteredaroundcoretowns.

300‘fosteringhouseholds’

MixedThefosteringserviceisdividedintosixteamscoveringtwoareas.

MinimalParticipatedintheDepartmentforEducation’spilottointroducesocialpedagogyintoresidentialhomes.

EmbeddedGeneralfosteringservice,whichconsistsoftwoteams.

Ofstedrated‘Outstanding'(2008)

Ofstedrated‘Outstanding'(January2013)

Red

PublicLocalAuthority,Scotland

SmallIslands;pop<25,000.Isolated,mainlyruralcommunity. 13

SimpleOnesmallfosteringteamw/inHealth,SocialCareandJusticemergedfunctionsauthority.

Minimal-ModeratePriorexperiencewithsocialpedagogyfollowingone-offtraininginitiativeinresidentialservicein2010.

EmbeddedFosteringteam.

CareInspectoraterated‘VeryGood'(March2012)

CareInspectoraterated‘VeryGood'(November2015)

Green

VoluntaryIndependentFosteringProvider,partofalargechildcaretrust,Scotland

SmallTakingplacementsfromlocalauthoritiesacrossthecountry(rural&urban). 27

SimpleOnesmallfosteringteamwithsevenstaffmembers,w/inagencywithwideremit.

ModeratePriorexperienceofsocialpedagogy,SPCpreviouslyinvolvedwiththesite.

EmbeddedFosteringteam.

CareInspectoraterated‘Good/VeryGood'(December2012)

CareInspectoraterated‘VeryGood'(January2016)

Orange


LargeSuburban.Population<1m.Affluentaswellaslessaffluentareas. 300

MixedThefosteringservicedividedintotwoareateams.

NoneNopriorexperienceofsocialpedagogy.

Embedded(inoneteamonly)Generalfosteringservice,whichconsistsoftwoteams.

Ofstedrated‘Inadequate'(February2011)

Ofstedrated‘Inadequate'(July2015)

172

AppendixEAttendanceatHead,Heart,HandsLearningandDevelopmentcourses

TableG.1AttendanceandreachatCoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses

CoreLearningandDevelopmentcourses

Site Blue Pink Yellow Purple Orange Green Red

Numberofcourses 3 3 3 3 6 2 1

Dates May2013(1)

Jun2013(1)Jul2013(1)

May2013(1)

Jun2013(1)Oct2013(1)

Sept2013(3)

Mar2013(1)

Oct2013(1)

Jan2014(1)

Jul2013(3)Oct2013

(3)

Mar2013(1)Sept2013(1)

Oct2013(1)

Totalattendance

49 47 60 48 63 20 16

Reachtocarersas%oftotalpool

23% 11% 43% 13% 16% 75% 82%

Attendancebreakdown

AllFostercarers

31 40 47 39 48 20 9

Allstaff 18 7 13 9 15 0 7

Supervisingsocialworkers 11 5 7 2 7 - 3

Managers 5 1 1 - 1 - -

Otherinternal 2 1 5 7 7 - 4

Otherexternal - - - - - - -Note:FiguresprovidedbysitesinDecember2014.Head,Heart,Handssiteprojectteam(SocialPedagoguesandSiteProjectLeads)areexcludedfromtheattendancenumbersshownhere.

173

TableG.2AttendancefiguresatTasterevents,toend2014

Red Pink Yellow Purple* Orange Green Blue

TasterDaysNumberofevents 1 3 2 4 4 2 3Totalattendance 31 245 111 170 195 40 87

Fostercarers - 20 60 45 58 2 59Supervisingsocial

workers 2 35 6 39 34 2 20

Managers 4 5 3 5 9 6 5

Otherinternal -120(allCouncil

employees)42 75 44 14 3

Otherexternal 25 65 - 32 16 -

OrientationCourses(2days)Numberofevents 1 4 4 7 4 2 3

Totalattendance

26 74 66 150 86 36 59

Fostercarers 9 62 50 91 69 18 41Supervising

socialworkers 5 11 2 21 8 5 11

Managers - - 1 5 1 - 5

Otherinternal 11 1 15 33 11 7 2

Otherexternal 1 - - - - 6 -Childrenandyoungpeople - - 1 - - - -

*Thissitecontinuedtoruncoursethrough2014.

174

AppendixFInformationabouttheevaluationsample

ThefollowingtablesproviderfurtherinformationabouttheevaluationsampleTableF.1Thenumberofparticipatinghouseholdsacrossthewholeevaluationbysite

SiteNumberofhouseholds

Responserate(%)

Blue 17 61

Pink 12 30

Yellow 7 17

Purple 12 31

Orange 17 40

Green 6 29

Red 5 56

Total 76 34

TableF.2NumberofinterviewswithHead,Heart,Handscarersandchildrenandyoungpeopleateachtimepoint

EvaluationtimepointNumberoffostercarers

interviewedNumberofchildrenandyoung

peopleinterviewedWave1 26 10Wave2 43** 17***Wave3 57 37Total 126 64

**ThreefostercarerinterviewswerecompletedoutsideofthetimeframeforinclusionintheWave2report.***SixinterviewswithchildrenandyoungpeoplewerecompletedoutsideofthetimeframeforinclusionintheWave2.

175

TableF.3NumberofWave3interviewparticipantsbysite

Site

Numberoffostercarers

interviewed

Numberofchildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewed

Blue 9 5Pink 10 6Yellow 4 0Purple 9 9Orange 16 12Green 5 4Red 4 1Total 57 37

TableF.4TypeofplacementofferedbythefostercarerswhotookpartinaninterviewatWave3

TypeofplacementofferedNumberoffostercarers

interviewedLongterm 36Permanence 5Kinshiporfriendsandfamilycare 4Respite 4Shortterm 4Supportedlodgings 2Other**** 7Unknown 14Total 76

****“Other”placementsincludeMotherandbabyplacement,emergency,babieswaitingto

beplacedforadoptionandplacementsforchildrenwithdisabilities.TableF.5AgesofthechildrenandyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinaninterviewatWave3

Ageinyears

Numberofchildrenandyoungpeopleinthe

sample5-10 511-13 1414-16 317orolder 5Notrecorded 10

176

TableF.6TypeofplacementofthechildrenandyoungpeopleinterviewedatWave3

Typeofplacementatthetimeoftheinterview

Numberofchildrenandyoungpeople

Longterm 12Kinshiporfriendsandfamily 4Shortterm 3Independence 2Permanence 2Respite 1Notrecorded 13

TableF.7fostercarersurveyrespondentsbysite

Site Frequency PercentResponserate

(%) Purplesite 4 8.5 10.3

Yellowsite 0 0 0

Pinksite 13 27.7 32.5

Orangesite 24 51.1 50.0

Bluesite 4 8.5 12.9

Greensite 1 2.1 5.0

Redsite 1 2.1 11.1

Total 47 100.0 20.1

TableF.8Numberofpeoplethesocialcarerstaffsurveywasdistributedtobyjobrole

Site

Supervisingsocialworker

Children’ssocialworker

Familysupportworker

Independentreviewingofficer Managers Total

Blue 24 13 17 54Pink 12Yellow 0Purple 160Orange 73Green unknownRed 4 7 5 2 18Total 4 31 5 13 19 317

177

TableF.9Socialcarestaffsurveyresponsesbyjobrole,siteandtotalresponses

Site

Supervisingsocialworker

Children’ssocialworker

Familysupportworker

Independentreviewingofficer

Teammanagers

Headofservicesordepartment Other

Notstated Total

Blue 1 1 1 3Pink 2 1 1 1 1 2 8Yellow 0Purple 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 16Orange 3 3 1 1 1 2 11Green 1 2 1 2 6Red 1 3 4Total 7 3 5 3 4 5 7 14 48

178

AppendixGOverviewoftheCostCalculatorforChildren’sServicesand

underpinningconceptualframework

TheCCfCSutilisesa“bottomup”approachtoestimatingunitcosts(Beecham,2000).The“bottomup”approachidentifiestheconstituentpartsthatformthedeliveryofaserviceandassignsavaluetoeachoftheseparts.Thesumofthesevaluesislinkedwithappropriateunitsofactivitytoprovidetheunitcostofaservice(ibid).Theapproachfacilitatesthedevelopmentofadetailedandtransparentpictureofunitcostsandisparticularlywellsuitedtochildren’ssocialcareservicesasitcanaccommodatevariationsincostsincurredbyanextensiverangeofinterventionsofferedtochildrenwithverydifferentlevelsofneed(seeWard,HolmesandSoper,2008).TheconceptualframeworkthatunderpinstheCCfCSmakesadistinctionbetweentheongoingcasemanagementfunctionscarriedoutbysocialworkers,familysupportworkersandothersocialcarepersonnelandtheservices(suchasplacements)thatareprovidedtomeetspecificneeds.Theoverallunitcoststhatareestimatedincludebothoftheseelements.Separationinthiswayallowsforexplorationofthecostsofservicesandalsoassessment,casemanagementanddecisionmakingcosts.Oneoftheadvantagesofbreakingdownandthenbuildingupthecostsinthiswayisthatitispossibletoexplorehowchangestooneareaofthesystemimpactonanother.Itisalsopossibletofocusononeelementofthesystemandcarryout‘whatif’analyses,forexample,toexplorethecostimplicationsofintroducingnewpractices/protocols,ortheintroductionofanewserviceforaspecificgroupofchildrenand/orfamilies.Thepersonnelassociatedwitheachsupportactivityorserviceareidentifiedandthetimespentontheactivityisestimated.Timeuseactivitydataaregatheredusingmixedmethods:focusgroups;verificationquestionnaires;onlinesurveysandeventrecords(diaryrecordingforspecificcases).Theseamountsoftimearecostedusingappropriatehourlyrates.Themethodthereforelinksamountsoftimespenttodataconcerningsalaries,administrativeandmanagementoverheadsandotherexpenditure.Thisapproachintroducesgreaterthanusualtransparencyintocostestimationsandfacilitatescomparisonsbetweentherelativevaluesofdifferenttypesofcare,makingiteasiertoestimatethepotentialbenefitsofintroducingarangeofalternativepackagesofcare.Itisalsopossibleforlocalauthoritiestoundertakeanalysesofcostswithrespecttotheoutcomesandexplore‘hidden’costs,suchasthecostsofadministrativeprocedures.TheCCfCStoolTheunitcostsoftheprocessesforlookedafterchildrenarebroughttogetherwithdataconcerningplacementfeesandallowances,managementandcapitalexpenditurealongwithroutinelycollecteddataonchildren’sneeds,characteristicsandplacements(usingtheSSDA903andCLASstatisticalreturns)toestimatethecostsofplacinglookedafterchildrenforagiventimeperiod.FigureG.1showsthedatathatgointothecostcalculatortool(inputs)andtheoutputs.

179

FigureG.1:CCfCSinputsandoutputs

©CentreforChildandFamilyResearch,LoughboroughUniversityTheestimationstakeintoaccountdiversityinchildren'sneeds,placementtypeandlocalauthorityprocedures.Thisapproachallowschildrentobegroupedbytypeofplacementandalsoaccordingtotheirneedsandoutcomes.Differentcarepathwayscanbeobservedandthewayinwhichcostsaccrueovertimecanbeexamined.Itispossibletocomparethesecostpatternsforchildrenwithparticularcharacteristics,inspecificplacementtypesorwhoachievespecifiedoutcomes.

Timeuseactivitydataprovidedbychildren’ssocialcarepersonnel

Salarydataforeachtypeofchildren’ssocialcarepersonnelinvolvedinthe8processes

Organisationaloverheads(runningcosts)financedataforthechildren’ssocialcareservice

Costcalculator

tool

Unitcostsforthe8processesforlookedafterchildren(includesstandardcasecostsandvariations)

Childleveldata(needs,placementsandoutcomes)

Financedata(placementfeesandallowances)

Unitcostreportsforindividualchildren,groupsofchildrenorbyplacementtype

Processunitcostsof8costcalculatorprocessesforlookedafterchildren

Analysisofsocialcarecostsbyoutcomes

'Whatif'analysistoexplorethecostsofprovidingalternativeplacementtypes

OUTPUTSINPUTS

180

AppendixH:Tablesfromcasefileanalysis

TableH.1Explicitorimplicitevidenceoftheuseofsocialpedagogyinthefosteringhouseholdsbysite

Site Evidenceoffosteringhouseholdusingsocialpedagogicapproachfoundincasefile

Blue 17(68%)Green 9(60%)Orange 8(21%)Purple 17(44%)Yellow 23(58%)Total 74(of157)fosteringhouseholds(47%)

TableH.2Positivethemesidentifiedincasefiledata

Positivedescription:themes Notes

1 Stableorsettled

Useoftheterm“stableorsettled”didnotnecessarilymeantheyoungpersonremainedinplacementratherthecasefiledescriptioncontainedthisdescription.

2 Youngpersonview:positive

Youngpeople’sviewsincludedreferencetobeing:“happy”,lovinglivingwithcareroronoccasionwhilststillpositivetheywerelessenthusedsuchasdescribingthingsas“fine”.

3 Youngpersonmadeprogress Casefilesreferredtoyoungpeople’sprogressinsocialoremotionaldevelopment;improvementinbuildingrelationshipswithpeers;schooletc.

4 Partoffamily Onoccasionrecordsincasefilesexpressedthatyoungpeoplehavingasenseofbelonging.

5 Relationshipbetweenfostercarerandchilddescribedinpositiveterms

Variouslydescribedrelationshipwithtermssuchas:good;strong,close,warm,positiveetc.

6 Childdescribedashavingattachmenttocarer

Variouslydescribedas“goodattachment”;“strongattachment”;“closebond”.

7 Carermeetsyoungpersons’needs Describedinvariouswayse.g.“meetsneedstoexceptionallyhighstandard”;“carerbeenabletoidentify,caterandmeetallofyoungperson’svaryingandoftencomplexneeds”etc.

8 Familialtermsusedbyyoungperson Majorityofthesereferredtouseof“mum”or“dad”;onecaseofgrandparentterm;onecaseof“aunty”used.On7oftheseoccasionschildwassaidtousecarer’ssurname.

9 Contactwithchildafterleft Caseswherechildhadleftplacementbutfostercarerandchildwereincontact.

10 Placementenvironmentdescribedinpositiveterms

Forexample:“lovingfamilyenvironment”;“supportiveandnurturingenvironment”.

11 Managedmove

Forexample:“fostercarersupportingtransitionbacktoparentaspartofteamwithparentandsocialworkteam”;“supportedyoungpersoninsmoothtransitiontouniversity,willcontinuetobecarerforyoungpersonunderStayingPutuntilthen”.

12 Positivefosteringstyle/approach Variouslydescribedas:warm,sensitive,valuechild;respecteachchild;nurturing;sensitive.

13 Commitmenttoyoungperson

Forexample:“Supervisingsocialworkeremphasisesthecommitmentofthefostercarer”;“youngpersoncontinuestofeelsecureinplacementandwellsupportedbyfostercarerwhoiscommittedtohim”etc.

14 Carerexpresssatisfaction Forexample:“Enjoycaringforyoungperson”;“adelighttocare

181

for”etc.15 Youngpersoncanshareandtalk

withcarerVariouslydescribed;“confideincarer”;“trustcarer”etc.

16 Fostercarerpride Forexample:“Fostercarer'overmoon'withyoungpersonprogress”;“Carerspokewithprideaboutyoungperson”etc.

17 Useofword“love” Forexample:“Fostercarerhavetobecommendedforthelove,careandsupporttheyofferyoungperson”;“waspositivefamilyexperienceforyoungperson,whereshefeltclaimedandloved”.

18 Carersupportsbirthfamilyrelationship

Forexample:“fostercarerformedpositiverelationshipwithyoungperson’smothertoo”;“birthparentandfostercarerhaveagoodworkingrelationshipwithyoungpersonexpressinghowthankfulsheisforwayfostercarerlooksafterbirthparent”.

19 Other Forexample:Youngpersonclearaboutcareplan;carerprogressinhowmanageyoungpersonbehaviour.

TableH.3DestinationsofchildrenafterleavingHead,Heart,Handsfostercarerandwhetherleftinplannedorunplannedway

Destination Plannedorunplanned

Number

Lefttoanotherfostercarer(29%) 33%planned27%unplanned40%unknown

161319

Lefttobirthfamily(24%) 48%planned8%unplanned45%unknown

19318

Lefttoindependence(13%) 33%planned24%unplanned43%unknown

759

Lefttoresidentialcare(8%) 38%planned23%unplanned38%unknown

535

Lefttoadoption(6%) 100%planned 10LefttoSpecialguardianshiporder(3%) 100%planned 5

Leftbutdestinationunknown(17%) n/a 28Total 165

182

AppendixISPCNationallevelactivityandsupportfortheHead,Heart,Handsprogramme

Activity Programmeyear

Year1activity(days)

Year2activity(days)

Year3activity(days)

Year4activity(days)

Totalactivity(days)

COINScategoryallocation

Advisorygroup Allyears 1 2 2 1 6 3.demonstration

programme

ProgrammeBoard Allyears 1 5 3 1 10 3.demonstration

programme

Practicegroups

Years2,3and4 0 14 27 20 61 3.demonstration

programme

GroupSocialPedagoguesupervision

Years2,3and4 0 3 4 4 11 1.ongoingnewpractice

Programmeintegrationevents

Years1and2 17 15 0 0 32 3.demonstration

programme

Siteassessment Year1 12 0 0 0 12 3.demonstration

programme

Socialpedagoguerecruitmentevents

Year1 24 0 0 0 24 2.implementingnewpractice

Socialpedagoguegroupinductions

Year1 7 0 0 0 7 3.demonstrationprogramme

Learning&developmentcoursedesign

Years1and2 27 3 0 0 30 2.implementingnew

practice

Co-ordinationandregularprogrammemeetings

Allyears 32 46 40 24 142 3.demonstrationprogramme

Linkroles(sharinglearning)

Allyears 10 1 2 1 14 3.demonstrationprogramme

Seminarsandworkshops

Years2,3and4 0 9 5 2 16 3.demonstration

programme

183

Socialpedagoguere-recruitment

Year3 0 0 2 0 2 2.implementingnewpractice

Championsprogramme Year3 0 0 16 0 16 2.implementingnew

practice

Inputtoprogrammeoutputs

Years3and4 0 0 5 0 5 3.demonstration

programme

184

AppendixJHead,HeartHandsnationalmeetingsNameofmeeting Lengthof

meetingNumberof

sitesattended

Whoattendedfromsites

Locations Howoften Overwhatperiod Howmanymeetings

AcademicReviewGroup 2.5hours 1 Seniormanager England Twiceayear June2013-July2015 4

AdvisoryGroup 3.5hours 2 Seniormanagers

England(5times),Scotland(once)

Twiceayear March2013-July2015 6

Review&ReflectionGroup 1day All AllSiteProjectLeads

Scotland(twice),England(twice)

3timesayear July2013-March2014 4

PracticeGroup 1day All AllSocialPedagogues

England(twice)Scotland,

Twiceayear June2013-March2014 3

ProgrammeBoard 3hours None N/A England(9times),Scotland(twice)

4timesayear March2013–February2016

11

JointDevelopmentGrouptrio(Review&ReflectionGroup,PracticeGroup,JointDevelopmentGroup)

1.5days All AllSteProjectLeads,allSocialPedagogues

England(twice),Scotland(twice)

3timesayear July2014-November2015

4

WorkingGrouponTraining 3-6hours 5 1SiteProjectLead,1SocialPedagogue

England Every2months

October2013-May2014

4

ScotlandPracticeForum 4hours 3 1SiteProjectLead,1SocialPedagogue

Scotland Twiceayear May2014-January2016

4

185

EnglandPracticeForum 4hours 4 3SiteProjectLeads,6SocialPedagogues,1socialworker

England Twiceayear February2016 1

ParliamentaryLaunch-Scotland 2hours 3 AllSiteProjectLeads,allSocialPedagogues

Scotland Singleevent June2013 1

ParliamentaryLaunch-England 2hours 4 AllSiteProjectLeads,allSocialPedagogues

England Singleevent March2013 1

Conference 4hours 4 AllSiteProjectLeads,allSocialPedagogues

England Singleevent March2015 1

ProgrammeManagementSiteVisits

4hours All SiteProjectLead(s),SocialPedagogues

Atthesite'sownoffices

2or3timesayear

Dec2012toNov2015 8

SummervisitsbyTheFosteringNetworkChiefExecandafunderrep

2hours All Sitestrategiclead,+usuallytheSiteProjectLead(s)

Atthesite'sownoffices

1xpa Summer2013andSummer2014

2