1 CAF: Integration with Impact? The Story from the Local Authority Research Consortium John Harris Sue Rossiter Jane Lewis NCASC 2009

Overview of the Workshop The continuing challenge of system change What is LARC and how is it relevant? What are we learning from Round 2? Can you help us to shape LARC Round 3? 2

The Challenge of System Change

The challenge of system change 4 Children’s Trusts to have in place by 2010 consistent, high quality arrangements to provide identification and early intervention for all children and young people who need additional help

What is LARC? Purpose To enable CS authorities to identify where they are (individually and collectively) with whole system change To identify how to make faster progress on outcomes To report on this in a collective way nationally Features of LARC’s approach Rooted in evidence, in collaborative action, and in “telling your own story”; clear about different types of impact; honest self-evaluation; sector-led 5

What is LARC… A collaborative partnership between LAs, researchers and national partners to draw together evidence and shared learning about the effective integration of children’s services The partners are: LAs (14 in Round 1; 30+ in Round 2), RiP, NFER, EMIE, IDeA, LGA, CWDC The project has a formal governance framework, project protocols and pooled funding (including funds from DCSF, IDeA, LGA and RIEP) LARC Round 1: reported in June 2008 LARC Round 2: September 2008 – December

LARC Round 1 : looking for early impact of integration What did we find? 7

8 Level 4: Embedded change and practice Level 3: Changes to experiences for service-users Level 2: Changes to routines, experiences, attitudes Level 1: Changes to systems, structures, processes Time Population affected A Model to Evaluate Impact The NFER impact model was first described in: Stoney, S., West, A; Kendall, L. and Morris, M. (2002). Evaluation of Excellence in Cities: Overview of Interim Findings. Slough: NFER [online]. Available: cities-overview-of-interim-findings.cfm. The model was further developed in: Morris, M. and Golden, S. (2005). Evaluation of Aimhigher: Excellence Challenge: Interim Report. (Research Report 648). London: DfES

KEY FEATURES in ‘confident’ children’s services authorities? the quality of working relationships and communication between agencies having a clear and shared vision, and positively views leadership and management fewer concerns over models of funding 9

Key features for further development (early 2008) ‘working together’ (strategy into delivery) align service agendas and priorities developing a common language listening to practitioners listening to parents and carers 10

LARC Round 2 : Integration to Outcomes Interim Findings 11

Aims of LARC round 2 Does the CAF process support the achievement of better outcomes for children and young people? What are the key factors that promote the effectiveness of CAF in different contexts? With a particular focus on the engagement of Schools in the CAF process 12

13 The research process Overall research question (CAF process) Chosen theme (schools) Group proposition (e.g. KS3) Individual LA work Other themes LARC picture (CAF process) Conclusions and recommendations Group findings (e.g. KS3) Individual LA learning

What will be the focus of the work (the context)? Engaging children/ families/ communities Role of the lead professional Effectiveness of Children’s Trust arrangements 14

15 What outcome will be investigated? What will be the focus of the work (the context)? Why could the CAF process be effective in promoting this outcome in this context? How will the work link to schools? Almost 30 research propositions

16 Example …Children will be more ready for school …because a CAF and the role of the lead professional enables the identification and provision of appropriate support …leading to improved outcomes related to children’s behaviour, social literacy and emotional well-being

What are we learning about CAF ? a) the lead professional Critical to success. Works best when the LP has: established a positive relationship with the family and built the trust of the child/young person and family/carers the confidence and skill to discuss sensitive issues with the family and to work with or manage a multi- agency team LP needs: Appropriate support Other agencies to engage fully Clarity over what is available for families eg thresholds

What are we learning about CAF ? b) engagement of schools CAF not yet fully embedded. Three models: School taking the lead School staff working in partnership School staff as educators Schools identify positive aspects of involvement, eg: Recognition of wider needs of the young person and the impact of home environment on learning Better understanding of wider services Not having to rely solely on information and support from parents Improved relationships with young people and families

Leadership Issues for Children’s Trusts Engaging all agencies and partners Streamlining operational effectiveness Performance Management and Accountability Understanding thresholds (levels of need) Meaningful data about activity and needs - to inform commissioning Evidence of improved outcomes for children and families Value for Money Making the case for future investment

Questions for participants Question 1 – How far do the LARC findings reflect your own experience? Question 2 – What further information do you hope the LARC 2 report will provide which will be helpful in your own work around early intervention and prevention? 20

Re-allocating resources? Targeted services Specialist services Universal services CAF?CAF?

Eradicating child and family poverty by 2020 The Policy Landscape: Families

Building capacity in leadership and research : LARC Round 3

What are we learning about the LARC model ? It has worked well in Round 2 – co-production Local staff say it has enabled them to gain deep insights into CAF and its effects Immediate impacts from LARC include the development of practitioner training, new strategies for early intervention, and improved willingness from schools to engage with CAF It is building local capacity for commissioning and using research and evaluation methods LGA-funded study will report in January

Improvement Support environment Local Authorities C4EO Audit Commission CSPRIEPsGOs 25 LARC Building capacity in leadership and research

Round 3: suggested research topics 1.Early intervention, facilitated by CAF, is cheaper and more effective 2.Role of CAF and early intervention for disabled children 3.Could we have intervened earlier – costs savings 4.Effective and efficient models for implementing CAF 5.Commitment to CAF at Children’s Trust and senior management levels 6.Using CAF in commissioning

Round 3: process Refine topics and turn into research questions Identify scope for local customisation Agree research methods and research support process Sign up by late January! Costs approx £5000 per agency Secure commitment and buy-in within Children’s Trust inc from lead member Launch (ie work starts) April 2010

Questions for participants Question 1 – Looking at the list of preferred topics for LARC 3, which of these is of greatest value to your area, and why? 28 Early intervention, facilitated by CAF, is cheaper and more effective Role of CAF and early intervention for disabled children Could we have intervened earlier – costs savings Effective and efficient models for implementing CAF Commitment to CAF at Children’s Trust and senior management levels Using CAF in commissioning

29 CAF: Integration with Impact? The Story from the Local Authority Research Consortium Thank You