CYPIC Stakeholder Survey – Key Findings
This note presents findings from the 2017 CYPIC stakeholder survey seeking views on the Children and Young People Improvement Collaborative (CYPIC) created in November 2016 to join together the Early Years Collaborative (EYC) and the Raising Attainment for All (RAFA) Programme. It provides a point of comparison for future monitoring and evaluation, and provides information which will inform policy and operational development of the programme.
The online survey was distributed via stakeholder networks and was aimed at anyone that had some interaction, at any level, with CYPIC. It was carried out between May and June and received 209 responses.
The wording of questions focused on the use of Improvement Methodology (IM) in general to allow respondents to answer questions on EYC, RAFA or CYPIC activity.
Profile of Respondents
Demographic analysis of survey respondents shows that it achieved good coverage of the early years, schools and healthcare sectors and CPP areas. Around two thirds of respondents were employed in managerial roles and a third were practitioners. As this was a self-selected sample, it is likely to overrepresent those that have been actively engaged with CYPIC and should not be treated as representative of the potential stakeholder population as a whole.
Key Findings – Training
In terms of training attended, around two thirds of respondents had taken part in awareness raising activities, just over a third in project level training and 14 per cent in advanced training.
Regarding future plans, 14 per cent of respondents had already arranged further training and a further 69 per cent said they would like to. A small number of open text survey responses suggested that they had challenges in finding the capacity to apply learning from training; and that where there was less quantifiable and real time data it was more difficult to apply IM theory.
Training is well received and there is appetite for further capacity building. Further thought could be given to processes through which IM theory is applied in practice, particularly in settings without routine quantifiable and real time data.
Key Findings – Knowledge And Confidence
Stakeholder survey participants were asked how much they knew about the Improvement Methodology and how confident they felt in adopting it in their area or day to day work. Knowledge levels were relatively high, with 68 per cent of respondents saying that they knew quite a lot or a great deal. Confidence levels were also high, with 58 per cent saying they were either quite or very confident.
The findings highlight the importance of locally identifying and supporting stakeholders who require support to build confidence in the application of IM in practice.
Key Findings – Perceptions Of Manager And Senior Manager Engagement
Respondents were asked how much support they felt there was for IM among their managers (if they were practitioners) or senior leadership (if they were managers). Just under seven in ten felt some level of support. Within this, four in ten felt that there was either quite a lot or a lot of support. Just under two in ten felt that there was either not a lot or no support.
In the open text responses it was suggested that greater senior manager engagement and leadership would benefit the programme.
A large majority of survey respondents (68 per cent) felt that IM had been integrated into the culture of their CPP in some areas only, suggesting that there is still a need for further integration.
Engagement at both manager and senior leadership level is a crucial factor to the successful implementation of Improvement Methodology and should continue be a priority for activity going forward.
Key Findings - Action Taken By Survey Respondents And Perceptions Of Actions Taken By CPP
Survey respondents were asked what actions they had taken following learning about IM. A large majority shared learning about IM (75 per cent) or supported others in applying IM (67 per cent). Additionally, 41 per cent had established new networks with people in other areas.
A large majority of 69 per cent had also got involved in practical projects applying IM. Local projects are making an impact: 59 per cent had changed practice as a result of improvement projects in their own setting, and 41 per cent adopted new interventions. Making changes on the basis of improvement projects elsewhere was less prevalent: 30 per cent of respondents had changed practice and 25 per cent had adopted new interventions as a result of learning from improvement projects in other settings.
Survey respondents were also asked for their perception of actions the CPP they worked in or with had taken as a result of involvement with Improvement Methodology. Overall less than four in ten thought that there had been a change of any kind, although it is worth noting that almost three in ten said they didn’t know. Again, respondents were more likely to say that action had been taken based on learning from within the CPP rather than other CPPs.
There is evidence of sharing of learning within settings and CPPs but less so of sharing of between them, suggesting that further work may usefully focus on increasing networking opportunities and effectiveness.
Key Findings – Projects Taken Forward By Stakeholders
The practical improvement projects respondents were involved in covered a range of areas. The largest topic areas among survey respondents was pre-school child development (71 per cent), followed by health and wellbeing (54 per cent) and numeracy and literacy (39 per cent). 20 per cent were involved in maternity projects and 8 per cent in school leaver destinations projects.
Survey respondents were also asked about the progress of their project. If they were involved in more than one project they were asked to respond on the most advanced one. Overall 55 percent of projects showed some improvement or substantial improvement.
The survey also asked respondents involved in projects that had shown improvements whether learning from their project had spread. 40 per cent of respondents said it had spread within their settings, while 52 per cent said it had spread to other settings. This slightly conflicts with findings discussed above that changes were much less likely to be made on the basis of changes in other settings or CPPs.
Further thought is required to consider how spread of learning from successful approaches can best be achieved. A focus on building organisational capacity complemented by a structured approach to cross organisational networking at leadership level may be a good focus for future expansion.