Bairns' Hoose Pathfinder Phase – Research Report

5. Systems change

This chapter covers the ways in which partnerships have organised their processes and systems to implement Bairns’ Hoose. It includes elements of Standard 2: Collaborative leadership and governance (e.g. strategic activities such as developing an agreement for Bairns’ Hoose governance and oversight; a workforce/delivery plan; and an appropriate staffing model). It also includes elements of Standard 11: Prevention, sharing knowledge and learning from good practice, to do with monitoring and evaluation processes to enable partnerships to measure and be accountable for changes made as part of implementing Bairns’ Hoose (e.g. having a core data set; monitoring progress; carrying out self-evaluation; ensuring learning contributes to national policy).

Governance processes

As governance processes were not actively explored as part of qualitative interviews, progress reported here is based on StART2 submissions. Since StART1, a national Bairns’ Hoose Implementation Group has been established and partnerships reported being involved with this. Local governance structures had either continued to work well or been developed further. This included various accountability and reporting requirements with some partnerships having formal partnership agreements in place. There had been particular focus on governance structures in one partnership, where a lot of time had gone into mapping and restructuring working groups to minimise duplication.

Specific approaches differed, allowing partnerships to fit Bairns’ Hoose into current governance structures and to draw on existing strong relationships. For example, in one partnership, an effective multi-agency group previously set up as part of the Regional Improvement Collaborative was chosen as a local coordinating group for Bairns’ Hoose.

Monitoring and evaluation

Pathfinders reported attempts to integrate Bairns’ Hoose work with broader systems of monitoring and evaluation at StART1. However, this Standard (11) had not seen a great deal of change. Notably, StART2 scores tended to be higher among partnerships working with the University of Edinburgh to support their monitoring and evaluation activities. The University of Edinburgh worked with partnerships to produce progress reports, programme theories, and was involved in developing processes to facilitate the collection of feedback from CYP. Partnerships stated that these publications will contribute to the development of national policy.

Partnerships were generally showing progress in monitoring their implementation of the Standards. One had almost finalised its Implementation/Improvement Plan, which is directly linked to each of the Bairns’ Hoose Standards and will facilitate monitoring and evaluation.

Two partnerships had created Bairns’ Hoose core datasets, which were yet to be tested and reviewed at the time of writing this report. Others continued to draw on data from different sources (particularly from Scottish Child Interview Model (SCIM) interviews). In one partnership, it was noted that data on SCIM and recovery were more progressed compared to data on health and justice. Progress had been made on involving families and learning from CYP’s experiences, which is discussed further in Chapter 8.

Challenges to systems change

The main barrier to implementing effective systems change was staff time and resource. This was thought to be especially relevant at the start of setting up a Bairns’ Hoose and establishing governance structures, when the administrative burden had felt “very heavy”. This also impacted monitoring and evaluation, as partnerships without commissioned support or a dedicated staff member found it difficult to do this as regularly as they would like. For rural or island local authorities, lack of resource was seen as a particular barrier to establishing robust governance.

“The island context has to be borne in mind here as well, because in reality there isn't a big pool of staff to help this stuff go along. Whereas other authorities, mainland authorities, would probably have a far greater infrastructure behind supporting this development. […] Rural authorities in general have a disadvantage because they don't have the bigger authority structures.”

Linked to this, sustaining staff morale and buy-in had also been a challenge. This was due to the time taken to set up new processes or create culture change.

“At times, the kind of process around actually progressing the spend in itself becomes a barrier and it can be a bit exhausting and then it kind of sets you back slightly. So actually, sustaining pace and enthusiasm to deliver something that we're all committed to is really difficult.”

One participant highlighted a potential perceived tension between the need to integrate Bairns’ Hoose with current processes at the same time as protecting staff time for other roles and responsibilities:

“[Bairns’ Hoose and SCIM are] about transformational change […] and both these things together are integral to our child protection processes. Yet they feel that they're sitting on the outside a wee bit just now because they're not embedded. So, we give people extra work to do on top of their day work and that's why they can't prioritise everything. But if we were to fund teams to just go do it on [their] own, it sits further aside from your work. So it's a Catch 22.”

Another concern raised included the lack of engagement with and role of Child Protection Committees and Chief Officers Groups at a national level, and uncertainty around how to assure robust governance processes when commissioning third sector organisations.

Facilitators to systems change

As part of focus group discussions and interviews, there was a sense that the order in which Bairns’ Hoose Standards were implemented was important to successful systems change. Choosing a clear focus at the outset and taking time to establish clear governance structures upfront were seen as beneficial (especially given the administration needed).

“I think if you don't have that right and you don't have the right people and the right governance; I don't think you're really going to get it off the ground.”

Allowing enough time to get the governance right had enabled partnerships to test, adapt or change their approach where needed. For example, in one partnership, it was noted that the original set-up of working groups for each agency led to duplication of work. They had since been reconfigured into one group, which was believed to be much more effective. In another, initial challenges around reporting and information sharing highlighted the importance of establishing a strong oversight group. One partnership had established new subgroups based on the Standards as a way of rebalancing the focus of Bairns’ Hoose governance, which had originally been based on SCIM implementation.

“The governance groups [for SCIM] kind of merged into Bairn's Hoose. […] [It’s] probably been a strength and a weakness in terms of the governance. [Partners] were used to working together. But […] the governance, it was too much based on what was there. It was very heavily skewed towards the interview, etc. I think we're now addressing that more with the setup of these subgroups.”

“The importance of a really strong oversight group, I think that's been a local learning point here. […] [Previously] there was a lack of local reporting back.”

Finally, partnerships who were working with the University of Edinburgh found this support to be very helpful for establishing robust monitoring and evaluation processes. This had not only supported partnerships to evaluate their progress, but also to “create a learning culture by embedding a ‘test, learn and develop’ approach to service design”. Similarly, there was a view that working with a third sector organisation which was member of the European Barnahus Network had strengthened learning and knowledge sharing in one partnership.