8.2.1 Choosing SWPs
For many (but not all) children and young people the move to an SWP involved disruption in the form of a change of key worker. Most children and young people did not appear to have
exercised choice in relation to transferring to the pilots and none of their parents were offered choices about the move. Children and young people interviewed had limited understanding of the role and tasks of SWPs, although awareness was higher when staff had moved out of the local authority alongside the children and young people and would therefore have had greater incentive and opportunity to explain the work of SWPs.
Some children and young people expressed anger about their lack of involvement in the decision and regarded the move to the pilot as yet another change that had been imposed on them. SWP staff also reported resistance from some parents and carers as a consequence of a lack of consultation. It is important that those children selected for inclusion in an SWP are fully consulted about the change, that the reasons are clearly explained to them and that their views are taken into account. This needs to be done on an individual basis; consultation with looked after children‟s groups is not a substitute for these discussions. This is a key message for those in the process of developing further SWPs in children‟s or adults‟ services.
8.2.2 Continuity and Consistency
The picture painted by the evaluation is not itself consistent. Interviews with children and young people suggested that pilot children were more likely to have experienced continuity of worker in the last year and staff turnover figures supplied by the pilots confirmed this picture for three of the smaller pilots. However, Pilot C which had substantially more staff, experienced higher turnover, as did Pilot B where there were ongoing difficulties and where staff knew in 2011 that the SWP contract would not be renewed the following year.
Analysis of SSDA903 data showed that SWPs B, C and D were successful in reducing
placement change rates for children and young people in their first year of operation. SWPs A and F were less successful in this respect and SWP F‟s emphasis on securing flexible, low-cost placements may have contributed to higher levels of placement change. Interviews with children and young people suggested that age and suitability of placement were key factors contributing to placement change.
8.2.3 A More Responsive Service?
Children‟s and young people‟s accounts showed no differences between pilots and comparison sites in terms of allocated workers‟ accessibility and responsiveness. Most found it easy to contact their worker, although there were some differences between pilots in this respect. Most were satisfied with the frequency and amount of time their allocated worker saw them, although there were differences between pilots. Likewise, there were no substantial differences found between pilot and comparison sites regarding the quality of children‟s and young people‟s relationships with allocated workers or their satisfaction with support. Some staff in both pilot and comparison sites were described as „going the extra mile‟ in the provision of support. SWP staff considered that shared responsibility for decision making made for speedier decisions (although in some SWPs the introduction of budgetary restrictions was reported to
140
have limited front-line decision making over time). Carers looking after SWP children and young people were more likely than those looking after comparison site children to feel that the social worker had often been able to take key decisions in the previous six months.
However, children‟s perceptions of SWP staff decision making were mixed. While most references to instant or quicker decision making came from SWP children and young people, there were also slightly more comments about delays in decision making from pilot children and young people than from those in comparison sites. This may reflect variations in performance between the pilots. Although self-reports of autonomy were high among SWP practitioners, the practitioner survey did not find levels of decision latitude to be higher among SWP staff.
8.2.4 Contact and Birth Families
In line with other research studies, contact with birth families emerged as a key preoccupation for children and young people and their parents. The practitioner survey found that work with birth parents was identified as a difficult area of practice by child and family social work practitioners. Some pilots adopted a particular focus on the needs of birth parents and the facilitation and support of contact. The carers surveyed from SWPs A, D and F were particularly positive concerning pilot staff‟s work with birth families.
Parents valued staff who acknowledged their needs as well as those of their children and were more satisfied with contact arrangements when they were involved in making decisions about contact. There were examples of SWP and comparison staff intervening to assist children and parents with both the practical and emotional aspects of contact although this didn‟t necessarily entail increasing the amount of contact. Slightly more children and young people in SWPs appeared to be satisfied with arrangements for contact than in comparison sites, but levels of satisfaction varied considerably between pilots.
8.2.5 Children’s Participation
Even in the second year of the pilots‟ operation, most children and young people had no or very limited understanding of the role and tasks of SWPs; awareness was higher among children and young people in SWP F where staff and children had moved to the pilot together.
SWPs involved children and young people in a range of participation activities which contributed to their personal development and sometimes offered them opportunities to contribute to the development of services. The young people concerned enjoyed these activities and felt they had an impact on their social skills, and sometimes on service delivery. Such participation was not unique to the SWPs as young people in the comparison sites reported participating in similar activities.
IROs were divided as to whether SWPs showed any improvement on local authority practice in respect of children‟s attendance at reviews. Analysis of care plans showed that most children were involved in reviews and there were some examples in both SWPs and comparison sites of innovative approaches to involving children in these meetings. Children and young people in SWP D were more likely to feel that their reviews had improved since joining the SWP.
8.2.6 User-friendly Buildings
Where a tightly-drawn catchment area made it viable for pilots to offer this, user-friendly premises that offered space and resources that young people could drop in and use as well as facilities for active contact sessions were appreciated by children, young people and their
141
families. Knowing and being „known‟ to other SWP staff gave children and families a stake in SWPs and contributed to a view of the pilots as accessible, personalised services; this
perception was shared by IROs and other professionals as well as being expressed by children and parents. A central or accessible location was important as well as attractive décor and furnishings and offices which young people could access without encountering security barriers were particularly appreciated.