headstart partnership meetings 13, 14, 15 th july 2015 1

HeadStartPartnership meetings13, 14, 15th July 2015

1

CONTENT

• Reminder – HeadStart, what is it about

• The foundations - what does good look like?

• Decision-making on further awards

• Support to be provided and resourcing

• Evaluation

• ‘Young people in the lead’

2

HeadStart MISSION

The Big Lottery Fund’s HeadStart programme aims to improve the mental well-being of at-risk* 10 to 16 year-olds by investing up to £75m in up to 12 local partnerships to facilitate and support:1.the implementation of a locally developed, cross-disciplinary, multi-layered and integrated prevention strategy, with the young person and their needs at its core2.the development of the necessary local conditions to enable that strategy to become sustainable in time3.the development of a more robust evidence-base around ‘what works’ in the area of mental well-being to be pro-actively shared beyond HeadStart with the aim of contributing to the national and local policy debate

* At risk of developing mental ill-being 3

THE SPECIFIC ROLE OF RESILIENCE

Particularly relevant in the context of HeadStart given that many children in our target population might face more adversity than the norm

WELL-BEING

Resilience

4

WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK

Socially significant improvement of the mental well-being of at-risk young people

Reduction in the onset of diagnosable mental health disorders

Improved engagement in school and improved academic attainment

Reduced engagement in ‘risky’ behaviour: e.g.; •Substance abuse•Criminality•Teenage pregnancy

Main programme outcome Longer-term outcomes

5

Baseline age 10

HeadStart exit

Improved employability

1

2

3

4

5

Positive transitions: e.g.;

Outcomes embedded within the local systems6






6

Baseline age 10

HeadStart exit


1

2

3

4

5


Focus of HeadStart activity



CONTENT





• Evaluation


7

THE FOUNDATIONS

8

By May 2016 we want to be able to take a firm decision on which partnerships, if any, to fund, with clarity on what we will be funding and to what end

• Confidence in the proposed programme

• Confidence in the local leadership

• Confidence in sustainability of programme beyond the Big Lottery Fund

• Confidence in the implementation

• Confidence in the willingness / ability to engage

• Robust programme strategy:• Local translation of HS mission• Clarity on target population• Combination of robust interventions and

approaches• Articulation of integrated client journey• Clarity of short, medium and long-term

outcomes

• Strong and committed governance in place• Strong day-to-day management in place

• Clear and robust articulation of how programme could continue to be funded after HS

• Strategy for achieving sustainability beyond HS

• Robust implementation plan for the first 18 months of the programme

• Detailed budget based on clarity of current spend against the proposed programme versus required spend

• Basic delivery infrastructure in place

• Evidence of willingness and ability to engage with wide range of stakeholders: young people, community, other partnerships, external experts, S&D, Big Lottery Fund

We want….

We need from the partnerships...

THE FOUNDATIONS






• Robust programme strategy:• Local translation of HS mission• Clarity on target population• Combination of robust interventions and approaches• Articulation of integrated client journey• Clarity of short, medium and long-term outcomes


• An understanding of what long-term sustainability of HS at local level would require

• Sustainability explicitly recognised in the design of the governance structure, the implementation plan and the budget






BUILDING BLOCKS OF AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAMME STRAGEGY

10

Mission

Target Population

Outcomes

Programme Design

Definition• Purpose of the programme,

what it is meant to achieve and how it will achieve it

What good looks like• Clear statement of intent • Basis for determining whether

the partnership has succeeded• Descriptive and unambiguous –

not a Vision• Aspirational…but achievable • Holistic and enduring

Definition• The group of young people to

which the partnership will holds itself accountable

• Expressed as a set of enrolment criteria• E. g. Age of entry into the

programme, socio-economic profileWhat good looks like• Clear operational guidelines• Clear thresholds

Definition• Specific differences we look for the

programme as well as the individual interventions to make

What goods look like:• Clear basis to ascertain whether the

programme / the intervention has achieved its aim (after the fact)

• Clear basis to ascertain whether the programme / the intervention is achieving its aim (while it is on-going)

Definition• Documentation of which interventions,

by whom, when, how often, how long…what exactly will happen in order to achieve outcomes (including the system mechanisms)

What good looks like• Shared understanding of what the

“programme” means for everyone in the partnership

• Clear rationale for how the “programme” will lead to the outcomes

• Provides a clear basis for recruiting, training and manage staff (competencies)

The Big Lottery Fund’s HeadStart programme aims to improve the mental well-being of at-risk 10 to 16 year-olds by investing up to £75m in up to 12 local partnerships to facilitate and support:1.the implementation of a locally developed, cross-disciplinary, multi-layered and integrated prevention strategy, with the young person and their needs at its core2.the development of the necessary local conditions to enable that strategy to become sustainable in time3.the development of a more robust evidence-base around ‘what works’ in the area of mental well-being to be pro-actively shared beyond HS with the aim of contributing to the national and local policy debate

MISSION

11

Each of the partnerships to translate the overall HS mission into a statement of intent for their local programme strategy

• Clear articulation of what the programme is meant to achieve and how it is going to achieve that

• Common interpretation across the partnership

• Drives decision-making

Big Lottery Fund mission for HeadStart

Local mission for HeadStart

TARGET POPULATIONHeadStart IS ABOUT PREVENTION

12

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Tier 4

Universal services provided by non-mental health specialists: this includes teachers, school nurses, GPs, health visitors, social workers, youth justice workers and voluntary agencies

Specialised services for children and young people with more severe, complex and persistent disorders through child psychiatry or community mental health clinics

Highly specialised services for children and young people with the most serious problems including highly specialised outpatient services and in-patient services

HeadStartImproving the well-being of young people to reduce the number of young people developing symptoms of mental ill health, and then, in turn, develop a diagnosed condition

Universal

Symptoms

Diagnosed condition

Severediagnosed condition Out of scope

Targeted services provided by teams in community and primary care settings, supported by mental health specialists as required. Includes family consultation and support

The 4 tiers of mental health services

Each of the partnerships needs to decide how to balance activity between universal and targeted services as relevant to their local

context

TARGET POPULATIONFURTHER DECISIONS TO BE MADE

13

To be defined by the partnerships

•Even for universal programmes, partnerships need to decide whether to implement them across the entire locality or whether to focus (e.g.; particular wards, particular schools)•If the decision is to focus, the partnerships need to define very clearly how they will decide where to focus and why

•Each of the partnerships needs to decide which (groups of) young people they will look to support in a more targeted way•For each of these groups, a clear set of enrolment criteria needs to be defined:

• Risk factor or early symptoms?• Defined to a level of specificity that enables the

front-line staff to identify and engage with the right young people - needs to be able to be operationalised and monitored

Universal

Targeted

Proportionate universalism

OUTCOMESWHY WORRY ABOUT OUTCOMES?

14

• All stakeholders (should) want to know what we are trying to achieve with the collective investment in HS

• All stakeholders (should) want to know that the investment in HS is achieving what we set out to achieve

• We need to define up-front what change we aim to achieve for young people – what change do we want to see happen for the young people as a result of the investment?

• The change needs to be significant enough so that it is meaningful – is the investment going to end up making a meaningful difference for the young people?

• The change needs to be specific enough (e.g.; what, when and how) so that we can measure it consistently – if we don’t measure consistently, we won’t know anything

Why worry about outcomes?

Implications

OUTCOMESOUTCOMES AT TWO LEVELS

15

For each of the

partnerships, 2 levels of outcomes

Across the programme

For each of the programme elements

What change(s) are you expecting for the young person as a result of their journey through the HS programme (and across the system)?

What change(s) are you expecting as a result of each individual programme elements: e.g.;

• For the young people• Adults where relevant (parents,

professionals)







16

Baseline age 10

HeadStart exit


1

2

3

4

5



OUTCOMESWE ALSO NEED TO DEFINE SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES






17

Baseline age 10

HeadStart exit


1

2

3

4

5


How are we going to ascertain whether we are on the right track, while

the programme is on-going?

17Outcomes embedded within the local systems6

OUTCOMESTHE RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK CAN HELP DEFINE SOME OF THE SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES

18

• Access to a trusted adult available over time

• Access to and engagement with activities, hobbies, sports, etc.

• Improved problem-solving skills (how to measure?)

• Access to a safe space (what does that mean in practice?)

• A realistic yet aspirational plan for the future

• Improved self-management skills (how to measure?)

• Access to and engagement with activities that contribute to others (e.g.; volunteering, peer mentoring)

Source: BoingBoing

OUTCOMESDEVELOPMENT OF A MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK

19

• Each of the locally developed strategies will be very different

• As such, the detailed outcomes framework for each of the sites will look different as well

• However, our expectation is that the detailed outcomes framework for the individual partnerships all fit into the common HeadStart outcomes framework as defined earlier

• Our aim is to translate this common outcomes framework into a common measurement framework, with all the partnerships using common tools to measure the common outcomes

• Benefits of a common outcome and measurement framework include:

• Common language and reference points across the partnerships which will facilitate learning

• Development of a much stronger evidence-base across the partnerships to feed into a much stronger argument in favour of more of HS

• Principles to be adopted in the development of a common outcomes / measurement framework:

• Driven from the partnerships up, not from BLF down

• As a result of the strategies developed locally, not to be defined up-front as a straight jacket for the development of the strategies

PROGRAMME DESIGNBASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A HeadStart PROGRAMME

20

Characteristic

Locally developed

Cross-disciplinary

Multi-layered

Integrated

Prevention

=> with the young person and their needs at its core

What it means

Not a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all, ready made ‘solution’

Not just education, not just public health

Not just in schools, not just in the community, not just with parents

Not a list of individual interventions

Not treating the symptoms

Not more of the same for our young people

But relevant to the local needs as identified, interpreted and prioritised locally by the young people

But involving all relevant services (including education, public health, social care, the police, etc.)

But operating where-ever relevant (in mainstream school, in PRUs, in youth clubs, on the street, in the home)

But a cohesive programme that links interventions into a journey for the young people

But focused on developing the intrinsic building blocks of sustained mental well-being

But a programme that provides young people with the support they need, in the way they need it, as informed by them

Ecological

approach

PROGRAMME DESIGNDIFFERENT PROGRAMME ‘LAYERS’

21

Interventions aimed at improving the ability of schools / other services to support the mental well-being of children/ young people

Universal and targeted interventions aimed at improving parent’s ability to support the mental well-being of their children

Universal as well as targeted interventions specifically aimed at improving the mental well-being of young people (in school, in alternative provision, in the community)

Awareness raising

Professionals (including teachers) / practitioners / volunteers

Parents / carers

Young people

Activity that does as it says on the tin

Integration into a

cohesive journey with

the young people at its

core

Again, each of the partnerships will need to decide how to balance activity across those

different ‘layers’ of activity

2

PROGRAMME DESIGNWHERE DOES DIGITAL FIT IN?

22

2 aspects to ‘Digital’ in the context of HeadStart

A key channel to provide access to information and support (in addition to the more traditional media of face-to-face, print, radio, etc.)

Potentially a significant source of additional pressure on young people with a negative influence on their mental wellbeing

• In the sector, still lack of understanding of the issue, its impact and how to deal with it• Need to ensure that HeadStart

programmes strategies are up to date and don’t ignore the issue

But also (and perhaps more

importantly so)

• Need to ensure that we avoid significant investment being spent on the development of duplicating Apps, websites and platforms

1

PROGRAMME DESIGNSOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

23

Drawing on the evidence

Engagement and integration

Additionality

Relevant locally

=> What will be different?

• HeadStart is meant to be a test-and-learn programme. However, we do expect the partnerships to draw from existing evidence as much as possible:

1. We see a place for evidence-based interventions: e.g.; • Whole-school programmes• Parenting programmes

2. Also, where partnerships develop new approaches, we would expect them to take into account available evidence on what might work: e.g.;

• Workforce development

•Many of the young people HeadStart would like to help might not be in mainstream school, attending the regular youth activities, etc – this needs to be recognised and provisions to ensure those young people are included in the programme need to be included• As mentioned previously, we will be looking to understand in detail how partnerships propose to

ensure that individual interventions included in the programme connect into an integrated journey; partnerships are encouraged to be explicit about dedicated resource to that effect

• HS is about doing more, doing something different, doing things differently; we would be very disappointed to find we are funding activity that’s been going on for some time

• The sharing and learning across the partnerships we have observed recently is really encouraging and totally in line with HS’s test-and-learn approach• However, we would be disappointed to find programme strategies converging too much• Learn from each other, but make it yours, relevant to your context

=> Our main concern is ending up funding ‘same old’, even if dressed up differently=> Partnerships are encouraged to consider explicitely, how HS will end up making a real

difference for young people

THE FOUNDATIONS















LEADERSHIP WITH A BIG L

25

The people and the structures in place

to drive the programme and

realise its full potential

• Commitment and engagement from the ‘top’

• Commitment and engagement from all key stakeholders (organisations and relevant individuals)

• Clear accountability

• Common purpose with clarity on individual roles and responsibility amongst all partners

• Clear decision-making processes based around the presentation of insights

• Strategic thinking

• Change agent(s)

• Solid day-to-day programme management


LESSONS LEARNED (1)

26

• Not our role to be prescriptive on how partnerships decide to set up their HS Leadership• However, we can share what we learned from other strategic programmes

Engagement and commitment from the ‘top’

Commitment from all key stakeholders

Clear accountability

Common purpose with clarity on individual roles and responsibility amongst all partners

• Needs to be in place from the start• Not only in words but also in actions (develop understanding, presence in key decision meetings)• Needs to be sustained

• All key stakeholders identified based on rigorous stakeholder mapping (up-front and then regularly reviewed)

• Clarity on what makes organisations / individuals stakeholders

• A single individual who is ultimately responsible for the success or the failure of the programme • With the following characteristics:• sufficiently senior• with direct and strong enough links to the ‘top’• with enough time to dedicate to the programme• who is close enough to the programme• and has the intrinsic qualities to lead a programme such as HS (to be defined in more detail)

• Clearly articulated mission for the programme which is owned and commonly interpreted across all partners and consistently used for decision-making

• Common understanding amongst all of the partners what the role is of each of the partners in achieving the mission

Aspect Learning

LESSONS LEARNED (2)

27

Clear decision-making processes based around the presentation of real insight

Strategic thinking

Change agents

Solid day-to-day programme management

‘Young people in the lead’

• Clear delineation of various governance bodies to be set up, each with their own TOR and effective Chair and with clear communication protocols between them

• Think carefully about balance between having too many bodies (which risks making the overall governance structure too complicated) and too many people in one body (which risks making the purpose of that particular body unclear) – who is required for what?

• Could think about separating out:• Strategic decision-making• Operational• Engagement

• Good decision-making can only happen based on good data / information – need to be clear about what information is required where by when to enable the decision-making process to take place effectively

• To be lead by the person ultimately responsible for the programme• Contributions should be expected by the key senior stakeholders

• This programme is about change – need to consider who will continuously challenge the partnership to focus on change and who will be the ‘change’ in the services, schools, communities

• Responsibility of a single individual, dedicated to the programme• With the following characteristics:

• sufficiently senior• ideally with existing links to many of the relevant stakeholders• and with the intrinsic qualities to lead a programme such as HS (to be defined in more detail)

• Need to design an effective way of ensuring that young people are at the core of the programme, not only during the design, but also during the implementation

Aspect Learning

THE FOUNDATIONS















SUSTAINABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF PHASE 3

29

We are not expecting ...

•A firm commitment from the partnerships by July 2016 to fully replace BLF funding to cover HS activity once the initial funding commitment has run out

We are expecting...

• An understanding amongst the partnership that embedding HS within the local context long-term is absolutely part of our aims for HS – if this doesn’t happen in the long-term, we will not consider the programme a success

• A partnership governance structure that facilitates sustainability by including key decision-makers and providing links into the wider agendas at local level

• An understanding amongst the partnership of the existing relevant funding pots, including an understanding of the current spend against HS activity

• An understanding of what would need to happen for funds to be able to shift to HS activity: e.g.;

• What evidence• Milestones to achieve

• Leverage explicitly considered when developing the budget

but

THE FOUNDATIONS















CONTENT





• Evaluation


32

DECISION-MAKING

•Application based

•July 2016

33

• Based on an on-going assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the individual partnerships against the foundations through:• on-going engagement with the partnerships • presence in some of the key decision-making

workshops within the partnerships (e.g.; programme strategy development)

• Based on a final review of the partnerships’ documentation on HeadStart Phase 3 (strategy, business plan, implementation plan, budget, governance documentation)

• Based on a final assessment of the strategy and the leadership (Interview, Q&A)

• May 2016

From To

How

When

• To ensure decisions are based on a deeper understanding of the potential for success as well as the risks

• To reflect the relationship we’re seeking to build with the successful partnerships

• To ensure that there is no gap between the funding streams (current commitments running out in July 2016) that could jeopardise the continuity of delivery and lead to loss of momentum

Why

ON-GOING AND FINAL ASSESSMENT – IN PRACTICE

34

• On-going review of the progress of the individual partnerships against the foundations through:• on-going engagement with the

partnerships • presence in some of the key decision-

making workshops within the partnerships (e.g.; programme strategy development)

• Final review of the partnerships’ documentation on HeadStart Phase 3 (e.g.; programme strategy, business plan, implementation plan, budget, governance structure)

• Final review of the strategy and the leadership of the partnerships

• Driven by HS team with support from S&D

• Driven by HS team with support from S&D

• Involvement of expert panel (see later), specifically to review the programme strategy

• EC leads

• Regular touchpoints with Strategic and Programme lead (e.g.; monthly)

• Regular attendance at partnership boards

• Presence at key development workshops

• Regular touchpoints with S&D All this to be formally planned in

advance

• Final review of all documentation provided by the partnerships by HS team with support from S&D

• Review of programme strategy by expert advisors and panel discussion

• Interview and Q&A

What Who How

Initial review by EC leads of recommendations of HS team after compilation of all the evidence and reflection on all the input received

Final decision by EC leads

• Partnership interviews• Award decisions

TIMELINE

35

Current funding runs out

New funding kicks in

• Communication to sites on way forward

• Event planned for the 13 / 14 / 15 July • Delivery of integrated

support package• On-going engagement

• Review of partnership documentation

• Final comments

May June July August Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan March April MayFeb June July

Planning

Grant set-up

Submission of partnership documentation

CONTENT





• Evaluation


36

ELEMENTS OF SUPPORT TO BE PROVIDED

37

Elements

Support with strategy development

Fund mapping

Support with the development of implementation plan / budget

Development of common outcome / measurement framework – support with the set-up of local measurement frameworks

What

Facilitation of series of structured workshops to support the partnership in the development of their Phase 3 programme:•Clarity on target population•Clarity on desired outcomes to achieve•Clarity on programme journey for young people

• Which interventions• How to integrate

• What will be different

Support the sites to identify all the relevant funding streams for HS-related activities (including existing activity) to feed into the budgeting process :Review and critique of the plans developed by the partnerships

•Facilitate a process with the partnerships to identify, across the locally developed outcome frameworks, the common themes and decide, for those common outcomes, common measurement•For those common outcomes and measurements, develop a common framework, going back to input, outputs, etc

Who

Facilitated by new S&D in close partnership with existing S&D (to provide subject knowledge) and HS team

New S&D

•New S&D in close partnership with existing S&D (to provide subject knowledge) and HS team•At final stage of programme, potentially involve expert advisors

•Anna Freud and new S&D

CONTENT





• Evaluation


38

ROBUST EVALUATION OF PHASE 3 NEEDS TO BE ON THE CARDS

• One of the key aims of HeadStart is to strengthen the evidence-base to strengthen the case for ‘more of HeadStart’ – this implies that robust evaluation of Phase 3 needs to be on the cards

• However, we need to be realistic about what level of evidence we can expect after a relatively limited period of time, especially given that HeadStart is not about a single intervention, or not even about a combination of interventions but, ultimately about doing things differently across a local system

• We want the national evaluation to build on the common measurement framework

• Finally, HS provides us with an exciting opportunity to follow young people over a longer period of time and look into longer-term outcomes; given the fact that this is a prevention programme and that the lack of evidence is particularly in the link between mental well-being and longer-term outcomes, this is where the big impact could lie

=> Careful consideration required to identify which type of evaluation would best fit the nature and ambition of HeadStart

39

CONTENT





• Evaluation


40

‘YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE LEAD’

• There is a wide recognition amongst all parties involved in HeadStart (the partnerships, their wider stakeholders, S&D, the HS team) that young people need to be at the core of HeadStart for the programme to be able to achieve its aims

• There has been various efforts at all levels, some more successful then others, to ensure young people are meaningfully involved in all stages of the work (needs analysis, prioritisation of solution, design, implementation, monitoring)

• We see this as an area for continuous improvement and we will look to actively engage young people in the next few months, working with the partnerships, to ensure we continue t develop our common understanding of what ‘young people in the lead’ should look like in practice, from the perspective of the young people...

41

headstart partnership meetings 13, 14, 15 th july 2015 1

Documents