south coast regional centre for social work ... - scrc-tp.org...tp teaching partnership trip...

South Coast Regional Centre for

Social Work Education

Teaching Partnership

Evaluation

January 2019

Report author: Louise MacQuire-Plows

Teaching Partnership Evaluation Jan 2019

Contents

Section Page

number

Acronyms and abbreviations 1

Purpose of the report 2

Background 2

Methodology 3

Summary of key findings:

- Student Learning Hub

- Professional Practice Development Hub

- Practice Research Hub

- Experts by Experience

- Overall Teaching Partnership

9

9

11

13

14

16

Conclusions 17

Recommendations 18

Appendix:

- Student Learning Hub

- Professional Practice Development Hub

- Practice Research Hub

- Experts by Experience

- Overall Teaching Partnership

21

21

39

56

65

72


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 1 of 79

1. Acronyms and abbreviations

AIP Academics in Practice

ASYE Assessed and Supported Year in Employment

BHCC Brighton and Hove City Council

CPD Continuing Professional Development

CLAM Continuous Learning & Assessment Model for social work CPD

EBE Expert by Experience

ESCC East Sussex County Council

HEI Higher Education Institute

KSS Knowledge and Skills Statement

LA Local Authority

NQSW Newly Qualified Social Workers

PCF Professional Capabilities Framework

PDP Performance Development Plan

PE Practice Educator

PEC Professional Education Consultant

PEPD Practice Education Pathway Development

PPD Professional Practice Development Hub

PRH Practice Research Hub

PWT Practitioners Who Teach

PVI Private Voluntary Independent sector

SCRC South Coast Regional Centre for Social Work Education

SLH Student Learning Hub

ToC Theory of Change

TP Teaching Partnership

TRIP Teaching Relationships in Practice

UoB University of Brighton

UoS University of Sussex


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 2 of 79

2. Purpose of the report

2.1. This document is an evaluation of the South Coast Regional Centre for Social Work Education (SCRC)

Teaching Partnership. The Teaching Partnership (TP) is a 3 year project led jointly by East Sussex

County Council (ESCC), Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC), the University of Brighton (UoB) and

the University of Sussex (UoS). The organisations and their stakeholders are the intended primary

audiences for this report.

2.2. The TP project started in 2016 and is due to finish in March 2019. There is a need to capture the

learning from the project and evaluate the project elements to sustain the improvements made to

the model of social work education in Brighton & Hove and East Sussex.

3. Background

3.1. Following the publication of the Narey and Croisdale-Appleby reviews of social work education, the

Government developed a programme to improve the quality of education and define more clearly

the skills and knowledge that social workers should have to carry out their professional roles

effectively.

3.2. Social work practice education, learning and research are critical to the creation of excellent social

workers of the future and the continuing professional development and retention of those already

in practice. Based on these principles, and the findings of the reviews, the Universities of Brighton

and Sussex, BHCC and ESCC came together to form a teaching partnership called the SCRC. The

SCRC created a new model for social work education in Brighton & Hove and East Sussex.

3.3. A three pronged hub model of delivery was designed to deliver against the objectives of the project:

• Student Learning Hubs (SLH) – Hubs are based in frontline settings and are a unit of up to

8 students led by a Professional Education Consultant (PEC). Offering a learning hub

through group supervision and skills based practice development sessions.

• Professional Practice Development (PPD) Hub – focuses on developing direct work

grounded in day-to-day practice and is orientated to our Teaching Relationships in

Practice (TRIP) professional learning pathway. The Hub includes the Academics in Practice

(AiP) programme with academics undertaking placements in the Local Authorities,

observing practice and engaging teams in group supervision, work discussions and

practice development. It also includes Practitioners who Teach (PwT), which aims to

optimise the transfer of knowledge across practice-university boundaries and ensure high

quality delivery through the development of a larger pool of specialist teaching

practitioners.

• Practice Research Hub (PRH) – promoting research mindedness in everyday practice and

supporting practice research projects and events.

3.4. In addition, an Expert by Experience (EBE) Working Group was incorporated in early 2018 to

consider the meaningful participation in social work education, recruitment and service

development of service users and carers. The Practice Education Pathway Development (PEPD)

Working Group was set up mid-2018 to support the development and implementation of a support

and development pathway for Practice Educators (PE).

3.5. The following diagram shows the meetings structure for the partnership:


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 3 of 79

4. Methodology

4.1. The evaluation employed a mixed method approach using both qualitative and quantitative

methods of inquiry. The proceeding sections outline the TP’s theory of change, data collection

strategies employed, the analysis process and limitations of the evaluation.

4.2. Theory of Change

The TP Evaluation Working Group developed a Theory of Change (ToC) for the TP. The purpose of

this is to provide a visual representation of the aims of the project and articulate the change the TP

is seeking to bring to social work practice education, learning and research.

The TP’s long-term outcome is to have a social work workforce equipped with the knowledge and

skills to work with individuals, families and carers to create change and achieve best outcomes

through positive relationships.

In order to achieve this each hub had specific goals:

• SLH - A student workforce who are practice ready and have the skills to work with the

most vulnerable families in our community

• PPD - Expert social workers who continue learning and enable learning in others.

Academics who use current practice skills to inform qualifying and CPD programme

development

• PRH - Social workers and academics who collaborate to lead research that informs

practice, supporting a research mindedness culture


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 4 of 79

Each goal has a number of associated intermediate outcomes which identify short and medium-

term changes that the TP is seeking to bring about. The evaluation will focus on assessing whether

or not intermediate outcomes have been realised and seek to identify any key successes as well as

implementation challenges.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 5 of 79

Teaching Partnership Theory of Change (ToC)

Student Learning HubProfessional Practice

Development HubPractice Research Hub

A student workforce who are practice

ready and have the skills to work with

the most vulnerable families in our

community

Expert social workers continue

learning and enable learning in

others. Academics use current

practice skills to inform qualifying

and CPD programme development

Social workers and academics

collaborate to lead research that

informs practice, supporting a

research mindedness culture

TR

IP l

ea

rnin

g

pa

thw

ay

mo

de

l

Developing skills for more complex

and challenging work

Social workers develop expertise,

continue learning and enable

learning in others. Academics refresh

practice skills to inform CPD

programme development

Experienced social workers and

academics develop specialist

knowledge and use this to lead

research

STUDENT TO ASYE ASYE TO YEAR 2 YEAR 2 EXPERIENCED ONWARDS

Practitioners and academics working

in partnership to undertake research

Students receive high quality

education and learning opportunities

Skilled social workers provide

effective teaching

There is access to research resources

and opportunities

Students developing confidence and

resilience

Students have awareness of the

Professional Capabilities Framework

and Knowledge and Skills Statement

Hub working groups

Implementation Board

Teaching Partnership Board

Academics in Practice

Practitioners who Teach

Student Learning Hubs

Recovery Partners report

EBE working group

STRATEGIES

Students and social workers are supported and feel valued in their role (retention)

Culture exists of continuous professional skill development

Learning from qualifying courses converted into frontline skills

Positive working relationships are modelled by stakeholders across the partnership

Quality students and social workers are attracted due to package of social work education and CPD (recruitment)

Meaningful participation of those who have experienced social care services (Experts by Experience)

in recruitment and service development activities

Students equipped with skills and

knowledge to effectively undertake

complex and challenging work

Social workers developing teaching

and learning skills

A social work workforce equipped with the knowledge and skills to work with individuals, families and carers to

create change and achieve best outcomes through positive relationships

TEACHING PARTNERSHIP - LONG TERM OUTCOME

PROJECT GOALS

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

Academics undertake relevant and appropriate experiences in practice contexts

Research mindedness underpins assessment and decision-making

Social workers have sound knowledge of the Professional Capabilities

Framework and Knowledge and Skills Statement

Meaningful participation of those who have experienced social care services (Experts by Experience)

in all aspects of social work education

Social workers are confident and resilient


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 6 of 79

4.3. Evaluation timeline

The evaluation of the TP took place over the period April 2018 – February 2019. The evaluation plan

was scheduled as follows:

Apr –

May 18 Jun 18 Jul – Nov 18 Dec 18 Jan 19 Feb 19 Mar – Apr 19

Data

collection

Generic

progress

report

Data

collection

and analysis

Data

collection &

analysis

Draft

evaluation

evidence to

working

groups

Final data

collection &

analysis

Draft

Evaluation

report to

Board

15 Jan 19

Final sign off

by Board

14 Feb 19

Dissemination

of evaluation

findings

4.4. Focus Group discussions

Four focus groups took place:

• BHCC PECs, 4 participants, six questions focusing on PEC experience and opinion.

• 2nd

placement students, 14 participants, four focused questions based on the SLH

learning objectives.

• 1st placement students, 28 participants, Stop, Start, Continue exercise of four focused

questions based on the SLH learning objectives.

• TP Board, 8 participants, three questions focusing on expectations, consequences and

barriers.

4.5. One to one interviews

Three sets of one to one interviews took place:

• ESCC PECs, 3 interviews with six questions focusing on PEC experience and opinion.

• Experts by Experience (EBE), 10 interviews with up to 19 questions focusing on EBE

experience and opinion.

• Professionals who offered EBE opportunities, 8 interviews with eight questions focussing

on impact.

4.6. Online surveys

Four surveys were undertaken:

• Practitioner research confidence survey for ESCC and BHCC practitioner workforce, which

ran 3 times during project (May 17, May 18, Dec 18).

• PWT participants for feedback on the programme and its impact.

• NQSWs undertaking their ASYE survey of their own assessment against their resilience,

practice reflection and readiness to practice.

• AiP participants for feedback on the programme and its impact


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 7 of 79

4.7. Anecdotal feedback

Anecdotal feedback on project elements was sought from a variety of sources; Managers of

placement teams for AiP, Higher Education Institute (HEI) feedback, anecdotal evidence of

embedding the Knowledge Skills Statements (KSS) for Adults and Children’s services, Working Group

chairs and Recovery Partners.

4.8. Literature review

Project members provided documentation to inform the evaluation process. This included:

• Feedback from Practice Research events

• Case studies – AiP and PWT

• NQSW recruitment figures

• Daisy Bogg Consultancy Student Hub Evaluation, Summer 2017

• Mahara evaluation 2018

• Digital communications statistics

• Relevant Knowledge Skills Statement evidence

• PEC Themed student quotes/feedback

• Breakdown of research projects

• Breakdown of EBE 0pportunities

• LA contribution to the PWT programme report

4.9. Measures and indicators

The ToC outlines the qualitative goals for the TP. The TP bid also includes quantitative indicators, of

which the following were considered in the evaluation:

• Total number of SLH placements during the TP programme

• Statutory student placements across partnership

• Number of service users involved in practice development

• The number of Practitioners Who Teach (PWT) and Academics in Practice (AiP)

• Development of a minimum of 3 practice-based research projects

• Number of TP students recruited

4.10. Data collection and analysis

The collation of evaluation evidence is mapped below against the SCRC hub model:

Matched

SCRC Hub

Evaluation Activity

Student

Learning Hub

Students:

Number of placements

1st placement students - Stop/Start/Continue exercise

2nd placement students - Focus Groups

Student themed quotes

PECs:

BHCC and ESCC PEC Focus Group and interviews

HEI feedback regarding PEC model

Review of recruitment figures


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 8 of 79

Student

Learning Hub

cont.

ASYE:

Survey of NQSW undertaking ASYE

Consideration of the Daisy Bogg Consultancy Student Hub Evaluation, Summer 2017

Feedback from Working Group chair

Professional

Practice

Development

Hub

Academics in Practice:

Survey of AiP participants (academics)

Feedback from Managers of placement teams

Case Study

Practitioners Who Teach:

Survey of PWT practitioners

Case Study

Distribution of PWT Hours

KSS:

Activity undertaken to raise awareness and imbed KSS


Practice

Research Hub

Snap-shot social worker research confidence survey x 3

Breakdown of research projects

Feedback from PRH events


EBE Working

Group

Recovery Partners feedback

Opportunities breakdown

EBE interviews

Interviews of services offering EBE opportunities


Overall

Teaching

Partnership

Communications activity

Evaluation of Mahara Pilot

Board Focus Group

Data analysis was performed by the TP Project Manager, who was responsible for producing

preliminary findings reports to the Evaluation Working Group for their scrutiny and quality

assurance. Any discrepancies identified were investigated and tracked using the risk register. Key

finding, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report were validated through the TP

Implementation Group to strengthen the accuracy of its findings, including the reasonableness of its

interpretations during the drafting phase. Sign off of reports initially fell to the TP Implementation

Group, with final approval by the SCRC Board.

4.11. Limitations

It is recognised that resources were limited for the evaluation of the TP. No external resource was

available to undertake or analyse evaluation activity. Evaluation activity remained the responsibility

of the hubs and was tracked via the TP Implementation Plan, overseen and collated by the TP

Project Manager.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 9 of 79

Respondents may have, on occasion, attributed positive or negative changes to the TP which are

not related to the TP project, but rather impacts of external factors, leading to some inaccurate

reporting in a small number of cases.

5. Summary of Key Findings

The section below provides a summary of the key findings from the evaluation evidence, for further

detail on the basis which these findings were made please refer to the appendices of this report.

5.1. STUDENT LEARNING HUB

The specific ToC intermediate outcomes for the SLH are:

• Students receive high quality education and learning opportunities

• Students equipped with skills and knowledge to effectively undertake complex and

challenging work

• Students developing confidence and resilience

• Students have awareness of the PCF and KSS

• Students are supported and feel valued in their role

• Learning from qualifying courses converted into frontline skills

• Quality students are attracted due to package of social work education

In order to determine if these were achieved the following data was collated to inform the below

findings:

• 1st placement students - Stop/Start/Continue exercise

• 2nd placement students - Focus Groups

• Student themed quotes

• PEC Focus Group and interviews

• HEI feedback regarding PEC model

• Review of recruitment figures

• Survey of NQSW undertaking their ASYE

• Consideration of the Daisy Bogg Consultancy Student Hub Evaluation, Summer 2017

• Feedback from Working Group chair

First Placement Students

1st placement students felt the greatest benefit from the hubs was the provision of a ‘safe space’ for

non-judgemental protected time providing a place to build resilience through shared experience

and reflect on practice. Students liked the student mixture across HEIs and valued the experience,

guidance and skills the PEC role brought to the hub. Students provided many examples of how hubs

have helped them to understand and develop relationships, widen perspectives and understand

their personal impact. Areas that could be improved included more discussion on case examples

linking law and research to organisational working practices. The feedback provides positive

indications that the Theory of Change (ToC) student intermediate outcomes are being met by

supporting the development of skills for complex and challenging work. The ‘safe space’

contributed to the achievement of a further intermediate outcome which was to provide an

opportunity for students to develop their confidence and resilience allowing them to convert their

learning into frontline skills.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 10 of 79

Second Placement Students

2nd

placement students mirrored the 1st

placement student’s sentiments regarding the space and

support the hub provides. They valued the peer support and opportunity to try out multiple

hypotheses, receiving reinforcement and appropriate challenge. They felt that the hubs could have

provided more guidance around transition into ASYE and the recruitment process. Additionally 2nd

placement students noted PECs having differing levels of knowledge of service areas and different

levels of flexibility in hubs being student led. The student’s feedback evidences the ToC intermediate

outcome to support students to develop skills whist providing a safe forum for discussion and

development. The lack of preparation in the hubs for recruitment and transition to ASYE, although a

source of worry for the students, did not result in any negative impact on the actual recruitment of

those students or their move into ASYE. Students shared with PECs their comments on group

supervision, drawing out the main common themes of having an impact on their confidence,

wellbeing and resilience;

‘I have grown in confidence by using the different practice skills which I learnt through the hub. This

has had an impact on my willingness to explore’

‘I was able to recognise the impact of self in interaction with others, and have identified steps to

manage and promote my own wellbeing and emotional resilience’

‘It was comforting to be reassured that sometimes we do all that we can and that we often don’t see

the results of that for a while, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t had impact’

‘We all have such different experience and it would be helpful to be able to incorporate some

informal time in to explore what each other is celebrating/struggling with’

All Students feel they have greatly benefited from the hub experience and that the continuation of

hubs for future students is essential for a continued quality student experience. In general student

feedback provides confidence that the SLH model is achieving its aims to provide quality learning

opportunities, and create a student workforce who are practice ready with the skills to work with

our most vulnerable families (ToC).

PEC feedback

PEC feedback largely mirrored that of the 1st and 2

nd placement students, with agreement that the

hubs provide a safe and supporting space to apply theory to practice. PEC opinion on the differing

hub models delivered across the partnership presented equal positive and negative impacts on

students, with no one hub model clearly offering greater benefit than the others. PECs believed

improvements could be made with regards to the use of research in hubs and more PEC training on

managing group dynamics. PECs struggled to interpret the KSS into hubs and felt they needed

clearer guidance on the expectation of the role of the hubs in embedding the KSS. There was a

sense that HEI’s don’t fully understand the role of the PEC and hubs, and that there was a

disconnect between the PECs and TP Board - such as the lack of information about future planning.

The variances between hubs does not seem to impact on the student experience, however the

knowledge and experience of the PEC does. To be able to meet the outcomes for the SLHs the

improvements suggested by both students and PECs should be considered. The role of the PEC

representatives in Working Groups could have been more effective in information sharing and

providing communication links.

HEI feedback re PEC model

Overall HEI feedback was positive about the benefits of the SLHs for students, citing peer learning

and support and the space offered for reflective thinking as the main positive elements. The sense

of the PECs that HEI’s don’t fully understand the role of the PEC and hubs was confirmed by the

comments received. These include confusion over the PEC’s role and differing supervision models.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 11 of 79

HEIs fed back that students had commented on feeling ‘over-supervised’ leaving less time for ‘doing

the work’ needed to evidence their capability. In the student focus group the opinions of students

varied on this point, with some in agreement with this sentiment and others feeling the supervision

levels were appropriate.

Recruitment

Of the 32 TP students who graduated in 2018, 24 were recruited into roles with either ESCC or

BHCC. The main reason given for those who did not apply was that they do not live locally to

Brighton or East Sussex, so it was too far from home. In 2017 81.5% of those recruited by ESCC and

BHCC were from UoB or UoS, in 2018 this increased to 88.5%. It was noted that in interview

applicants from the SLHs were consistently able to integrate theory into the narrative of their case

work and provide good examples and that their overall performance was of a much higher standard

than non TP applicants. The increase in recruitment from local HEIs and reported quality of the

applicants demonstrates the positive impact of the TP, producing practice ready NQSWs. The

feedback from students about the benefits of the SLHs and experience they provide encourages a

‘grow your own student social worker’ attitude and encourages retention of students into NQSWs

and beyond.

NQSW ASYE self-assessment

At the time of evaluating it is too early to gather data from the routine 3 month ASYE review stage.

In lieu of this, NQSWs were asked to rate themselves against a short set of questions to consider

their resilience, reflection and readiness to practice. 36 out of a possible 60 responded to the

questionnaire, with 16 of those NQSWs from SLHs. In general those who had been part of the TP

answered more positively to the questions. The TP group were more positive with regards to rating

confidence in being ready to practice (+6%), recognising own strengths and limitations (+10%),

using reflective practice techniques (+19%), applying practice evidence and research (+17%). The TP

group rated themselves similarly to the non-TP NQSWs in relation to ability to reflect on the

emotional experience of working relationships with parent, carers and children and demonstrating

an understanding of the importance of self-care and resilience. The results of the questionnaire

demonstrates that TP NQSWs have increased confidence and practice skills in comparison with non

TP NQSWs. Time and experience are also a factor in developing confidence and resilience for all

NQSWs, so it would be expected that these skills would be developing further as experience grows

through the ASYE year.

5.2. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT HUB

Academics in Practice (AiP)

The specific ToC intermediate outcomes for the AiP programme are:

• Culture exists of continuous professional skill development

• Academics undertake relevant and appropriate experiences in practice contexts


findings:

• Survey of AiP participants (academics)

• Feedback from Managers of placement teams

• Case Study



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 12 of 79

The impact of AiP reaches across both academics and practitioners. 11 academics provided

feedback on the impact of AiP. They reported benefits including learning more about areas of

practice they were unfamiliar with, such as no recourse to public funding and gaining insight into

current practice around assessments, processes and operational complexities. Academics talked

about how they would use this knowledge to tailor and adapt within their teaching. Similarly LA

hosts of AiP placements found the academics provided useful feedback and a good opportunity to

reflect on their current practice. A case study further demonstrating impact is included in this

report appendix. The AiP programme supports the ToC outcome to encourage a culture of

continuous professional skill development – both for academics and practitioners. The benefits for

the entire workforce are evident, with academics with relevant recent practice experiences applying

that knowledge with students, and students exposed to this having more opportunities to become

successful NQSWs and practitioners benefiting by reflecting on their practice and developing their

skills.

Practitioners who Teach

The specific ToC intermediate outcomes for the PwT programme are:


• Social Workers developing teaching and learning skills

• Skilled Social Workers provide effective teaching

• Social Workers are confident and resilient

• Social Workers are supported and feel valued in their role

• Quality Social Workers are attracted due to package of social work CPD


findings:

• Survey of PWT practitioners

• Case Study

• Breakdown of distribution of PWT Hours


11 participants of PWT undertook a survey. All respondents said they would like to undertake

activities such as facilitating skills workshops, practice assessment panels and lecturing again, with

10 out of 11 rating the experience good, really good or fantastic. They also all felt that being

involved with the PWT programme made a significant contribution to their professional

development by reflecting on their own practice, stretching themselves and helping them to

develop different kinds of teaching styles. A case study further demonstrating impact is included in

this report appendix. The PWT programme supports these elements and the feedback from

practitioners demonstrates the benefits and also the staff retention opportunity this programme

provides. The distribution of PWT hours shows that a total of 2,021 (BHCC 45%, ESCC 53%, unknown

2%) hours has been contributed by practitioners to the PWT programme. The allocation of these

hours is 69% to UoS and 31% UoB. This highlights the volume of practitioners involved in teaching.

In principle all partners agree in the importance of continuing PWT, however in the current

economic climate the sustainability of this arrangement would need to be reviewed with HEIs.

Embedding the KSS

The specific ToC intermediate outcomes for embedding the KSS are:

• Students have awareness of the PCF and KSS

• Social Workers have sound knowledge of the PCF and KSS


• Social Workers are confident and resilient


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 13 of 79


findings:

• Activity undertaken to raise awareness and embed KSS


The activity undertaken to raise awareness and embed the KSS has varied by LA and department.

Adults Services across both LAs have worked together effectively to set down a foundation to

embedding the KSS by co-producing a KSS self-assessment document which is used to inform

appraisal/PDP processes. Self-assessment tools are also being used at the beginning and end of

placements. To share the success and learning of this process the LAs co-wrote an article for

Community Care and presented a paper at Community Care Live. BHCC Children’s Services has also

embedded the KSS within CPD pathways and their Performance Development Plan (PDP).

Introduction of the tools into ESCC Children’s Services has been slower, with current modifications to

the tools expected to make the process more efficient and accessible for users.

In SLHs PECs reported that they struggled to interpret the KSS into hubs and felt they needed clearer

guidance on the expectation of the role of the hubs in embedding the KSS. The student feedback on

KSS awareness also demonstrated that their awareness was limited and progress had not been made

as anticipated at the outset of the project. The expectation of the KSS self-assessment tools across

departments is that they will improve knowledge of the KSS across students, NQSWs and

experienced practitioners. Benchmarking activity via Learning Needs Analysis and self-assessment

has set the mark for future assessment of any increase in awareness and knowledge.

5.3. PRACTICE RESEARCH HUB

The specific ToC intermediate outcomes for the PRH are:

• Practitioners and academics working in partnership to undertake research

• There is access to research resources and opportunities

• Research mindedness underpins assessment and decision-making


• Quality Social Workers are attracted due to package of social work CPD


findings:

• Snap-shot social worker research confidence survey x 3

• Breakdown of research projects

• Feedback from PRH events


Practice Research Survey

A practice research mindedness survey was sent out to practitioners to gauge their confidence

around a set of practice research questions. The first survey took place in mid-2017 (127

respondents), the second in May 2018 (75 respondents), followed by the third survey in Dec 2018

(147 respondents). Between the first and third survey, there was an increase in confidence (% of

workforce) around the majority of areas; influence of research on practice (+10%), knowledge of

research evidence (+14%), sourcing (+5%), accessing (+15%) and understanding research (+6%).

Only one area saw a decrease, which was identifying opportunities for doing research in daily

practice (-8%), with the reasons for his being reduced time and resources, lack of encouragement or

support from management or balancing work pressures. The survey shows a positive direction of


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 14 of 79

travel for the workforce with regards to practice research mindedness. The activity undertaken by

the projects, Beacon teams, events and communications channels has supported an increase in

awareness and the beginnings of a cultural shift. Progress by service area and location differs but

suggestions from respondents provide some clear ways of moving this forward via events and

further integration into existing processes, such as group supervision.

Research Projects

The PRH commissioned 6 projects, in 2 phases, during the life of the TP project. Of these, only one

has been completed to date; ‘Well-being: From concept to Practice’. A number of barriers have

delayed the progress of the other two first phase projects, such as staff changes, ethics processes

and capacity issues for both practitioners and academics. The working group chair comments that it

takes time to make culture and system changes, but that the work has strengthened the

relationship between university and practice colleagues. The TP has provided the opportunity to

undertake research in line with the aforementioned ToC outcomes for experienced practitioners.

The aforementioned barriers have made progress against this aim slow, resulting in the original

expectation of the number of completed projects not being achieved within timescales. However,

the appetite from practitioners to put forward research project requests has increased, as well as

an increased awareness amongst the workforce of the access to resources.

Research Events 2018

Attendance at the events was equally split geographically between ESCC and BHCC, but attendance

at the second event was down by 50% on the first, with only 16 practitioners in attendance.

Feedback from those who attended the first ‘Building Research Confidence’ event was that they

wanted more time to consider research and easier access to journals. The ‘Journal Club’ model was

mentioned by a number of respondents who expressed an aim to get one set up locally to them to

help make research part of day-to-day practice. In some cases ASYE NQSWs have driven the setting

up of Journal Clubs, taking an active role in sharing their learning and encouraging experienced

colleagues to take part. Attendees at the second ‘Experiences of home grown Practice Researchers’

event felt strongly that practitioner research should continue to be prioritised, with access to

journals through HEIs and access to support from academics, plus workshops about research

approaches and skills. A number of respondents reported that they did not know about the event,

or that they did not have the capacity to attend, highlighting a potential barrier to achieving against

the ToC intermediate outcome for access to research resources and opportunities

5.4. EXPERT BY EXPERIENCE (EBE)

The specific ToC intermediate outcomes for the EBE Working Group are:

• Meaningful participation of those who have experienced social care services in all aspects

of social work education

• Meaningful participation of those who have experienced social care services in recruitment

and service development activities


findings:

• Recovery Partners feedback

• Opportunities breakdown

• EBE interviews

• Interviews of services offering EBE opportunities



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 15 of 79

Recovery Partners

Recovery Partners were commissioned by the TP, initially to review and report on the current levels

of service user involvement across the partner organisations, and then to co-ordinate the training,

management and coordination of opportunities and related processes for EBEs.

Recovery Partners have helped the TP identify a cohort of EBEs with diverse lived experiences who

have many different viewpoints. The group have developed, supported and challenged each other.

There are 15 current active members of the group who have overwhelming reported receiving

outstanding support from Recovery Partners and that the role of an EBE was a positive experience.

The cohort are ready to become more involved in social work education, however the provision of

opportunities from partners has been less than anticipated. There have been challenges in co-

ordinating the EBE group including managing dominant personalities, handling differing

understandings of discrimination and managing people’s expectations of what can be achieved as

an EBE. Despite this the EBEs empathy for social worker is very high – they want to understand

what it’s like for social workers making difficult decisions at difficult times and want to share their

experience in order to develop others. It is clear from the EBE feedback that the co-ordinator role is

a vital one to keep the momentum of the group, provide guidance and support to the EBEs and to

act as the link between LA/HEI and EBE.

Opportunities

16 opportunities have been undertaken by a total of 10 EBEs. Of the 16 opportunities, 2 were for

BHCC, 8 for ESCC and 6 TP. This is approximately half the anticipated number of opportunities

planned, largely due to the lack of opportunities make available by BHCC and no opportunities

offered to date by either HEI. EBEs felt frustrated at the lack of county wide opportunities and that

opportunities are not always offered in a timely manner by organisations. It is noted that both HEIs

have longstanding alternative participation routes for service user involvement.

EBEs took part in the moderation of portfolios, interviewing, presenting and process review. Their

meaningful participation in reading ASYE portfolios and contributing to their final assessment

demonstrates the value they add by bringing an authentic point of view. The meaningful

participation of EBEs allowed practitioners to reflect on their practice and added to a robust and

balanced recruitment process.

Challenges for professionals included lack of process for acquiring an EBE for an opportunity, the

paperwork involved and the capacity required to support an EBE before/during/after the

opportunity. Some of these challenges are mitigated by the work undertaken by Recovery Partners,

and despite the challenges, professionals unanimously felt the EBE made a valid contribution and

would continue to do so.

The EBE Working group chair comments; ‘The work has been both challenging and very rewarding;

challenging because we have been made to think harder and more thoughtfully about how and why

we do certain things and what it means to engage people properly in shaping the way we do things.

But immensely rewarding in terms of the real life experience that EBE’s bring to the work which

helps us to focus on what is really important for people who use our services’.

The ToC has the meaningful participation of EBEs in social work education, recruitment and service

development as a theme throughout the entire project. The EBE work has brought the EBE agenda

to the forefront of social work education by having service users actively involved in decision

making about NQSW progress from ASYE. Their involvement, bringing valuable lived experience to


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 16 of 79

the opportunities they undertake, has the potential to have a great impact in the future across

service areas beyond social work education if co-ordinator support is continued.

5.5. OVERALL TEACHING PARTNERSHIP

The ToC intermediate outcomes for the TP overall include:

• Quality students and Social Workers are attracted due to package of social work education

and CDP (Recruitment)

• Positive working relationships are modelled by stakeholders across the partnership


findings:

• Communications activity

• Evaluation of Mahara Pilot

• Board Focus Group

Communications activity

As part of the TP project, a communications plan was developed and delivered including a website,

social media, newsletters, press releases and event publicity. Communication products have

showcased the work the TP is doing around areas such as EBEs, research and CPD. The

communications elements of the project have been invaluable for raising the profile of social work

education across the TP and beyond. This is likely to have contributed to the recruitment of both

students and experienced staff indicating the ToC intermediate outcome for recruitment for quality

students and staff is being met.

ePortfolio

The shared electronic platform used by both HEIs for placement ePortfolios is called Mahara. The

use of this system was evaluated in summer 2018, which demonstrated a 54% usability score (50%

is an acceptable benchmark). In response the evaluation Learning Technologists reconfigured

Mahara to address the barriers being faced by users. Due to the issues being resolved to the

universities’ satisfaction they decided to continue to use Mahara as their ePortfolio for the many

benefits it brought them. The original principle was to develop an electronic portfolio to travel with

the student through university, their ASYE and beyond. However, it was recognised that the LAs

already had a resource in place that could offer an ePortfolio that Mahara can be exported into.

This will still meet continuing learning and development needs and requirement to access to

records. Therefore, the LAs are going to develop their current Learning Portal to meet their specific

ePortfolio needs as this is a more tailored and cost effective solution.

TP Board Focus Group

The Board felt that in general the TP has been a success, with particular benefits to partnership

relationships, raising the profile of social work education and improved quality of candidates for

recruitment with less recruitment issues. Where the TP Project did not meet expectation the main

barriers were time to get up and running, the capacity of staff to take on additional roles and the

lower than expected numbers of students applying. In particular for ESCC, the lack of engagement

from Head of Service/senior manager level has impacted on the level of awareness of the benefits of

the project. BHCC build operational responsibility into PEC role, providing more engagement with

senior managers. The Board reports that the aim of embedding the KSS in the practice of students,

NQSWs and experienced practitioners has been patchy across the two LAs.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 17 of 79

Additionally, the financial situation of LAs and HEIs has changed considerably since the beginning of

the project, putting additional pressures on organisations, an increase in staff movement and the

need for new relationships to be formed to move along the project.

Positive working relationships have been nurtured through the TP and new relationships have been

formed for the benefit of all partners. The ToC outcome calls for the modelling of positive

relationships, which all partners agree has been one of the main successes of the project. Current

challenges, such as capacity and financial planning will test those relationships, but the partnership

is confident that the TP has built a strong platform to work from and a joint aspiration for the

benefits of the TP to continue.

6. Conclusions

6.1. This evaluation has been framed around the progress made against the ToC intermediate goals,

project goals and long term goals as detailed in the table above. Intermediate goals - Overall, the data evidences that at this stage the project is achieving the

majority of its intermediate goals, including students converting academic learning into frontline

skills, students feeling confident and resilient, practitioners developing teaching and learning skills

and social worker’s practicing in a learning environment where there is access to research and

opportunities. Strong evidence from students, practitioners and academics demonstrates the

benefits of the TP and the commitment of all stakeholders to making the project successful in its

aims.

6.1. The findings indicate that we are on track to achieve the project goals for the TP hubs:

• SLH – A student workforce who are practice ready and have the skills to work with the

most vulnerable families in our community.

The hubs have nurtured students to develop skills for more complex and challenging work,

with overwhelming feedback that the hubs provide vital support for a positive student

experience, this includes a survey completed with TP NQSW which demonstrated

confidence in undertaking complex work and an ability to practice reflectively. Achieving

this outcome has already encouraged LA’s to make a financial commitment to the future of

the SLH model.

• PPD – Expert social workers continue learning and enable learning in others. Academics

use current practice skills to inform qualifying and CPD programme development.

The PwT and AiP programmes have enabled the TP to meet the project goal by supporting

social workers to develop expertise, continue learning and enabling learning in others, with

academics refreshing practice skills to inform programme development. This was

evidenced in the surveys, evaluations and case studies completed by academics and

practitioners.

• PRH – Social workers and academics collaborate to lead research that informs practice,

supporting a research mindedness culture.

By undertaking projects, encouraging Beacon teams and holding practice research events

the TP has enabled social workers and academics to develop specialist knowledge and use it

to lead research, resulting in an increase in a research mindedness culture across the

workforce evidenced through the series of staff surveys.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 18 of 79

6.2. The longer term outcome of the TP is to create a social work workforce equipped with the

knowledge and skills to work with individuals, families and carers to create change and achieve

best outcomes through positive relationships. To evaluate in future against this long term

outcome, feedback would need to be sought from individuals and families as to the quality of the

relationship with the practitioner and impact of the intervention. It is reasonable to assume that,

based on the evidence of this evaluation, including NQSW surveys and feedback from the PwT

programme that the progress made to date would contribute to achieving this long term outcome.

7. Recommendations

7.1. The following recommendations are based on the principle that each hub will continue in a more

streamlined form but this is dependent upon respective partner agreement. A form of hub working

groups will need to continue, in a diluted form, to co-ordinate activity and ensure ongoing

collaboration with the sharing of resources knowledge and skills. The nature and representation

within these groups needs to be determined by the Board and Implementation Group.

7.2. Student Learning Hub

• Based on the positive early indications of this evaluation, and the successful recruitment of

practice ready NQSWs, it is recommended that the hub model is continued post TP funding

for final year students at both HEIs.

• Individual partners will have to consider how to resource their SLHs. Options could include

funding full time PECs, funding PECs who have part time operational responsibilities or

seconding on a rotating basis PECs from the front line service.

• SLH working group to ensure additional guidance around the recruitment process and

transition into ASYE is being built into the SLH sessions.

• SLH working group to identify PEC training gaps, in particular, further in-depth guidance and

support for managing challenging group dynamics and guidance on how to embed the KSS.

• Practice Research Hub to consider how to support PECs in embedding research into SLH.

• In matching students to SLH, where the PEC does not have knowledge of the students

service area, PEC to develop plan to address gap in knowledge through reading policy,

procedures and meeting key managers and practitioners.

• Continuation of the Practice Education Pathway Development (PEPD) Working Group

supporting the development and implementation of a support and development pathway

for Practice Educators (PE).

• Review of how SLH is communicated and promoted within HEIs by working group. Options

could be regular TP update at qualifying board meetings and other HEI forums. PECs to

provide detailed overview of SLH to academics at the start of each academic year in a forum

to be decided by HEIs.

7.3. Professional Practice Development Hub

• HEIs to consider how they can support the AiP programme in the long term building upon

the positive relationships developed with the teams and providing academics the

opportunity to apply practice learning to their teaching.

• The importance of PWT is recognised in this evaluation. For sustainability, the future

resourcing of PWT needs to be decided agreed between TP partners. Options could be

including direct payment or a recognition and award system.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 19 of 79

• Contribution from sustainability funding for AiP and PWT whilst long term sources of

funding are found.

• PPD working group to identify measures to raise awareness of KSS with students and across

the workforce. Options may be to offer workshops, continue KSS self-assessments and

learning needs analysis, and use this data to advise commissioning of training and practice

development to meet gaps. The decision may be made that KSS awareness for general

workforce is the responsibility of respective LAs and not a TP undertaking.

7.4. Practice Research Hub

• PRH to continue to focus on embedding research mindedness into everyday practice.

Options may include continued research events with venues provided by partners, drawing

on sustainability funding in the short term whilst longer term options are considered.

• LA members of the working group drawing on the expertise of the PRH to help embed

research mindedness within current and future service provision e.g. support the continued

embedding of group supervision and provide resources and research to support this

activity.

• PRH and PECs to regularly update the SCRC website with relevant research to support the

work of SLHs and taking forward research mindedness. This is the platform that will allow

the continuation of shared resource across the partnership.

• Other option may be to respond to practitioner demand to be involved in research through

developing research mindedness pathway – starting with in house provision on how to

understand and interpret research and research methods through to CPD Research

Mindedness course, Risk and Decision Making course etc.

7.5. Experts by Experience

• Contribution from sustainability funding will enable the project to be carried forward with

continued involvement from Recovery Partners who will provide a co-ordination role. Work

to continue in 2019/20 with partner agencies to explore longer term sustainability options,

including looking at how current EBE support can be integrated into business as usual.

• Board members, Working Group and Recovery Partners to take responsibility for expanding

opportunities for EBEs within and outside of social work education with options including

involvement in training, service development as well as recruitment and NQSW

moderation.

• Increase the number of opportunities offered by BHCC and HEIs to provide a balance across

the partnership and variety of opportunities for the EBEs.

7.6. Communications and Digital

• The Board must consider whether there is a continued need to communicate the work of

the TP on an ongoing basis and how this will be resourced.

• The Facebook account can be deleted as there is limited activity via this platform.

• The SCRC website can be continued with input from ESCC communication and digital

manager.

• The SCRC twitter account can be ran through ESCC PSW Hootsuite twitter account allowing

for tweets to continue.

• All working group leads to contact ESCC digital and communication manager to ensure

website is regularly updated and communications can continue.

• The TP newsletters will be discontinued.

• LAs to continue bespoke work to develop the current Learning Portal to meet specific ASYE

ePortfolio requirements ensuring that the solution is able to accept Mahara student


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 20 of 79

portfolio as export documents. This will support the principle of an eportfolio following

social workers from HEI and on through their employment with the LAs.

7.7. Overall Teaching Partnership

• To maintain the relationships and governance structure of the TP the Implementation

Group and Board should be replaced by a cross partnership Steering Group. The board

needs to consider membership of the group and update terms of reference. The Steering

Group will have responsibility for updating the implementation plan which will include the

actions resulting from this report. The group will provide forward planning, sharing

resources where appropriate, providing oversight of the remaining TP elements, and

considering all routes into social work. A streamlined governance structure will improve

communication with working groups.

• As detailed above working groups should continue in a streamlined form. Working Group

Leads to consider membership and frequency of meetings.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 21 of 79

8. Appendix

STUDENT LEARNING HUB

SLH’s are based in frontline settings and are a unit of up to 8 students led by a Professional Education

Consultant (PEC). They offer a learning hub through group supervision and skills based practice development

sessions.

Summary of Statutory Student Placement in each Local Authority

Student placements at ESCC

2015-16 2016-17 2017-2018 2018-2019

Adults: 19 Adults: 22 Adults: 21 Adults: 16

Children’s: 31 Children’s: 40 Children: 44 Children: 31

Nos in Student

Learning Hubs SLH: 29 SLH: 41

Student placements at BHCC

2015-16 2016-17 2017-2018 2018-2019

Adults: 13 Adults: 15 Adults: 17 Adults: 23

Children’s: 31 Children’s: 38 Children: 32 Children: 22

Nos in Student

Learning Hubs SLH: 35 SLH: 41

As per the TP bid, initially all students in the hubs undertook a statutory placement for both 1st

and 2nd

placements. For the 2018/19 cohort, the 1st

placement will be Private Voluntary Independent (PVI) sector,

with 2nd

placements being in statutory services.

The evaluation activity for the SLH is as follows:

Student

Learning Hub

1

2

3

Students:

1st placement students - Stop/Start/Continue exercise

2nd placement students - Focus Groups

Student themed quotes

4 PECs:

BHCC and ESCC PEC Focus Group and interviews

5 HEI feedback regarding PEC model

6 Review of recruitment figures

7

ASYE:

Survey of NQSW undertaking their ASYE

8 Consideration of the Daisy Bogg Consultancy Student Hub Evaluation, Summer

2017

9 Feedback from Working Group chair


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 22 of 79

1. First placement Students – Stop, Start, Continue evaluation exercise May 2018

A total of 28 1st

placement students were asked to share their views on specific areas of focus, matched

against the Student Learning Hub learning objectives. The Stop, Start, Continue method was used to frame

the discussion - What should we STOP doing? What should we START doing? and What should we CONTINUE

doing? The key discussion points against each area of focus were as follows:

• Area of focus 1: Student experience/general

Students felt that the mix of students across universities brought a variety of experience, views and ideas.

The opportunity for peer support and gaining insight into people’s experiences of other teams was valued.

Students would like more opportunities for shadowing, access to mentors and discussion around using

research in their practice. The experience, guidance and skills the PEC brings to the hub were notably valued

by students. There was a split between those who felt ‘check in’ at the start of sessions should be longer or

shorter, that discussion should be more or less structured and that there should be less, or more, role

playing. This variation differed by hub and individual preference.

• Area of focus 2: Knowledge, policy and embedding KSS/PCF

Overall, students fed back that this area required the most ‘start’ elements, such as; more discussion on

applying law and theories to organisational working practices, more practical activities, case examples and

explicit links to PCF & KSS and alignment to universities curriculum/modules. Student’s fed back that

particular tools and sessions in hubs have helped them to link practice to theory, such as theory ‘cards’,

presenting and discussing cases and risk assessments.

• Area of focus 3: Relationships – professional and service users

Students provided numerous positive examples of how the hubs have helped them to understand and

develop relationships, from widening perspectives, understanding personal impact and building reciprocal

professional relationships. The majority of students fed back that the hubs provide vital peer support and

opportunity to learn from each other, such as offering a place where they can get ‘unstuck’ with difficult

cases, ‘look out for each other’ and feel like they ‘are not alone’. It was suggested that bringing into skills

sessions pieces of research to share about engaging others would be beneficial.

• Area of focus 4: Resilience and self-reflection

The hub’s provision of a ‘safe space’ was by far the most reported element to continue. Students feel that

the hubs provide non-judgemental protected time for reorientation, to be honest, build resilience through

shared experience, vent frustrations, reflection on practice and develop skills to understand where families

get their sense of resilience. To consolidate this it was felt that dialogue in case discussions would allow the

person to reflect more, as well as allowing managed discussions offering advice and solutions and linking

resilience to practice and case studies.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 23 of 79

2. Second placement students - Focus Group April 2018

A total of 14 2nd placement students were asked to share their views on specific areas of focus, matched

against the Student Learning Hub learning objectives. The key discussion points against each area of focus

were as follows:

• Area of focus 1: The student experience and readiness for ASYE

o Lack of clarity and confidence in regards to transition into ASYE year

o It was felt that continuation of hubs to this point would have been beneficial

o Main positive impact of hubs was the space and opportunity for reflection

o Main area of improvement for the hubs was the differing consistency of PECs, such as

knowledge of service areas, clarity of roles, allowing flexibility in hubs to be more student

led/themed

o Students felt hub model should continue as it provides important support throughout

placements

• Area of focus 2: Knowledge and embedding the KSS/PCF

o To embed learning the hub supported the practical application of knowledge and theory to

'real' cases

o Hub explored the use of law to challenge decision making and how to apply it through a

deeper understanding of 'real' cases

o Gained an insight into the challenge of applying theory versus pressure of austerity/budget

cuts to meet service targets

o Group had limited knowledge of KSS and relevance for ASYE, awareness varied by hub

groups

o Students felt improved transition to ASYE could remedy lack of KSS knowledge

• Area of focus 3: Relationships – both professional and services users

o Service Users - hub provided insight into how others handle difficult relationships, also

enabled development of a greater degree of empathy, reflective sessions were very valued,

however extent of benefit dependant on PEC experience

o Professionals - hub modelled good co-operation (LA/Uni), students felt the hubs could have

explored this area more, but the mix of Brighton/Sussex Students in the hub was beneficial

• Area of focus 4: Resilience and self-reflection

o Hubs provided a valued space for honest, open reflection - able to explore feelings,

emotions and recognise the importance of self-care

o Valued peer support and provided opportunity to try out using multiple hypotheses and

perspectives

o Positive reinforcement and appropriate challenge in a safe environment

o Extent of benefit dependant on PEC


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 24 of 79

3. Student Learning Hub - Themed quotes

PECs undertook a review of student reflections from the SLHs. This was consolidated into common themes,

along with examples of student quotes:

Strength of working together in a group:

‘I have felt nervous about undertaking this kind of reflection within a group in the past. My concerns of

forgetting and/or getting information wrong were on my mind. Fortunately the group has provided a great

environment to be able to share information, thoughts and feelings openly. Whilst presenting, I noticed

myself comfortably settle in to this role, as I realised my knowledge of the family and ability to recall and

reflect on this was strong.’

Practice skills and confidence:

‘I have grown in confidence by using the different practice skills which I learnt through the hub. This has had

an impact on my willingness to explore.’

‘I know now that I need to consciously apply theories to practice as I do not do this and work based on my

previous knowledge and experience.’

‘I liked learning about theories in the group; they made more sense to me than in the classroom at university.

The theories always seemed to be relevant to what was going on on placement.’

‘I learnt techniques for steering the conversation and improving the interaction, techniques to help not get

lost in going over the same thing and it’s also good to ask service users if they can understand with the

evidence we have why we are assessing them and bringing in the law to help people understand out duties to

children.’

Exploring own thinking:

‘The discussion around ‘endings’ provided a useful topic for the group, and also made us notice that although

it is an ending for us as the worker, the service user’s journey may have just begun…’

‘Highlighted the need to ensure I remain creative and curious in my practice, as this is an element that can

become pushed aside when managing the competing demands on a social worker.’

Well-being and resilience:

‘Recognising how my energy levels can impact on my work is very important and I think this will help me in

future practice.’

‘I feel that I have demonstrated PCF1 to a high level because I was able to recognise the impact of self in

interaction with others, and have identified steps to manage and promote my own wellbeing and emotional

resilience.’

‘One of the students expressed a feeling of concern for my wellbeing, thinking that this case was too

difficult... I was touched by the concern but also found that my confidence wavered and I questioned whether

I could manage it.’

‘I learnt that as social workers, we will always have to sit with uncertainty and understand that we aren’t

always going to know what is going on in a given situation.’


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 25 of 79

‘It was nice to hear that it’s ok to sit with feelings of hopelessness and that there is hope. It was comforting to

be reassured that sometimes we do all that we can and that we often don’t see the results of that for a while,

but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t had an impact.’

Hub time and PEC support:

‘It was useful to have the PEC’s feedback, knowledge and experience shared around this because it felt

supportive and that it’s OK to feel uncomfortable sometimes.’

‘We all have such different experience and it would be helpful to be able to incorporate some informal time in

to explore what each other is celebrating/struggling with.’

‘I felt that at times a discussion couldn’t get going – perhaps because people felt uncomfortable doing so with

the group. I felt pressure to say something sometimes and I think this took away from the natural flow.’

Students felt that the SLH provided:

• Clear, concise case presentation and formulation

• Consolidated action planning

• Confidence in professional presentation

• Development of personal & professional resilience

• Strengthened professional identity

• Improved decision making : not based on personal bias: consider different hypothesis /perspectives

• Tackled discrimination

• Provided crisis management enabling support around:

o Incident management

o Placement problems

o Planning work

• Embedded the KSS

• Supported LA models of practice

• Integrated research into practice

• Integrated theory into practice

• Reinforced understanding of LA models of practice


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 26 of 79

4. PEC feedback - Professional Education Consultant Evaluation questions on experience and opinion

(total of 7 PECS: 4 BHCC/3 ESCC)

Define your understanding of the overall role (and benefit) of the hubs:

BHCC ESCC

• To encourage group bonding and a ‘check-in’

environment to help each other – it’s great that

they hubs aren’t prescriptive.

• Emotional containment

• They provide a place to be honest and a ‘safe

place’

• Help us to build up resilience and to work

around any emotional dips.

• The teaching function is great as it provides a

dedicated time for things we don’t usually have

space for.

• The hubs are not just about theory, but

application too

• Space to discuss the impact of the organisation,

plus hubs are better placed than universities to

do this as they are part of the LA system

• To create an atmosphere of discussion and

remind people that uncertainty is okay.

• A place to shift/challenge student’s expectations

• Motivational interviewing

• Add value to the placement by supporting

students to apply their learning at university

into their direct work

• Support them in evidenced informed

thinking and practice

• Develop their analytical and reflective skills

in a safe group environment

• Consider different perspectives

• Providing alternative space for reflection and

‘trying out’ skills, thoughts, ideas

• Look at law, theory and research and how to

apply it in practice

• Dealing with practice dilemmas - how, why

and when to make decisions

Identify where you feel the hubs have/have not met these objectives:

BHCC ESCC

Not met objectives:

• Some of the rooms/working environment

doesn’t help cohesiveness

• Can be a challenge to make it a good authentic

experience

• We are unsure if what the HEIs are saying they

teach matches up with the content the students

receive

• Different groups have different

experiences/cultures/timings of the hubs

• Feedback is that universities’ attitudes to hubs

are uncertain – some tutors think the hubs are

duplicated but the students disagree

• Students to be more proactive about bringing

research ideas/pieces

Not met objectives:

• Could do more thinking about the law and

research

• Getting students to bring in research was

challenging.

• Different learning styles need catering to.

Originally the model was too prescriptive.

• Not sure the separation of skills and

reflections work

Met objectives:

• Autonomy to work with groups which is

appropriate to group dynamics

• It helped to be observed by my PSW to help

with group work reflection

Met objectives:

• Applying theory to practice

• The students have found the hubs to be a

safe and supportive space

• Group supervision has given space to


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 27 of 79

• When people bring real issues – can then

explore and draw out real issues

students in busy non-therapeutic Teams who

do not have this opportunity

• Students felt ‘held’ within Hubs. This was a

new way of working which helped

presentation skills and confidence.

Opportunity to demonstrate PCF9

(Professional Leadership) which can be a

struggle otherwise

Do you think you were equipped with the right skills to run the hubs? What skills gaps have you

identified?

BHCC ESCC

• More work on group dynamics – roleplays

• Guidance around managing dominant students

• A more regular refresh/ALS for PECs around

skills such as above

• Difficult to work within competing agendas

across LAs and HEIs

• Board to clarify expectations of KSS embedding

• PECs are not clear about what students want to

know about the KSS

• It would be more appropriate to do more KSS

work nearer the end, as earlier on students are

focussed on PCF. Not enough time to do all.

Considered that it would be an ‘interference’ to

introduce KSS too early on

• Do HEI’s expect LAs to do all KSS work? PEC

expectation is that HEIs should teach students

and TP/PECs role is to make it real

• More time to consolidate and refresh my

knowledge on an ongoing basis.

• Dip back into practice to keep afresh of

direct work skills and the experience of

working with service users.

• Would like more understanding of what is

expected re integrating the KSS

• Work on utilising skills in embedding theory

and research into my Hubs

• My style is not prescriptive and tends to be

much more informal, which is not necessarily

effective for all

• More to learn about group dynamics and

resistant students

• Tried to introduce KSS naturally but hard to

get students to take on board until the end

of their second year


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 28 of 79

What ideas do you have about things that could be done differently?

BHCC ESCC

• Concerns re post funding management of PEC

role and that it doesn’t become just ‘a part of’

someone’s existing job as it could be side-lined

• PEC management meeting is all business and

too long

• It would be great if we knew what is being

planned by TP that will affect PECs’ and

students, particularly post funding. This would

allow a better induction for new hubs as it feels

‘All up in the air’

• More freedom with skills sessions

• PECs observing each other

• Knowing who students are sooner with PECs to

be included in matching. Want to feel

prepared/ready – need at least 2 weeks lead in

knowing who students are

• Students to bring problems/ideas to sessions

(such as organisational examples)

• Journal club for research

• Budget for resources for PECs to decide how to

use it

• Offering PE and PS an opportunity to see and be

part of the supervision model in action

• Would have liked to shadow a Hub before I ran

one to have a true picture of how this worked –

there was no real template

• A greater acceptance and understanding of the

TP and Hubs from the Universities would have

helped, so that there wasn’t confusion

• Felt there was a disconnect between Board and

PEC levels

• Isolated role which was improved by PEC

meetings but more could be done to improve

this

• Some duplication going on, I think we could

share better, otherwise the impact is that hubs

go off in different directions

•

Considering your hub model, what positive and negative impacts do you feel the model has on your

students?

Model: PEC undertaking all roles: PEC, PE, PS

PROs CONs

• Continuity

• Students co-located

• Cases

• Students

• PEC Located there so accessible

• Held

• Powerful PEC

• Potential dynamic issue when problems

• Less mix of views

• Capacity of PEC

Mental Health Model: PEC undertaking all roles: PE, PS plus lead practitioner

PROs CONs

• Same as model above

• Richer experiences of more teams

• Less continuity

• Not all together location

• PEC Dependant on others observations

Model: PEC and PE roles but not PS

PROs CONs

• Less intense

• Observe them with others

• Different experiences/ideas

• Relying on PS being good quality


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 29 of 79

Model: PEC only, not PE or PS

PROs CONs

• Test things out without being ‘assessed’

• A different perspective

• Allowed space and time around reflection –

not just case discussion or planning

• A mix of students from different Teams and

services gave a richness to the Hub

• Allows more open and honest conversations

• More people involved can add role

confusion for students

• PEC role possibly viewed by HEIs as an ‘add

on’ or are confused about roles

• It can be intimidating because the PEC is

there as a support to the PEs, PSs and the

students

• Conflict can also be an issue.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 30 of 79

5. HEI feedback regarding PEC model

HEI colleagues who have links with the SLHs were asked to provide feedback:

• What feedback would you like to provide on the PEC model, considering its original concept of

frontline practitioners reinforcing academic learning in the workplace? Please consider what

works well about the hubs and what could be done differently.

‘Over all, we believe that students have benefitted from the PEC model and particularly like, and develop

from, the peer learning and support element (including across courses and HEIs) this provides.’

‘Feedback we receive from students is broadly positive and reflective time and space welcomed through the

hub model. As always, individual style and approach will vary across colleagues but that is inevitable.’

• Challenges and suggestions for improvements:

‘One of the main difficulties we’ve observed is that some students feel ‘over-supervised’ (i.e. by PS, PE and

PEC, sometimes in the same week). Some students have commented that this amount of supervision leaves

little time for ‘doing the work’ that is required to evidence their capability. In other cases, the model is that

PECs acting as students’ PEs are providing no 1:1 supervision unless there are ‘specific issues arising’. Again,

this raises issues of equity of student experience.’

‘There is often confusion about who is the PEC, what model is going to be used for supervision? Will it simply

be group supervision with limited 1:1 sessions/no 1:1 supervision or a combination? This varies across local

authorities and handbooks are useful but clarity needed from the start.’

‘There seems to be some confusion and inconsistency around whether PECs are attending Midway Meetings.

A consistent agreement on this across the TP might be helpful.’

‘From a placement planning perspective: knowing the names of PS/PE/PEC is useful as early as possible, plus

the address and contact details of the team base for the student. Sometimes students don’t know an area

and need to plan travel so addresses are crucial.’


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 31 of 79

6. Recruitment figures

• 2018 Recruitment figures:

ESCC: Adults Services Children’s

Services Total

Number of TP students who applied 3 10 13

Total NQSWs recruited 2018 10 29 39

Of total, how many are UoB/UoS

graduates? 6 23 29

Of UoB/UoS graduates, how many are from

TP 2 7 9

BHCC: Adults Services Children’s

Services Total




graduates? 11 13 24


TP 7 8 15

COMBINED Adults Services Children’s

Services Total




graduates? 17 36 53


TP 9 15 24

32 TP students could have applied. There were 28 applications across all areas from TP students (some will

have applied for more than one area but unable to break down using unnamed data provided)


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 32 of 79

Reasons provided by students as to why they did not apply for roles in ESCC or BHCC:

Main reason given was not living near Brighton/Eastbourne / too far from home

In addition:

• No time as writing dissertation

No job that appealed

• Lacking in confidence to apply

• Got job elsewhere

‘The applicants from the student learning hubs were of an outstanding quality. They were able to integrate

theory into the narrative of their case work and gave many great examples of direct work with children and

families that really made a difference’.

Principal Social Worker, CSD ESCC


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 33 of 79

7. Survey of Newly Qualified Social Workers (NQSWs) in their Assessed and Supported Year in

Employment (ASYE)

Departmental data

A total of 36 members of staff responded to the ASYE survey. More than two thirds worked for Children’s

Services, with nearly half (47%) of all respondents coming from the ESCC Children’s Services department.

Department BHCC ESCC Total

Adults services 7 3 10

Children’s services 9 17 26

Total 16 20 36

Qualification data of respondents

Service BA BSc MA MSc Blank Total

Adults services 2 0 5 3 0 10

BHCC 2 0 3 2 0 7

ESCC 0 0 2 1 0 3

Children’s services 6 11 7 1 1 26

BHCC 0 4 5 0 0 9

ESCC 6 7 2 1 1 17

Total 8 11 12 4 1 36

Yellow indicates Teaching Partnership students

How would you currently rate your confidence in being ready to practice?

Members of staff who were part of the Teaching Partnership were more confident about being ready to

practise, with 86.7% answering either ‘somewhat confident’ or ‘confident’. This is 5.7% better than

members of staff who were not part of the Teaching Partnership.

Response TP Non TP Overall

Don’t know 6.7% 0.0% 2.8%

Unconfident 6.7% 4.8% 5.6%

Somewhat unconfident 0.0% 14.3% 8.3%

Somewhat confident 73.3% 66.7% 69.4%

Confident 13.3% 14.3% 13.9%

Positive 86.7% 81.0% 83.3%

Please rate how much you agree with the following statement: I can recognise my own professional

strengths and limitations, and how to seek advice from a range of sources, including my line manager,

senior practice leaders and other professionals.

Members of staff who were part of the Teaching Partnership were more able to answer this question more

positively, with 100% answering either ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. This is 9.5% better

than members of staff who were not part of the Teaching Partnership. It should also be noted that the gap

widens further to 24%, when only ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ are used to calculate positive responses.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 34 of 79


Don’t know 0.0% 4.8% 2.8%

Somewhat disagree 0.0% 4.8% 2.8%

Somewhat agree 0.0% 14.3% 8.3%

Agree 53.3% 42.9% 47.2%

Strongly agree 46.7% 33.3% 38.9%

Positive 100.0% 90.5% 94.4%

Please rate how much you agree with the following statement: I use reflective practice techniques to

evaluate and critically analyse information, gained from a variety of sources, to construct and test

hypotheses and make explicit evidence-informed decisions.


positively, with 100% answering either ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. This is 19% better

than members of staff who were not part of the Teaching Partnership. It should also be noted that 13.3% of

staff who were part of the Teaching Partnership answered ‘strongly’ agree, compared to 9.5% who weren’t.


Don’t know 0.0% 4.8% 2.8%

Disagree 0.0% 4.8% 2.8%



Agree 33.3% 33.3% 33.3%


Positive 100.0% 81.0% 88.9%

Please rate how much you agree with the following statement: I effectively apply practice evidence and

research to inform my judgements and decisions needed to support, empower and protect service users.


positively, with 93% answering either ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. This is 17% better

than members of staff who were not part of the Teaching Partnership.


Don’t know 0.0% 14.3% 8.3%



Agree 20.0% 38.1% 30.6%

Positive 93.3% 76.2% 83.3%

Please rate how much you agree with the following statement: I am able to reflect on the emotional

experience of working relationships with parents, carers and children, and consciously identify where

personal triggers are affecting the quality of analysis or help.

Members of staff who were part of the Teaching Partnership were less able to answer this question more

positively, with 80% answering either ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. This is 5.7% lower


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 35 of 79

than members of staff who were not part of the Teaching Partnership. However, it should be noted that this

changes, when only ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ are used to calculate positive responses, with 73.3% of TP

participants answering positively, compared to 66.7% of non-TP participants.


Don’t know 6.7% 14.3% 11.1%



Agree 60.0% 28.6% 41.7%


Positive 80.0% 85.7% 83.3%

Please rate how much you agree with the following statement: I demonstrate an understanding of the

importance of personal self-care, being resilient and adaptable in my social work practice.

Members of staff who were part of the Teaching Partnership were similarly able to answer this question

positively, with 93.3% answering either ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. This is 1.9% lower

than members of staff who were not part of the Teaching Partnership. However, it should be noted that this

changes, when only 40% of TP participants answered ‘strongly agree’, compared to 28.6% of non-TP

participants.


Don’t know 6.7% 0.0% 2.8%



Agree 33.3% 57.1% 47.2%


Positive 93.3% 95.2% 94.4%


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 36 of 79

8. Daisy Bogg SLH Evaluation recommendations 2017

Daisy Bogg Consultancy undertook an evaluation of the SLH in 2017. The recommended actions and the

response/action taken as a result are shown in the table below:

Recommendation Response/Action

1 Consideration to be given to the frequency of hub

sessions to ensure a balance between formal input

and direct practice.

Considered, maintained frequency and fidelity

of model

2 Future evaluation of whether the hub input may

need to be adapted for placement 1 and placement

2 students to reflect the differing needs of the two

student groups.

Current cohort to have PVI first placement and

LA second placement to provide variety

3 Partner Universities to consider establishing a

synergy between the respective theory into practice

modules to maximise the consistency of the

students’ baseline knowledge at the start of the

placements.

Group did not feel there was a benefit to

developing more uniformity across courses.

Felt that there had been great value in sharing

of info what was being bought to sessions by

them, could draw on learning and experience

in the group.

4 Continuation of protected time, case discussion,

applied practice and mixed peer student groups as

key principles of hub delivery.

Continuing

5 Develop clear roles and responsibility statements to

define the roles of each involved supervisor and

include these in preplacement information.

Handbooks developed, which are annually

refreshed

6 Undertake a skills audit across the pec group to

identify both strengths and development needs

within this group and develop a team professional

development plan.

Group work training undertaken plus a PEP

development day. Continuing review via

supervision

7 Consider how to support the PECs in terms of

combining requirements to deliver a curriculum

whilst also being student-led and responsive to

need.

PECs agreed learning outcomes with reference

to what is being taught in course content.

Group supervision are student led and practice

skills workshop are more directive by practice

development

8 Agree a common high-level curriculum for hubs with

clearly defined learning objectives and establish

robust monitoring / governance arrangements.

Learning outcomes defined and

monitored/evaluated

9 Consider reviewing PEC supervision arrangements to

focus on ongoing development and the potential

benefits of exposure to a range of models and

theories.

Continue with current psychodynamic model;

PECs value current group supervision model

and want to provide a consistent well

developed model to students

10 Consider establishing bi-monthly forums that

include an element of peer group supervision to be

facilitated by PEC’s for PEC’s, PE’s and WBS’s.

Included in new PE support offer


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 37 of 79

11 Consider the introduction of further explicit checks

and balances into the BHCC Adult model to ensure

robust contingency planning is in place.

Developed and in place

12 Consider how PECs, PEs and WBS’s across all models

are involved in the PLA, midpoint review, direct

observations and final review meetings.

Developed and in place

13 Consider how PE’s and WBS’s are kept up to date

with, and involved in, hub activities.

Newsletter developed and ongoing issue

14 Consider whether further synchronisation across

partner universities would reduce inequalities and

frustrations across the student group.

Review portfolio requirements and timing of

assignments

15 Pre-placement information could include details of

the different hub models to ensure students are

clear of the approaches from the outset of

placement.

Handbooks developed, which are annually

refreshed

16 Non-social work WBS’s in services offering

placements without an onsite social work presence

should be up-skilled to support the student to make

the links between their casework, statutory

interventions and relevant capabilities.


17 Consider expansion of the hub model to include

undergraduates from both partner universities.

Expanded and incorporated

18 Explore possible connectivity of hubs with other

organisations in the sector to maximise choice and

placement options for students.


19 The PCF and KSS should form the basis of, and be

explicitly embedded within, a practice curriculum for

the Hubs, particularly the practice skills sessions

Referred to learning tool and learning

competencies – and have mapping tool to look

at learning and how fits the KSS


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 38 of 79

9. Feedback from SLH Working Group Chair

‘The SLH model has enhanced the learning environment for students whilst also providing additional, high

quality and dedicated support to practice supervisors and educators in the local authorities through the

Practice Education Consultants (PECs). Through the SLH model practitioners are supported to develop

reflective, relationship based practice in a real-life practice environment.

Differences in the implementation of the SLHs across the local authorities created opportunities to test the

impact of different models in operational settings but this also resulted in challenges around resourcing

additional PECs in BHCC. To address this additional resourcing was identified from BHCC Learning &

Development budgets to support 1 additional PEC in children’s services and 2 additional PECs in adults

services (additional resourcing from Learning & Development budgets totalling £139k for year 1 and 2).

In all models a safe learning environment has been created where students are able to be honest about their

concerns and struggles in practice and seek the support and guidance of peers and PECs. Alternating weekly

group supervision and practice skills development supported students to apply theory into practice and

explore and develop their relationship based practice on the ground in real time and in real practice

environments. The SLHs provided an opportunity to honestly reflect, learn from their own and others practice

experiences and share best practice. As a result, students who have benefitted from the SLH model have

demonstrated more resilience, reflective practice and readiness to practice at the point of recruitment to

newly qualified social worker posts in both local authorities.

The PEC role has rapidly become the ‘go to’ practice education lead in service areas, offering advice and

support to practice supervisors, educators and managers working with both TP and non-TP students. This

proved invaluable when working with placement breakdown or failing students where PECs could provide

guidance and support to supervisors and educators at a critical time for all involved.

Whilst the SLH model has brought many benefits it should be noted that the structure and operation of the

Teaching Partnership excluded the PVI sector from decision-making and implementation. This had a knock-on

impact for the Partnership’s relationship with Independent Practice Educators and PVI placement providers. A

reduction in demand for PVI placements in the year of the Partnership has allowed pre-existing relationships

with PVI placement providers to drift. The unilateral Teaching Partnership decision to return to pre-

Partnership arrangements has seen the Universities once again challenged to identify first placements for all

students in the PVI sector. It has proved challenging for University placement coordinators to re-establish

those relationships and return PVI placement capacity to pre-Partnership levels.’

Chair, Student Learning Hub Working Group


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 39 of 79

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT HUB

The PPD hub focuses on developing direct work grounded in day-to-day practice and is orientated to our

Teaching Relationships in Practice (TRIP) professional learning pathway. The Hub includes the Academics in

Practice (AiP) programme, which delivers practice based learning to teams on the frontline with academics

undertaking placements in the Local Authorities, observing practice and engaging teams in group

supervision, work discussions and practice development. It also includes Practitioners who Teach (PwT),

which aims to optimise the transfer of knowledge across practice-university boundaries and ensure high

quality delivery through the development of a larger pool of specialist teaching practitioners.

The evaluation activity for the PPD is as follows:

Professional

Practice

Development

Hub

1

2

3

4

Academics in Practice:

Survey of AiP participants (academics)

Feedback from Managers of placement teams

Case Study


5

6

7

8

Practitioners Who Teach:

Survey of PWT practitioners

Case Study

Distribution of PWT Hours


9

10

KSS:

Activity undertaken to raise awareness and imbed KSS knowledge



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 40 of 79

1. Academics in Practice

AIP aims to deliver practice based learning to teams on the frontline. Academics undertake placements in

the LA’s observing practice and engaging teams in group supervision, work discussions and practice

development.

Number of academics who took part in the programme:

• 7 University of Brighton

• 5 University of Sussex

12 in total

Below is combined feedback from 11 academics from both HEIs on AiP placements:

Being mindful of your ‘Learning Agreement’, to what extent and in what ways were planned outcomes

achieved?

• In relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding team I wanted to understand how the

assessments were being undertaken in the community and I was able to experience this.

• Achieved – I wanted to get an overview and understanding of the issues and complexities which

arise for Mental Health practitioners.

• Partially achieved – it was difficult to identify shadowing opportunities and then these were

dependent upon parental consent for me to observe.

• Very much so, although this took time, as my wishes and the planned learning evolved as we got to

know each other. Some experiences still not yet completed despite doing additional days but I

intend to return.

Were there any unintended outcomes or new ‘learning’/understanding you had not anticipated? If so,

what were they?

• Understanding the challenges and dilemmas in practice, including the impact of local demographic

changes/policy change.

• Meeting the teams and managers – everyone has talked about the value of being part of strong,

supportive coherent team.

• Clearly services are under pressure to be creative and responsive – occasional need to take

risks/manage high levels of risk

• Very creative and innovative practice such as life story work for young people and drop in style work

• Very helpful to see current students in practice placements.

• Team work and value of relationships/innovative and creative practice is still vital.

• Impressed with the commitment to ethical practice and the well-being of service users

demonstrated.

• Occasionally it was difficult to see why cases were being referred for a possible safeguarding

enquiry, when the issue would seem more relevant for a Care act assessment or the issue had been

successfully dealt with by other agencies.

• I questioned at times whether there was a risk adverse culture which drove the intervention.

• Seeing the impact of holding so many high risk situations and the genuine care and concern felt by

social workers was a reminder of the challenges and rewards too.

• Relationship based practice is clearly a strong theme in the work but extremely challenging in

practice and within working relationships. Sometimes there seem to be mixed messages – do your

work faster/complete assessment – no time to build relationships.

• The pressure around ‘threshold’ decisions and the stress of holding high risk situations was clear to

see.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 41 of 79

• Challenges of resources and impact of these as well as the use/mixed use of records system was

interesting to see.

• Two academics started thinking about possible move back into practice or job share in the future.

This is something worth exploring across the partnership.

How did your AiP experience impact on your teaching/academic roles?

• Making connections with colleagues and former students has helped with resourcing skills sessions

and shadowing placement process.

• Invited practitioners working in areas of practice that I was not aware of into the university to teach

sessions, for example no recourse to public funding.

• It was extremely helpful gain an insight into current practice around Mental Health Act Assessment.

• Valuable insight into changes in process and practice – realized that I need to hand over a skills day

(a mock child protection role play) to a practitioner who is working in the current system.

• Gained more understanding about students experience when they talk about being without a role

and all others are rushing around.

• Helpful spending time with newly qualified practitioners in order to be able to link experiences with

final year in university too.

• Helped confirm a new direction I’m going to take in organising topics for the BA2 Children and

Families module next year. I will be adopting a session on contextual safeguarding in my module

next year.

• Helped identify where current in-house training or existing Continuing Professional Development

(CPD) provision doesn’t quite meet practitioners needs – focusing on complexities, nuances, things

and issues that fall outside the clear policy/legislative guidance or that received from managers

alone.

• Confirmed my pre-existing convictions about CPD provision for managers - the importance of giving

careful thought to how the module design and mode of teaching models reflective and relational

approaches so that participants both learn about and ‘live’ relationship-based practice.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 42 of 79

2. Feedback from teams hosting AiP placements

‘K attended one of my MA 1 reflective group sessions. It was a really positive experience for all. K

gave brief feedback to the group commending them on their reflective skills. This was helpful to have

positive reinforcement from someone outside the group, and helped their confidence. I also found it

really helpful to receive positive feedback on my facilitation skills. K herself stated it was helpful to

observe and she would take some learning back to the groups she facilitates in the university. I also

think it was also helpful for the university to get a clear sense of what happens in the hubs.’

Professional Educator, ESCC

‘Academics themselves have not had front line experience for a number of years and we have had the

implementation of the Care Act in recent years as well. J has an interest in Mental Capacity Act

assessments therefore some of her shadowing opportunities where shadowing Social Workers

undertaking this task and how difficult this can be when people have fluctuating capacity and or are

making and unwise choices. The social workers welcomed the opportunity to discuss this further

when out with J. In addition I feel the experience gave J an insight to the fast pace complex high risk

decisions that are made daily within the social work teams and the impact this can have on workers

resilience and wellbeing and the need for good supervision. Some of the planned opportunities

changed at the last minute so again J was able to experience the ever changing environment that is

Social Care. This also is a reflection of the current working conditions that NQSWs could face

therefore if conversations are held and inter weaved into their learning at Uni this may not come as a

surprise when on placement’

Team Manager, BHCC


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 43 of 79

3. AiP Case study

Main title Academics in Practice (AiP) Programme Case Study

Subtitle Case Study re academics’ practice experience, evidencing impact and improvement in the

quality of social work education.

Introduction As part of the work of the Professional Practice Development Hub, opportunities have been

developed for academics from both Sussex and Brighton Universities to engage with frontline

practice in new ways. This Case Study captures some initial experiences of two staff from the

UoB (both ‘placed’ within BHCC) and actual and potential impact upon their learning and

teaching. One member of staff gained experience in several settings across Adult Services,

whilst another was linked to a Community Learning Disability Team. At the time of writing,

the academics were in the mid stage of their experience.

Body of case

study text

Objectives:

Although social work academics retain strong connections with practice, for example through

supporting students on placement and engaging with qualified workers on CPD courses, this

initiative aimed to provide further experience of day to day practice with a view to shaping

and enhancing social work education.

Examples of Practice Observed:

• intake/referral processes and content: listening to social workers’ discussion of, for

example, safeguarding referrals received from the Police and then discussing

response with staff involved

• attending multi-disciplinary meetings during which a range of professionals debated

and agreed their response to individual cases, such as a case conference relating to a

vulnerable younger adult who was street homeless but at risk from others and of

losing their tenancy

• discharge planning for older people in an acute hospital

• visits with allocated social workers to service users living in the community: e.g. adult

with learning disabilities whose care facility was due to close; substance misuse and

safeguarding work with an older person lining in supported housing

• joining a ‘no recourse to public funds’ worker to learn about their role

• opportunities to gain first-hand experience of agency processes, systems and use of

IT


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 44 of 79

Initial Thoughts on Impact:

• In part, the process has reiterated and made concrete what the academics knew: for

example that teams are under competing pressures, due for example to amount of

referrals, legal duties and staffing/resource issues. This will inevitably be drawn upon

in seeking the appropriate balance between realism and best practice when working

with students.

• Many examples of good practice have been observed: social workers are looking

proactively for ways to support service users with multiple and complex needs,

seeking actively to draw upon all available resources and include the wider

community. Such case examples, appropriately anonymised, will enrich classroom

experience; provide case studies and so on.

• The process has been reassuring: both academics felt it has confirmed that they

continue to have a good understanding of the skills required to work in a person

centred way with service users; of the range of work typically encountered in

practice; and of the types of judgments required.

• The process has felt collaborative: academics have felt able, for example, to question

whether a proposed course of action might be more risk averse than necessary and

workers have been open and informative in explaining their own thinking and in

reflecting on agency process.

• More specific plans for learning and teaching include: to incorporate consideration of

issues for persons with no recourse to public funds in law modules for BSc and MSc

Social Work programmes, making connections with Human Rights Act; a role play

based upon referrals meetings, requiring students to discuss, prioritise and suggest

alternative responses to emails, phone messages and so on; assessed case scenarios

drawing on observed examples of ‘current’ concerns such as self-neglect.

The impact of this initiative on teaching and curriculum will be reviewed with individual

academics within staff development processes. The process of agreeing the placement

content, then recording of the academic’s experience of it and then their discussions with

head of schools about impact on their individual teaching is being recorded in a standard

format.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 45 of 79

4. Feedback from PPD Working Group chair re AiP

‘Academics in Practice has provided the forum to enable:

• Collaboration and co-ordination of academics coming back into practice, allowed them to confirm

and update knowledge and skills as well as provide influence and feedback to frontline practice. The

presence of academics in the field created an atmosphere of true partnership work, academics,

individual practitioners and teams involved reported a sense of ownership of the social work task

together.

Chair, Professional Practice Development hub working group


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 46 of 79

5. Practitioners who Teach - Academic Year 2017-2018

The aim of the PWT programme is to optimise the transfer of knowledge across practice-university

boundaries and ensure high quality delivery through the development of a larger pool of specialist teaching

practitioners.

There are 62 PWT participants.

A survey was run in October 2018 for those who had taken part in PWT. There were and 11 respondents:

Q1. Please tell us which activities you were involved in at the universities this year? (Respondents can

select more than one activity)

Activity No.

Skills Workshops at Sussex University 9

Practice Assessment Panel: Sussex University 3

Lecturer session at Brighton University 2

Lecturer session at Sussex University 2

Skills Workshops at Brighton University 2

Interviews: Brighton University 1

Interviews: Sussex University 1

Practice Assessment Panel: Brighton University 1

Practitioners Who Teach programme 1

VIvas: Sussex University 1

27% of respondents had undertaken 3 or more activities:

No. of Activities

undertaken

No, or

respondents

%

1 6 54.5%

2 2 18.2%

3+ 3 27.3%

Q2. What type of support did you receive to undertake these activities?

Support received No.

Communication with Academics via email/phone 7

Limited support 3

Attendance at preparation meetings 2

Shadowing an experienced facilitator 2

Train the Trainers 1

No support 1

No answer 1


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 47 of 79

‘[It was] quite helpful to have met with the Lecturer and the other Social Worker to go through the session

layout. We worked together to put the session together (although, the Lecturer already had the power point

done, she allowed room for improvements and changes)’

Q3. How well prepared did you feel for undertaking the activities?

Level of preparedness No. %

As well prepared and practiced as I could be 5 45.5%

Prepared but not practiced 2 18.2%

Well prepared and practiced 2 18.2%

No answer 2 18.2%

‘[we need] more guidance from universities about what is expected, what students are already learning’

Q4. How do you rate your experience as a practitioner who teaches?

Experience No. %

Really good: would like to be involved more 6 54.5%

Good: would be happy to be involved again 3 27.3%

Fantastic : I want to become a lecturer 1 9.1%

Ok: would do it again but would want things to be done differently 1 9.1%

‘I enjoyed the experience and think that practitioner input is vital to students' development. I would like to

shadow academic lectures.’

‘Loved doing the workshops and would be more involved but difficult to do more due to time constraints’

Q5. Thinking about your professional development, how would you rate being involved with the

Practitioners Who Teach programme?

On a scale of 0-100, with 0 being ‘Didn't contribute to my professional development’ and 100 being

‘Made a significant contribution to my professional development’

Average response was 78.5, with the lowest answer being 62 and highest answer being 91.

Q6. In what ways do you feel being involved did, or didn't, contribute to your professional development?

The learning was all independent and gained through my own experience and self-reflections. I would have

liked more feedback from uni and student and to be involved in departmental discussions so I was clear how

these practice developments days fit with the programme. I did the MH PLDs for about 3 years at Sussex and

they found other practitioners, which made sense but lacked courtesy as I wasn't informed just found out by

chance.

It made me reflect on my own practice as well as others practice and I was able to improve on my own work.

I was able to use the experience to support my application and interview for acting pod manager role.

Helped to consolidate my practice skills through a process of stopping and thinking about my work and how

to share with others - a good opportunity to build my teaching skills.

It has been really good for me to combine teaching skills used in a previous role with my current role which is

largely working with adults in the community. It has encouraged me to 'stretch myself' and has led me to


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 48 of 79

undertake new learning/training within the workplace.

More involved with supporting newer social workers

I was able to look at theories and research before I spoke to the students - I wrote 2 case studies which were

presented to the student - this allowed me to critically reflect on my professional practice and look at law,

values, theories, approaches, etc. The students asked me questions about my practice and about the cases

and how and why I responded in such ways. It was quite good to be able to give back to them and be

challenged at the same time. It was refreshing.

The only negative impact is the time/resource constraint which is more about this issue being an issue

generally than the Practitioners Who Teach programme itself.

Meeting a range of individuals with different experiences and reflecting with them about how SW works in

practice and in different agencies.

I have a greater knowledge of the subject matter I am teaching on. Practiced different kinds of teaching

styles.

Teaching at University prompts me to review research and stay up to date with research. I also learn from

students at the university.

This was an area I have always been interested in, and PWT provided the opportunity for me to find out I

enjoy it and am good at it (I think).

An opportunity to be observed and receive feedback on delivery would support my development.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 49 of 79

6. Case Study – Practitioners who Teach

Main title Practitioners who Teach Programme

Subtitle This is a case example of how co-produced and collaborative work between the LA’s and

universities impacted on the provision of skills based workshops , improving consistency

of theoretical perspective and interventions reflecting good practice from the LA’s.

Introduction

This case study will focus on the development and delivery of a two day domestic abuse

workshop at Sussex University. Practitioners from both BHCC and ESCC came together to

co-produce the two day skills based workshop.

Body of case

study text:

Objectives

The aim of the workshop was to enable students to explore issues in working with

domestic abuse and begin to develop an understanding of what domestic abuse is and

how to assess it. Also to develop knowledge of the impact of domestic abuse on children

and how to talk to and intervene with them in this context. There was also the

opportunity to find out about services operating locally and the tensions and dilemmas

that can sometimes emerge in multidisciplinary work in this area. The social work role in

developing effective safety plans for survivors and their families was also explored.

Learning outcomes were:

• Understand what domestic abuse is and the role of the social worker in assessing and

intervening in this field

• Demonstrate the capacity to critically reflect on how personal experiences and values

may impact on the social worker’s capacity to work in this area of practice

• Explore how to engage with parents, children and their families where domestic

abuse is an issue and how to ask purposeful questions to inform an understanding of

what is happening in the family

• Apply research with regard to the impact of domestic abuse on parents, their children

and theoretical understandings specific dynamics in domestic abuse.

• Demonstrate knowledge of effective interventions to address risk in domestic abuse

and the social work role in motivating service users to effect and sustain change

• Practice key skills in safety planning with family members

• Multi agency working.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 50 of 79

The workshop is delivered twice in the year, once to the graduate qualifying course cohort

of students and once to post graduate qualifying course cohort of students.

Evidence of impact :

The process of co-production across local authorities raised its own challenges which the

interviewees were frank and constructive about.

Themes included :

• Knowledge vs experiential learning. The Local Authorities’ (LAs) had differing

perspectives on style of delivery. East Sussex facilitators had an established theory

/knowledge/tool kit based workshop format which was used within the local

authority. Brighton and Hove came with different view of what students required

stating they “need to know enough to feel skilled but do not need to be experts”

and had a focus on allowing the students to experience it and practice the

learning through role play etc. The facilitators worked together to negotiate a

balance between the approaches.

Impact: Resulted in a reduction in initial thoughts about expectations of students,

introduction of more experiential learning, slowing of pace and amount of

knowledge/theory used in the days.

• LA’s also had differing theoretical perspectives and culture around domestic

abuse work. East Sussex theoretical foundation draws on a whole family

approach, focusing on the lived experience and interventions with all family

members including the perpetrators. Brighton and Hove have a traditional

feminist based model approach, informed by working with trauma. Again the

facilitators worked together to find a balance between managing these

differences and adjusting the content to enable critical discussion between the

two perspectives through the course of the workshop.

Impact: The facilitators acknowledged that this process had been really useful in enabling

cross learning of theory and knowledge with each other. As well as adapting the workshop

content, they took back some different ideas to their LA’s around the approaches to

working with domestic abuse. For example East Sussex introduced more learning around

trauma informed practice into in-house training and practice and Brighton and Hove

integrated a more whole family approach.

• Facilitators experience. All the facilitators agreed that they gained in confidence

presenting in front of people, how to facilitate groups and manage group

dynamics and building a toolkit of tricks to support the workshops. Working

together meant they had to spend time getting to know and understand each

other’s facilitation styles, working to each other strengths. Challenges working

across LA’s included practical issues such as timetabling meetings and venues, co-

ordinating and sharing materials and overall ownership of the workshops

Impact: All facilitators felt their confidence in delivering workshops had improved across

all the skills required. There was acknowledgment of the challenges of the co-ownership

of the workshop and tensions of working together in co-production and collaboration,

which are ongoing. However everyone expressed commitment to continue to review and

deliver the workshop. Additional practitioners were identified to shadow and support

facilitation to ensure the sustainability of the offer and allow development opportunities

for other practitioners.

Students feedback: Evaluation of the workshops strongly suggest that students valued the

expertise of the practitioners and the workshop being grounded in practice experience

that supported thinking about relating theory into practice in a pragmatic and realistic

way.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 51 of 79

7. Distribution of PWT Hours

The chart below summarises the total number of hours given by each department within each LA to the PWT

programme and the percentage that these hours were of the total contribution to PWT by the local

authorities. BHCC contributed a total of 45% of the total programme hours and ESCC 53%. For 2% of the

total hours there was no ascribed LA at the point of writing.

The following table shows the hours contributed to PWT by each local authority department as a proportion

of the total SW hours available within that department.

SW FTE Total SW Hours

SW hours for

PWT

PWT hours as % of total SW

hours in that workgroup

BHCC ASC 115 41,860 320 0.76%

BHCC CS 153 55,692 604 1.08%

ESCC ASC 163 59,332 137 0.23%

ESCC CS 220 80,080 960 1.20%

Distribution of PWT Hours between and within HEIs

The chart below shows how the social work hours were allocated to each university; University of Sussex

used 69% of the total SW hours and University of Brighton 31% of the total. The chart also indicates the

distribution of SW hours by each type of PWT input within each university.

BHCC - ASC,

320, 15%

BHCC - CS, 604,

29%

BHCC - Not

known, 12, 1%

ESCC - ASC,

137, 7%

ESCC - CS, 960,

46%

LA Not known,

51, 2%

Hours of PWT input - by LA and

workgroup within LA


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 52 of 79

308

199.5

42

29

150

252

156

648

312

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Brighton Sussex

Nu

mb

er

of

ho

urs

No of hours from PwT programme

used by each HEI - by type of input

step up

workshopsMA/MSC

workshopsBA/BSC

workshopsVivas


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 53 of 79

8. Feedback from PPD Working Group chair re PWT

‘Practitioners who Teach has provided the forum to enable:

• Pulling the corners together and shaking up the practitioners who teach programme into something

more tangible than the rather ad hoc nature of the practitioner’s involvement in teaching has

brought the reality of social work practice into the classroom, with students valuing the pragmatic

skills, tools and experience practitioners bring. Less obvious in the beginning was the unforeseen

consequence of collaboration between practitioners with different practice models, under pinned by

different theoretical concepts created opportunities for reflection and lead to changes in the both

LA’s practice in some areas. As well as better communication in the field between practitioners and

teams working together on workshops.



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 54 of 79

9. KSS

Activity undertaken to raise awareness and imbed KSS knowledge with students, NQSWs and experienced

practitioners:

ESCC

ESCC and BHCC have worked together closely to embed the KSS, particularly in AS. In AS, this resulted in co-

production of a KSS self-assessment document to inform appraisal/PDP processes, which is used by all social

workers. This has been introduced and will be used on a yearly basis in East Sussex to support CPD, and

identify learning and development needs. ESCC AS are currently reviewing their Q&A process and aim to

produce one competency document which will use the KSS as the template for the social work competency

document. ESCC and BHCC also co-wrote an article for Community Care and presented a paper at

Community Care Live to share the learning taken from this process of embedding the KSS. They also

produced a mapping document of KSS/PCF and a student document mapping the KSS for 1st and 2nd year

students to support the PE/PS. The self-assessment document in East Sussex ASC is now being used with

students at the beginning and end of hubs and is being used with NQSWS. In CS two Learning Needs Analysis

surveys have been undertaken, modelled around the KSS, benchmarking practitioner’s self-assessment of

skills against the framework. Introducing a KSS appraisal tool for NQSW’s as they progress out of the ASYE

programme has been a challenge with slow uptake of the tool. The appraisal tool is currently being

developed to bring together the corporate Maximising Performance paperwork and KSS self-assessment in

one place. Additionally, a page is being launched on the intranet where these tools and guidance will sit as

this to make it more accessible and easier for Practice Managers/Social Worker’s to navigate.

BHCC

BHCC has embedded the KSS within CPD pathways and the Performance Development Plan (PDP) process for

both Adults and Children’s Services. The CLAM (Continuous Learning & Assessment Model for social work

CPD) is mapped to the KSS for practitioners, supervisors and leaders in both Adults and Children’s services. In

September 2018 a new, social work specific PDP was launched in both services mapped to the KSS and

including a KSS self-assessment and an annual observation of practice against the KSS to inform the bi-

annual PDP discussion between social work professional and their line manager. Social Workers are also

evaluated against the KSS via a direct observation and collection of service user/carer feedback. In terms of

student experience, they self-evaluate their competence against the KSS on entry to placement (so it’s used

as a guide to focus on particular areas) and then on exit from placement, to help inform their ASYE. All this

activity is a direct result of the work completed by the TP and a success due to the joint working across AS

ESCC and BHCC. The KSS self-assessment tools were developed after the commencement of placements in

year 1, so it was not possible to conduct a self-assessment at beginning and end of placement. At this stage

we would only have the beginning of current placement self-assessment as they are not due to end

placement until April/May 2019.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 55 of 79

10. Feedback from PPD Working Group chair re KSS

‘The Professional Practice Development hub has provided the forum to:

• Introducing the KSS in a meaningful and constructive way as a silver thread through the work of

teaching partnership was a challenge, however focusing on the uniqueness of the social work

identity and the way in which the KSS highlights our professional skills and knowledge needed to

perform complex tasks and ethical decision making led to integration of the KSS into CPD and

appraisals.’



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 56 of 79

PRACTICE RESEARCH HUB

The PRH promotes research mindedness in everyday practice and supports practice research projects and

events.

The evaluation activity for the PRH is as follows:

Practice

Research Hub

1 Snap-shot social worker research confidence survey x 3

2 Breakdown of research projects

3 Feedback from PRH events



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 57 of 79

1. Practice Research survey:

Social Worker Research Confidence Survey comparison summary Dec 2018

A practice research mindedness survey was sent out to practitioners to gauge their confidence around a set

of practice research questions. The first survey took place in mid-2017, the second in May 2018, followed by

the third survey in December 2018. Responses to key questions below:

Where do you work? Which sector do you work in?

Third Survey Second Survey First Survey Total

Brighton &

Hove City

Council

28 22.0% 43 57.3% 60 40.8% 37.5%

East Sussex

County

Council

99 78.0% 32 42.7% 87 59.2% 62.5%

Third Survey Second Survey First Survey Total

Children's

Services

98 77.2% 37 49.33% 60 40.82% 55.9%

Adult Services

30 23.6% 38 50.67% 87 59.18% 44.4%

To what extent does existing research evidence currently influence your practice?

Grand Total Third Survey Second Survey First Survey Difference

(1>3)

Always 25 19.84% 11 14.67% 28 19.05% 0.79%

Quite a lot 49 38.89% 29 38.67% 44 29.93% 8.96%

Somewhat 49 38.89% 34 45.33% 70 47.62% -8.73%

Not at all 3 2.38% 1 1.33% 5 3.40% -1.02%

Respondents report that research currently influences practice in these particular areas; attachment theory,

effective interventions, the effects of neglect/abuse/trauma, mental health, and enables use of up to date

guidance.

Do you think that your knowledge of research evidence is up to date?


(1>3)

Definitely 9 8.04% 5 6.67% 10 6.80% 1.24%

Reasonably 52 46.43% 33 44.00% 50 34.01% 12.42%

Somewhat 39 34.82% 30 40.00% 71 48.30% -13.48%

Not at all 12 10.71% 7 9.33% 16 10.88% -0.17%


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 58 of 79

Knowledge is kept up to date through various methods, including; discussion/sharing research with

colleagues, in supervision and team meetings, Community Care, Research in Practice, through courses and

training, internet research, Single Source and other self-directed reading.

How confident do you feel identifying/sourcing relevant research?


(1>3)

Very

Confident

15 14.15% 11 14.67% 28 19.05% -4.90%

Confident 42 39.62% 29 38.67% 44 29.93% 9.69%

Somewhat

confident

37 34.91% 34 45.33% 70 47.62% -12.71%

Not at all 12 11.32% 1 1.33% 5 3.40% 7.92%

Respondents feel it would be beneficial to have greater access to up to date research, such as through

University libraries.

In your organisation, how easy is it to access relevant research?

Grand

Total

Third Survey Second Survey First Survey Difference

(1>3)

Very Easy 8 7.84% 12 16.00% 12 8.16% -0.32%

Easy 29 28.43% 22 29.33% 20 13.61% 14.82%

Reasonably

easy

55 53.92% 34 45.33% 93 63.27% -9.35%

Impossible 10 9.80% 7 9.33% 22 14.97% -5.17%

How easy do you find it to understand published research in your professional area?

Grand

Total


(1>3)

Very Easy 16 15.24% 12 16.00% 19 12.93% 2.31%

Easy 43 40.95% 27 36.00% 55 37.41% 3.54%

Quite easy 42 40.00% 34 45.33% 62 42.18% -2.18%

Difficult 4 3.81% 2 2.67% 11 7.48% -3.67%

How easily can you identify opportunities for doing research in your daily practice?


(1>3)

All the time 4 3.85% 7 -5.67% 14 9.52% -5.67%

Often 15 14.42% 12 -2.59% 25 17.01% -2.59%

Occasionally 57 54.81% 43 7.87% 69 46.94% 7.87%

Not at all 28 26.92% 13 0.39% 39 26.53% 0.39%


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 59 of 79

How easy is it for you to translate research evidence into practice?

Grand

Total


(1>3)

Very easy 7 6.67% 6 8.00% 5 3.40% 3.27%

Easy 28 26.67% 16 21.33% 29 19.73% 6.94%

Quite easy 53 50.48% 40 53.33% 78 53.06% -2.58%

Difficult 17 16.19% 13 17.33% 35 23.81% -7.62%

To improve understanding and translation of research into practice respondents wanted; accessible ‘bite

sized’ research with easier to understand language, more time for research, opportunity for more discussion

and reflection in group and individual supervision and further guidance/training on how to effectively use

research in practice.

If you have experienced an increased awareness or confidence over the last two years in respect of your

research mindedness, why do you think this might be?

Increased confidence comes from learning on the job, experiences, positive feedback on appropriate use of

research, support and prioritisation from the organisation, having space and time to reflect and being able to

discuss ideas and outcomes with colleagues. Respondents report of an increased awareness of research

available and how to access it and in particular the personal drive to improve their research mindedness in

challenging work environments.

If you feel less confident or have fewer opportunities over the last two years in respect of your research

mindedness, why do you think this is?

Lack of confidence or fewer opportunities largely centres on lack of time. Restructures of services, reduced

resources, lack of encouragement or support from management and balancing work pressures are some of

the reasons respondents report for feeling unable to prioritise time for undertaking or considering research.

Practice Research Events

A larger number of respondents did not attend the Research Practice Events as they were not aware they

were happening, than the number of respondents who stated they did not have the time to attend. At

future research practice events, popular ideas for subjects/topics are as follows:

• Adult and child attachment

• Dementia

• Children with Disabilities

• Outcomes in relation to Looked After Children

• Permanence planning

• Trauma

• Domestic Violence

• Mental Health

• Learning Disabilities

• Safeguarding


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 60 of 79

Do you know who your Practice Research Lead is in your organisation?

Third Survey No Yes

Brighton & Hove City Council 15 7

Adult Services 4 2

Children's Services 11 5

East Sussex County Council 51 25

Adult Services 10 5

Children's Services 40 20

(blank) Not answered = 31


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 61 of 79

2. Breakdown of Practice Research Projects

The PRH commissioned 6 projects during the life of the TP project. The table below highlights the title of the

project and the current status as at the writing of this report.

CS/ASC B&H/ESCC Title of project Supporting

HEI

Current Status

Phase One - 2017/18

CS ESCC What is the impact of SWIFT assessments in the

context of cases involved in /at risk of legal

proceedings?

UoB In process –

undertaking

interviews

CS B&H Does the complaint (complainant parents) affect

the risk assessment and decision making abilities

of the social workers?

UoS In process –

undertaking

interviews

ASC B&H Well-being’: From concept to Practice? UoB Completed

Phase Two - 2018/19

ASC ESCC What really helps? The lived experience of

cuckooing victims; a thematic analysis.

UoB In process –

going through

Research

governance

and ethics

processes

ASC B&H Exploring how the role of social work is

understood in a multidisciplinary hospital setting

which delivers 3 different models of integrated

care

UoB In process -

going through

Research

governance

processes

CS ESCC What opportunities exist for LAC/locality

collaboration to improve care planning and

outcomes?

UoS In process -

going through

Research

governance

processes


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 62 of 79

3. Research Events:

15th October 2018 Research Minded event IV: Building research confidence

The Beacon teams are teams that volunteered to develop use of research to inform their practice with the

support of the PRH lead for their work group, and whose experience of that could then be shared with other

teams.

31 practitioners attended the event (15 BHCC / 16 ESCC) which was held to support/develop/build

confidence of the use of research by social workers in their practice.

The session included:

• A presentation about the potential sources of research information in particular accessing RiP and

RiPFA websites

• A presentation by one of the Beacon teams about how they had set up and how they currently run

their Research Journal club

• A final session where participants shared research articles that they had bought with them, linking

them to their practice.

They provided the following feedback to questions at the event:

Why was it good to spend time on research?

• It was good to have RIPFA explained – it’s easy to signpost for people, and it’s not just a journal, it

also has research that has been translated into toolkits.

• It was interesting to see how we can refocus social work practice and embed research.

• I didn’t realise so many practitioners were interested in research.

• I learnt how easy it is to talk about research with my colleagues – it’s not as daunting as I thought.

• I really enjoyed looking at multiple views on research.

• It was a great reminder of the importance of research in times of financial challenge.

• It was so beneficial to have allocated time to look at research, which is not often the case in the

front line of social work.

• After ASYE, these research opportunities are not often available to qualified workers.

• I learnt useful ways to apply research to practice.

• As a student, discussing how research impacts direct practice was helpful in terms of placements and

academic assignments.

• I appreciated the learning I can take back to my organisation.

How people said they would carry the session forward:

• I will use the energy and ideas from today to look at how I can support BHCC to systematically adopt

a research-minded focus in day-to-day work.

• I will consider trying to set up a journal club in my own team.

• I would be interested in exploring how research can be used more in court work. The challenge of

court work is if you use research to argue a particular decision, barristers will look for research that

argues the opposite, so it puts people off doing it.

• I’d like to see more grassroots approaches – I loved the journal club!

• I look forward to making research a ‘normal’ part of every-day practice.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 63 of 79

Research Events:

3rd December 2018 Research Minded event V: The experiences of ‘home grown’ practice researchers in

Adult’s and Children’s Services

During the life of the TP project, the PRH commissioned 6 practice research projects. An event was held to

share the learnings from the research projects and consider ways in which practice research could continue

to be encouraged. 16 practitioners attended the event (8 BHCC / 8 ESCC). They provided the following

feedback to questions at the event:

I would like to see further workshops on/learn about:

• How to initiate research and get started

• Applying research in practice

• Research methods and skills

• Ethics

• Peer support with experienced practitioner researchers

• Understanding who to talk to and ask questions about your research

• How does organisational behaviour impact on research in practice

• Being repeat researchers enabling new and continuing researchers at the same time

• How to position our team of researchers in the wider community of practitioner researchers

I learnt:

• The value of research to practice and the resulting outcomes for service users

• About current research drivers and characters

• Many creative research ideas and how these have been put into practice

• About research processes and different approaches

• How to keep research question focussed/sample

I feel:

• Re-energised, re-invested in using research in practice

• More optimistic about completing my own research project

• Ready to keep going with working on practice

• I want to continue thinking, reflecting, talking about research

• Inspired

Ways to do better:

• Publicise more overtly the opportunities and events

• Proportionate learning

• Successful candidates should be able to access articles through the universities

• Journal access!

Things to maintain:

• Maintain the partnership so that practitioners can run their ideas past an academic

• Keep practitioner research on the agenda in the work place


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 64 of 79

4. Feedback from PRH Working Group Chair

‘The PRH has been a core element of our TP work. It aimed to address needs both to improve research

mindedness in practice, and also to improve confidence and competence in carrying out research projects run

by practitioners, supported by Universities. This has been a challenging, but highly rewarding part of our

work within the partnership for a number of reasons. Challenges have included:

• Accepting that this element of our work is a slow burn – it takes time to make culture and system

changes

• We learned not to be overly prescriptive of what research mindedness in practice looks like

• Lack of time for practitioners to be released from work even when projects had been agreed

• Lining up the availability of university and practitioner ‘free time’ is challenging but negotiable

• The impact of there being a generation of practitioners with no experience of data collection and

analysis given the changes to many social work courses several years ago whereby requirements for

dissertation work to be literature based had been introduced (although this is also a positive as it has

led to determination to revise this in some courses).

Benefits have included:

• The benefits of the two universities working closely on this

• Highlighting the links between social work and research/social science skills and activities

• Seeing teams and individuals identify ways forward in large or small steps to introduce changes

within their own settings

• Seeing the enthusiasm and eagerness of practitioners who are running projects and/or involved in

the research minded processes

• Identifying practitioners who may be good candidates for relevant PhD projects in the future to

further strengthen the research in practice agenda

• Strengthening the relationship between university and practice colleagues

In conclusion, this has been an especially exciting venture with excellent feedback from recent events that

can be further embedded into our longer term work together.’

Chair, Practice Research Hub Working Group


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 65 of 79

EXPERTS BY EXPERIENCE WORKING GROUP

The EBE Working Group oversees the meaningful participation in social work education, recruitment and

service development of service users and carers.

The evaluation activity for the EBE working group is as follows:

EBE Working

Group

1 Recovery Partners feedback

2 Opportunities breakdown

3 EBE interviews

4 Interviews of services offering EBE opportunities



Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 66 of 79

1. Feedback from Recovery Partners

Recovery Partners were commissioned by the TP, initially to review and report on the current levels of

service user involvement across the partner organisations, and then to co-ordinate the training,

management and coordination of opportunities and related processes for EBEs. They provided the following

evaluation feedback:

• Benefits:

Diversity of lived experience among the cohort means different perspectives on social work, lots to discuss

and helps broaden understanding between people. The lived experience perspective is really valuable, as

only people who have accessed services can say how they were received.

Dynamism of having a group of different people with different viewpoints - discussions can be very lively!

Very positive approach to working alongside social work educators; people are very motivated by wanting to

help improve things, and by wanting to contribute to education.

Working as a cohort of people rather than as individuals has meant the group is slowly developing and

cohering, and people support and challenge each other; I feel the learning from each other has been a real

honour to be part of.

Feedback from social work educators has been very positive.

• Challenges:

We anticipated more involvement from the other 3 members of the Teaching Partnership rather than just

ESCC, don't know if that's helpful to say, but there is not yet enough involvement opportunities for everyone

- some people's interest could start waning after 7 months with no external opportunities.

The very nature of some people's lived experience means that they can't always take part in group meetings

or opportunities as aspects of their lives continue to be challenging.

Group work is both rewarding and challenging - some personalities can be more dominant in the group - we

are working on this as a group to ensure fairer shares of time and input.

Some people have not had access to education around diversity and difference, and we all have different

levels of understanding around discrimination - again we are working as a group to design our approach to

this.

• Unforeseen consequences:

A few people's expectations of what we could achieve were very high - telling social workers how to do their

job is not what we're here for, and for a couple of people the process of involvement is too slow - they want

to change the world. One person was still very hurt by their own experiences and it was too soon for them to

become involved, it was a challenging experience for them - we've learned from that, and safeguarding EBEs

is very important for us.

The level of interest in learning about how social workers train, what they learn and what they have to cope

with - EBE's empathy for social workers is high; they want to understand what it's like for social workers

making difficult decisions in difficult times.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 67 of 79

2. Opportunities undertaken

There are 15 active EBE’s in the current cohort. They undertake opportunities for meaningful participation as

per the breakdown below:

Month 2018 Opportunity Provider Number of

EBEs

involved (via

TP cohort)

Total

opportunities

offered

May Preparation workshop for NQSW

interviews for ASYE with ESCC

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

6

EBE interview panel for NQSWs

for ASYE with ESCC

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

5 2

June Observation of Working Group Teaching Partnership 4

Review session for NQSW

interviews

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

4 2

July Participation in Working Group Teaching Partnership 3

Participation in Task Group Teaching Partnership 1 2

August Participation in Task Group Teaching Partnership 1

Preparation workshop for ASYE

portfolio preparation

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

5 2

September ASYE portfolio moderation ESCC Social Work

Education Team

4 2

Q&A session: experience as

disabled person as part of

training on Social Care Act

Brighton & Hove

Local Authority

2

October Participation in Working Group Teaching Partnership 1 4

Q&A session: experience as

disabled person as part of

training on Social Care Act

Brighton & Hove

Local Authority

2

Review session for ASYE portfolio

moderation

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

3

Speaking at welcome conference

for NQSWs beginning ASYE year

with ESCC

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

1

November Speaking at workshop on

portfolio moderation/gathering

feedback

ESCC Social Work

Education Team

2 2

10

individuals

16

opportunities


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 68 of 79

3. EBE interviews

10 EBE interviews were undertaken in November 2018. EBEs were asked to provide feedback on the

following areas:

� What went well:

90% scored 8/10 or more for how well the group is run

“It was well organised and there was clearly thought behind everything that was done”

100% said it was a positive overall experience

“I’ve learnt stuff, built trust and confidence and enjoyed sharing intimate stories”

“I felt useful and it improved my confidence”

100% said they felt supported well as part of the EBE group, including having someone on hand to explain

acronyms and specific language

“The group exceeded my expectations – it helped my recovery and encouraged me to open up”

More than half said they found it interesting or they learnt something

“Keep it going. It’s worth it and this group has a lot to offer”

90% said they felt prepared for the opportunities they were involved in

� Specific feedback on Recovery Partners

Tracy is brilliant and very attentive

Tracy is always checking in and I feel very well informed

Tracy and Miranda were good leaders and good at keeping in touch

Tracy and the other Recovery Partners have been set up really well

Tracy is also an EBE, so she understands where we’re coming from. She listens and says what needs to be

said. She is a very nice person too

Tracy works hard to share everything possible with us

� Ideas for improvements

“Develop a scoring system for interviews so that everyone’s opinion has equal weighting”

“Try to involve a more diverse group of people, i.e. different genders, ethnicities, care leavers etc.”

70% asked for more communication and longer notice from the organisations that ran the opportunities

“I don’t want to lose the momentum of the group; I wish we could’ve met more frequently”

40% asked for the group to move along more quickly

“There are sometimes an overwhelming amount of emails; could these be replaced by phone calls?”

Some said that the location or venue was a barrier for them

“There could be a pay scale for different opportunities depending on how long they last and how much work

is involved”

Those who missed a part of the training felt more nervous or less comfortable with the group, try to ensure

everyone attends all the training

“Make sure group rules are enforced properly so that everyone is respected and not talked over”


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 69 of 79

4. EBE professional interviews

6 EBE Professional interviews were undertaken in December 2018. Professionals were asked to provide

feedback on the following areas:

What opportunity did you use the EBEs for?

EBEs were used for moderation of portfolios, interviewing and doing a short presentation at a welcome

session.

What impact did the EBE participant have on your opportunity?

EBEs brought a service user perspective.

It added another layer of quality assurance assessment.

Triangulated the interview process, often uncovering the soft skills NQSW have.

The panel was less formal, so EBEs were able to ask and receive more relaxed responses.

Gave both NQSW and EBEs the impression that the council was serious about user feedback

Gave EBEs an insight into the work social workers do.

How, if at all, did the involvement of EBEs bring sufficient value to meet your aims?

EBEs lent an authentic voice.

I gave the message that EBE views were being taken seriously.

Helped staff reflect on their own practise and processes.

Helped develop a quality relationship with EBEs

The interviews were more robust, resulting in the recruitment of better candidates.

Feedback from panel chair was that some candidates selected us over other institutions as a result of using

EBEs.

It gave candidates a better chance to show off skills and abilities, and made candidates more relaxed.

They helped meet equality and diversity aims.

What were the challenges, if any, and how were these overcome?

There were challenges around communication about tasks and opportunities.

Staff would have liked longer to prepare for training.

Messages from Working Group were fractured.

More cohesive direction and timescales would have meant there was less time pressure.

Working out how to involve EBEs in a meaningful way took a while to work out.

Some of the general logistics were time consuming.

Finding out how people were paid and the time involved in find that out.

Biggest challenge was potential for bias; EBEs aren’t trained Social Workers so they weren't aware of

unconscious bias.

Sometimes conversations in interviews can trigger a reaction from an EBE, so time for supporting them in

needed.

As it’s a new project it was quite resource intensive.

It was missing well established roles, process, and payment methods. Knowing this upfront would have

helped.

There were also challenges around clarity of expectation and EBE understanding of their potential to

influence outcomes for interviewees.

There weren’t as many opportunities as anticipated.

Do you feel the benefit was worth any challenges you encountered?

Absolutely, though staff would not want to face the challenges again.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 70 of 79

What changes, if any, do you suggest to the process for securing EBE participation in opportunities such as

this?

Secure ongoing funding of Coordinator role, administration, communication, bureaucracy.

Have the option to work with the wider cohort, and think about opportunities for everybody to get involved.

Payment process, lots of forms, not clear about value of task and how it is worked out.

Have a clear process documented to show what’s involved.

Making people aware so sufficient time is allocated.

One clear person having oversight would be helpful.

Training for both EBEs and staff to offer a greater understanding of equality and diversity, particularly so

there's a better understanding during interview.

In what other areas, if any, do you see a role for EBE involvement?

Recruitment to social work courses, social work education / training, a role within universities and

facilitation of workshops.

Training managers, eLearning opportunities and redesigning ASC. It would also be useful to involve service

users as a critical friend, recruitment, approval panel and at the Social Conference.

They could be involved in team away days and possibly in policy and development.

Any other comments?

Staff hope it continues.

Could two institutions work closer to help to promote use EBEs?


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 71 of 79

5. Feedback from EBE Working Group Chair

‘Throughout the programme I have continued to be impressed by the commitment and willingness of

individuals to work with us in sharing some of their very real experiences of social work practice. The work

has been both challenging and very rewarding; challenging because we have been made to think harder and

more thoughtfully about how and why we do certain things and what it means to engage people properly in

shaping the way we do things but immensely rewarding in terms of the real life experience that EBE’s bring to

the work which helps us to focus on what is really important for people who use our services. The impact of

direct involvement of EBEs has been immensely powerful and has helped to enhance the experience of our

practitioners across the board.

I would like to express particular thanks to Tracy Hind and Recovery partners for the excellent support they

have provided throughout the programme’

Chair, Experts by Experience Working Group


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 72 of 79

OVERALL TEACHING PARTNERSHIP

Overall

Teaching

Partnership

1 Communications activity

2 Evaluation of Mahara Pilot

3 Board Focus Group


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 73 of 79

1. The following communications activity has taken place between Dec 2016 and Dec 2018:

Website

• Website created and published in January 2018.

• Content includes an overview of the partnership and its hubs and working groups, details of research

projects, research and practice tools section and news.

• Unfortunately we only have stats for the last three months due to an error on the website. On

average the website gets 168 page views a month.

Social media

• Regular tweets and posts on Twitter and Facebook regarding partnership news and events.

• Twitter: 159 followers

• Facebook: 132 page likes

News

• Biannual newsletter distributed via email across the partnership; includes updates from the hubs,

interviews with students, PECs, EBEs and other stakeholders, and update on research projects

• Practice education newsletter; established in October 2018. The second newsletter will be going out

in January 2019 and will give an overview of the support programme for practice educators following

a survey in October.

• Press releases sent out to trade press:

o Teaching partnership launch (also sent out to local press)

o A collaborative approach to make the knowledge and skills statement work for adult social

workers

o Teaching partnership puts service user and carer involvement at the top of the agenda.

Event publicity and support

All events have been supported as required with:

• Posters

• Email invitations

• Photography

• On event technical support


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 74 of 79

2. ePortfolio (Mahara) – key data Dec 2016-Dec 2018

A shared electronic platform called Mahara was provided for students in the social work programmes at

both HEI’s to allow them to create placement ePortfolios which can be accessed by students, practice

educators and course facilitators.

Activity data for the period Dec 2016 to Dec 2018:

Users

University of Brighton:

• 62 Users

• 60 weekly users between April to July 2018

University of Sussex

• 54 Users

• 54-55 weekly users between April to July 2018

External Users • 131 Users (55 have never logged in)

• 115-132 weekly users between April to July 2018

User feedback

• Overall usability score: 54% (baseline value for a system to be usable is overall usability of 50%

more)

• 40 respondents

• Should we continue to use Mahara beyond the pilot (for staff across the partnership) – very low

response of 16; Average response was 4 (Neither agree or disagree)

• Student responses:

o Didn’t use it’s forum functionality to communicate with peers/colleagues

o Average score of 4.4 (neither agree or disagree/agree)

• Key themes from students:

o Notification emails were valued

o Good to have everything is one place

o Reduces confusion of lost papers and wasting paper

o Great technical support

o Initially found it complicated, too much information and time consuming


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 75 of 79

• Key themes from staff:

o Environmentally friendly

o Access anywhere and everything is in one place

o Great support

o Not clear where to put my sign off signature

o Time consuming

The majority of the negative issues were regarding the confusion of where signatures should be inserted and

the number of pages which caused confusion. In response to this feedback the Learning Technologists

reconfigured Mahara so that the entire portfolio was on one page with easy to open pdfs and consistency of

signature insertion was agreed across the universities. Due to the major issues being resolved to the

universities’ satisfaction they decided to continue to use Mahara as their ePortfolio for the many benefits it

brought them.

The local authorities are planning to develop their current Learning Portal to meet their specific ePortfolio

needs – scoping is currently underway.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 76 of 79

3. Board focus group

In October 2018 the TP Board (8 participants) were asked to feedback on three questions focusing on

expectations, consequences and barriers.

How did the programme meet/not meet our expectations?

Met Expectations -

• Better partnership working and positive outcome of better quality students being recruited

• Stronger relationships and partnerships

• Value in working cross agencies and improvements within agencies

• Better cross departmental (local authority) relationships

• Able to have challenging conversations

• Raised the profile of the use of research in practice

• Profile raiser in ASC for relationship based processes - hoped this would happen and it exceeded it

• AiP benefits - broke down misconceptions and created links

Did not meet expectations -

• Expected to have more SLHs – numbers of students did not allow this - so volume was lower than

expected

• This impacted on engagement of senior managers in LAs

• Some projects/groups taken more traction. The slower to start can now see positive beginnings of work

being observed

• Gap with the KSS - embedding the KSS from students to qualified. ESCC Health survey results evidence

low number of Social Workers knowing about the KSS. Not the same in BHCC as embedded in formal

corporate process

What unintended positive/negative consequences have presented themselves? and what did we do about

them (if relevant)?

Positive consequences -

• Unexpected further recruitment driver - met issue that arose in B&H with recruitment gaps so could

maximise the benefits

• Joint learning on areas in common (Inc. those outside of the TP)

• Stronger sense of what is going on in HEIs, impacts to each other, understanding of others priorities

• EBEs work was developed a lot more than expected

• Model adopted in ASC BHCC - allowed extra capacity - rose profile and brought benefits to forefront for

managers more than at ESCC

Negative consequences -

• Time it takes to get work done. Realistic expectations of what can be achieved in short time and

shrinking resources

• Gap in PEC resource slowed down what could be achieved

• Amount of time needed to put in on all sides to make things happen, such as EBE work

• No cross over with TP and other ASC training, such as for Approved Mental Health Professionals training

• Changes to peoples roles and responsibilities impacting on capacity

What barriers prevented progress?

• DFE lack of clarity about process, deadlines, budget, etc.


Evaluation Dec 2018

Page 77 of 79

• Amount of Project Manager time spent on reporting mechanisms to DFE

• Lack of interest in TP from some Heads of Service (not AD and Director Level). Gap in middle

management and acknowledgement of benefits

• Lack of time, add on to existing jobs, seen in momentum reducing in SLH and PPD

• Organisations different agendas/priorities - also a benefit that we can discuss this

• Could have been more proactive to raise our profile nationally - lack of communications capacity at the

start

south coast regional centre for social work ... - scrc-tp.org...tp teaching partnership trip...

Documents