Author: Lisa Pattoni

Posted on

We need solutions! Or do we…?

639365_63688651

I’ve been reading a lot recently about the need for new ideas and solutions to problems in social services – it is a fact that we can’t get away from.

However, the challenges we are facing in social services are those which require an understanding of a multitude of aspects of people’s lives and society as a whole. Our social systems and structures are increasingly complex which often means that it is difficult to define the ‘problem’ or the ‘issue’ at hand – so how possible, then, is it to come up with a solution?

I am reminded of this when writing a document in collaboration with the I&I team. A colleague commented on what was written by saying “we shouldn’t write ‘solutions’ – it implies that there is one ‘answer – a ‘holy grail’ to be found”. It got me to thinking – are we, in social services, sitting waiting on someone else to come up with the answers?

In reality, the context we work in requires the capability to continually address issues by developing and redeveloping practices which keep the person (and their outcomes) at the centre. This is a process led view which inevitably poses a way of thinking which is flexible and which iteratively addresses problems that naturally ‘live’ and ‘change’ continuously [1]. It becomes less about recognising fixed solutions and more about creating spaces in which responses can be explored that will lead to better outcomes.

If we take this proposition to its conclusion, if we really are saying that there is no ‘answer’ or ‘right way’ then we have to think about whether or not ‘scale’ of our ideas or innovations is achievable. Scaling up can be described as, “the practice of introducing proven interventions into new settings with the goal of producing similarly positive side effects in larger, more diverse populations” [2].  Perhaps it makes more sense, in our complex context, to then work on ‘scaling’ our processes and approaches to innovation?

For instance, there may be elements of a response like process, tools, leadership style etc. that are needed to help embed new ideas. However thought needs to be put into this ‘re-potting’ of one idea in one context to another, what will work in that environment and what may not?  It’s my emerging view that ‘context is king’ and I have the suspicion that perhaps in the context of social services, it is locally tailored responses that reflect and draw upon the assets of the local community that will be the future. We can borrow ideas from other places, but nearly always the component developments will need to be specifically located in the local area.

However, I’m happy to be wrong. Are there good examples of social innovations that maintain their substance across contexts? What makes these innovations the same or different from place to place?

[1] Christiansen J and Bunt L (2012) Innovation in Policy: allowing for creativity, social complexity and uncertainty in public governance. Nesta: mindlab

[2] McDonald S K, Keesler, V A, Kauffman NJ and Schneider B (2006) Scaling up exemplary interventions, Educational Researcher, 35.

Posted on

Circles of Care

We welcome guest contributors to this blog. Today’s post comes from Lauren Johnston at STRADA (Scottish Training on Drugs and Alcohol). Lauren’s example highlights an innovation to her sector.

She has outlined how her organisation are supporting others to trial a ‘circles of care’ approach to support. More than that, though, her work also highlights the value of 1). testing things out 2). using knowledge from elsewhere to inform new practice development 3). how taking a strengths based approach can transform the relationships between people being supported and those who provide support – all stuff that is right up our street!

Thanks Lauren for your contribution – looking forward to reading more in September!

—————

Melting the Iceberg of Scotland’s drug and alcohol problem: Report of the Independent Enquiry (2010) identified the need to develop a whole-population approach as a response to help tackle Scotland’s drug and alcohol problem and to develop a Circle of Care concept.  The concept aims to empower the focus person (service user) by allowing them to explore their needs and identify the support they require from services to help them in their recovery. The focus person also identifies their recovery capital to become part of their Circle of Care. Recovery capital is another term for personal/social assets and can include family, partners, friends, peers, volunteers, community resources. A facilitator, typically a professional, works alongside the focus person supporting them with the process. This style of working requires a shift in power between the professional and service user – where the professional guides and facilitates choices and decision making allowing the focus person to lead.

STRADA are currently developing a Circle of Care approach with a range of statutory and voluntary drug and alcohol organisations across Scotland.  Circle based approaches have a strong evidence base in a range of health and social settings including learning disabilities, sex offending and homelessness.   Currently there is little evidence to suggest that circle based approaches work in the field of substance misuse.  STRADA are therefore coordinating a ‘Proof of Concept’ phase to test the applicability of circle based approaches within this area.

The aims of the ‘Proof of Concept’ phase are in line with the Scottish Government Road to Recovery agenda and Supporting the Development of Scotland’s Alcohol and Drug Workforce statement.  The aims are;

  • to gather sufficient evidence in relation to the delivery of recovery outcomes and the operational and practice coherence to allow Circle of Care to be a validated and accepted approach.
  • to use evidence to help scale up Circle of Care through the medium of workforce development.  This is turn will help to change culture in the workforce and support the development of new skills.

Circle of Care is not an intervention but a different approach to working with people who are affected by substance misuse.  As practitioners, we have identified that the support network of individuals who are in recovery consist largely of professionals and services.  However, it is just as crucial that other members such as family, friends, and peers become part of that network to support the individual re-integrate into the wider community.

Thus far, facilitators have used various techniques and tools to help the focus person identify their recovery capital including ecomaps, genograms and mind-maps.  However, it would be useful to draw upon a tool which has evaluated in a similar setting and has positive outcomes.  Personal Asset Mapping (PAM) and the WITTY app are both useful tools to integrate into Circle of Care to help the focus person identify their recovery capital or social assets.  STRADA intend to discuss this tool with the Co-Production group members and explore the possibility of integrating the tool into the Circle of Care training module which will be available in 2014.

The diagram below highlights exactly where PAM and the WITTY app could be introduced into the Circle of Care process.


The evaluation of the ‘Proof of Concept” phase is underway and a report will be available in September 2013 which will outline the learning and development which has taken place across the 6 host organisations. If you would like further information about Circle of Care or would like to receive newsletters please contact the Circle of Care Coordinator: Lauren Johnston via email; l.johnston@projectstrada.org

Posted on

Radical vs. Incremental
 not that old chestnut?

It is continually recognised that the current economic climate requires new ideas and creativity to maintain and achieve quality support for people using social services. In social services, we are constantly told that ‘more of the same won’t work’, we have to ‘do more with less’ and that what is necessary are ‘ever-more innovative ways of providing social care that both meets the needs of the user and is at a lower cost’ (Christie, 2011[1]).

Right, so we need to innovate then.

But what do we mean by this? Are we expecting the emergence of an army of new social entrepreneurs? Are we expecting people to innovate alongside maintaining the status quo within their own organisations and environments? Some other combination?

For the past day or so, I’ve been struggling against my inner pragmatist to sit, reflect, and write down my thoughts about just two questions:

What is innovation in the social services sector?

What could it be?

Questions, you might think, that would be relatively simple to answer.

It would be easy to rhyme off a number of definitions and dichotomies from leading scholars and practitioners alike. We could get into theoretical debates about the difference between radical and incremental innovation, disruptive and continuous, what makes social innovation ‘social’ (more on that in another blog, I think). But what I’m interested in, really, is what this means practically for people on the ground.  What it means for the practitioners working tirelessly day in and out to support people, for the middle managers who are being pulled in 101 different directions and for us, as an intermediary trying to build the capacity of the workforce so that they can have ideas and create an environment where those ideas can flourish.

One thing we know about innovation is that it is complex, it’s not-linear and it’s messy. It can start with a genius idea from a practitioner, it can start with a problem or policy and it can start with a need. Depending on where and how it starts greatly depends on the ease with which the idea will be implemented in practice (sorry!).  The system that we have set up for social services in Scotland scarcely allows incremental change, never mind radical change (Duffy, 2013 – forthcoming). Therefore I’ve long since thought that radical innovation happens more easily on the fringes of systems – from the ‘outside-in’.

The current policy focus is that which is seeking radical innovation. Everyone gets excited about brand new or emerging ideas, radical projects or interventions that have been thought up that will revolutionise the way we work.  These are all great (excellent, in fact) but they will likely come across a number of difficulties when we get to embed them within the system. When adding new ideas into an existing system it is usual that it will be difficult for that system to yield to what it is the new idea has to offer. Implementing these types of ideas will demand that people who use services, practitioners and those higher up the chain have a perspective which is comfortable with ambiguity and not afraid to get things wrong.  All entirely possible. All very exciting. It’s the ‘how’ that intrigues me.

More recently, thinkers in the area (see for example, Mulgan, 2013[2]) are beginning to highlight that innovation may be more likely to come from connecting the dots between a range of different things, putting commonplace ideas together and making connections between them. Cleaning up a system which incorporates lots of different ideas can be innovative itself without any particularly novel components. These everyday innovations are vital, and we should not lose focus on them. These are the types of innovations that may be more likely to get taken up in practice, but they so rarely get the glory.

At IRISS, we are interested in understanding what works to enable effective implementation of both these approaches. In particular, we are interested in exploring how an idea becomes embedded in practice, how you stop doing what you were doing before, and how you share what went well and what didn’t.

For both types of innovation, though, we know that there is a need to remain outward facing. If ideas are a new mixture of old(ish) elements, it is important to constantly expand our experiences and horizons and expose ourselves to the ‘new’ and ‘different’. There is much that we can learn from what is happening on our doorstep, or round the corner, even, but we aren’t always conscious of what is there as we get caught up in the distraction of our own organisation, lives and situation.

And that is one reason that we have created this blog. It is all too easy for us at IRISS to stay behind the desk, get our heads down and never look up. But we won’t. We know that others are exploring and grappling with key concepts in this field and we want to learn and share our thoughts and ideas as well as hear from others – hear from you. We also know that there are enough of us that want to change and make a difference and we believe that that change is entirely possible.

We hope to use this space to encourage debate, discussion and to greet guest bloggers – so get in touch; we’d love to hear from you.

More soon.

[1] Christie Commission (2011) Commission on the future delivery of public services, Edinburgh: Scottish Government
[2] Mulgan 2013 podcast: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/geoff-mulgan-achieving-more-less-innovators-catalyst)