- A properly aligned and joined up policy landscape would help to ensure that the system understands the real lives of people and families, and provides support based on need.
- Policy alignment, cohesion and coterminous initiatives are foundations on which systems, structures and services, including legislation, governance, public spending, reporting and scrutiny, can better join up.
- Where funding is focused on what matters to children and families it will improve lives. Achieving this can only be done by involving care experienced people in decisions about funding.
- Funding needs to be flexible and long-term.
- Evaluation and evidence must be used to disinvest from less effective services and support once better alternatives are available.
- Senior leaders must invest in support that
- ensures children and young people who need to be in care are, and those who don’t are not.
- ensures those in the 'care system' and leaving it have the best experience.
- builds the capabilities of young people leaving the 'care system' to navigate the adult world, such as access to mentors, peer support etc.
- The right data and intelligence must be used to make decisions. It must help to understand and improve people’s experiences, processes, and outcomes both individually and collectively.
- Numbers and data should be supplemented with qualitative information explanation.
- Data must be shared between agencies to help reduce negative impact on people from re-telling their story and on bureaucracy.
- A broader focus on risk that moves away from focusing on only short term risks will help improve longer term outcomes for care experienced people and children and families on the edges of care. There will be inherent tensions which needs collective accountability across different sectors.
- A greater focus on outcomes and experiences, rather than compliance and minimum standards is needed.
- Scrutiny bodies must include a focus on whether organisations and their leaders have worked to align their strategies and work to the promise, being clear about the ways in which they contribute.
- Scrutiny bodies must review if scrutiny leads to and enables reflection and improvement (and if it doesn’t, change the scrutiny approach).
- There are a whole host of policy areas relevant to the lives of children, families and adults in and on the edge of the ‘care system’ that are not joined up or cohesive yet are designed to support the root causes and the effects of the ‘care system’.
- It is incumbent on Scottish Government to create a cohesive policy environment so that this fragmentation does not continue to be a barrier to Scotland’s commitment to #KeepThePromise.
- Where funding is focused on addressing crisis in people’s lives, there is little resource for really addressing those things that they need to live well.
- Scotland’s funding and resources are predominantly more focused on responding to short term problems rather than preventing problems or supporting fulfilling lives.
- Where data is focused on the wrong things or is missing it gets in the way of measuring what really matters to people and for the delivery of meaningful support.
- A lot of different data is collected across Scotland’s public services, and this does not always tell us enough about the experiences of children their families and adults and can be burdensome for the workforce.
- Collecting the same data multiple times or not asking about things that will be used to make improvements, will not #KeepThePromise.
- A narrow and short-term focus on risk, means that while people may be kept safe in the short term, there is little attention to the wider impact across their lives.
- Too often scrutiny can be part of the problem, by not focusing on those things that really matter to care experienced children, young people, their families and adults, and by not being informed by the right data.
- Focusing on performance not outcomes, and using failure only to punish not learn, will not improve lives. An over focus on compliance and minimum standards will not keep the promise.
- Scottish Government must ensure that there is an implementation and monitoring plan for policies, and that policies are clearly linked to the National Outcomes Framework.
- Scottish and local governments must facilitate connection between relevant policies to be clear about the complementary contribution to achieving the promise.
- Scottish and local governments must institute regular review and evaluation of policy implementation including identifying what is working, what must be improved and other learning.
- Scottish and local governments must ensure that officials whose policy responsibilities are not solely about care experience understand their connection to the promise and how their policy area contributes.
- Senior leaders must ensure that funding is focused on what matters to children and families and what helps improve lives. They must involve young people in decisions about funding.
- Funders must ensure that funding is flexible and long-term.
- Senior leaders must use evaluation and evidence to disinvest from less effective services and support once better alternatives are available.
- Senior leaders must invest in support that
- ensures children and young people who need to be in care are and those who don’t are not
- ensures those in the 'care system' and leaving it experience it positively.
- Senior leaders must support initiatives that build the capabilities of young people leaving the 'care system' to navigate the adult world, such as access to mentors, peer support etc.
- The workforce, led by senior leaders, must use the right data and intelligence to make decisions.
- The workforce, led by senior leaders, must use data and intelligence to understand and improve people’s experiences, processes, and outcomes both individually and collectively.
- The workforce, led by senior leaders, must contextualise numbers and data with qualitative information explanation.
- The workforce, led by senior leaders, must use national statistics, if genuinely useful, to understand comparative progress but use local data and stories when they are more useful for decisions.
- Services must collect data about what happens to young people leaving care and use this data create better support.
- Data must be shared between agencies to help reduce negative impact on people from re-telling their story and on bureaucracy.
- Senior leaders must be held accountable for enabling the workforce to make decisions in the long-term interests of people and their outcomes.
- Senior leaders must ensure the workforce, including at the hyper local level, have all the data, knowledge, and skills they need to feel able to make measured decisions and mitigate longer term risks.
- The workforce, led by senior leaders, must discuss inherent tensions in risk management - there may not always be a “perfect” answer. This might help collective accountability.
- The workforce must use data and intelligence to reflect and evaluate what happens next following a risk-based decision (including if the decision had been to do nothing).
- The workforce must create ways to assess and respond to broader risks (i.e. when a person isn’t yet in crisis but needs support) – “softer” flags.
- Senior leaders must identify barriers and vested interests to improving risk management approaches and engage positively with all stakeholders including workforce representatives to co-design improvements.
- Scrutiny bodies must have a greater focus on young people’s outcomes and experiences, rather than scrutinising what they can most easily measure and on compliance.
- Scrutiny bodies must include a focus on whether organisations and their leaders have worked to align their strategies and work to the promise, being clear about the ways in which they contribute.
- Scrutiny bodies must use comparison data if it really aids improvement but also compare performance against local needs.
- Scrutiny bodies must scrutinise whether services and agencies are learning and improving especially where there are problems.
- Scrutiny bodies must review if scrutiny leads to and enables reflection and improvement (and if it doesn’t, change the scrutiny approach).
- Producing more policies and strategy as a proxy for taking real action.
- Legislation being a barrier (fear of litigation) rather than an enabler to positive outcomes.
- Siloed and short-term funding and reporting.
- Ring-fencing and bureaucracy around funding.
- Decisions that are not evidence based or that won’t improve lives.
- Collecting and reporting data that isn’t used or is not helping to make a meaningful and positive change to people’s lives.
- Collecting the same data / experiences more than once.
- Holding leaders to account for avoiding short-term risk without addressing longer-term risks.
- Using the (perceived) risk of public and press negative feedback as an excuse not to improve.
- Risk as a perverse incentive for doing the wrong thing.
- Tolerating high levels of risk in the absence of a skilled and confident workforce.
- Focus on service performance without reference to impact or outcomes.
- Focusing only on immediate measures – i.e. safety without consideration of long-term outcomes.
- Using failure by services only to punish rather than learn.
- Creating new compliance rules from one isolated bad case or example.
- Creating new governance and scrutiny approaches in favour of improving what already exists.
- Minimum standards becoming enough.