Sharon Dodd Interim Head of KIASS HeadStart Kent Sharon Dodd Interim Head of KIASS

HeadStart HS is about rethinking children emotional wellbeing and mental health Programme to explore how we build the resilience of young people in Kent. Kent one of 12 authorities asked to submit a proposal – if successful £500K to pilot models of delivery between July 2014- September 2015 able to progress through to the next stage, & bid for £10million in June 2015 Ethos of HeadStart is based on: Co-production Testing theories of change using models to build resilience Communities of practice – continuous learning and improvement Identifying how you can rethink CYP emotional wellbeing and make that systemic change £10million proposal needs to demonstrate how we will enable systemic change with delivery between January 2016- December 2020– only 6 Las will receive investment Building resilience in young people is a long term developmental process. Composed of 3 interrelated areas  reflected in the criteria from HS me family wider community Most young people are resilient due to their own endeavours or support from family and/or wider community. There are young people who learn how to become resilient despite their family or environment. Some need help to address the challenges they face in life. Universal settings – schools and families and communities – where we learn how to cope positively Some young people – in care, in chaotic families, experience trauma – negative /destructive coping strategies – ranging from self -harm to drugs, alcohol, violence,

How did we get to the pilot proposal Over 4 months we listened and worked with young people, families, voluntary sector and schools, members of the programme board, BL, REOS Researched and designed models to test that responded to young people’s views and BL criteria Included an innovation fund– curriculum and emerging ideas Explored how we could maximise impact – dovetailing programmes and initiative – ensure coherence at a local level Designed a landscape for continuous improvement Ensured we were compliant with Kent Compact Established the foundations for co-production

Reflected on…… Additive risk model – more risks means you are more likely to experience persistent mental health problems We have increasing numbers of children & young people being referred to CAMHs – increased by 18% since 2013 – in month of January 2014, 864 referrals were made To SCS – over last year we have had 20,314 consultations – up by 33% on previous year Re-referral rates to SCS, YOS, hovers around 33% NEET population – 2291 out of 2789 been NEET for longer that 6 months 15% of YP aged 5-18 will need MH services at some point in their lives – for us that equals approx. 34,293 YP with approx. 19,000 experiencing persistent problems CIC – 45% expected to have a MH problem 19% of those persistently absent from school are expected to have a MH problem. Jess has noted before that  

Theory of Change A Theory of Change is a specific and measurable description of a social change initiative that forms the basis for strategic planning, on-going decision-making and evaluation. It shows a causal pathway by linking specific interventions to be delivered to achieve the outcomes It requires you to detail the activity required to bring about change.

Questions we asked to shape our Theory of Change During the 4 month consultation we asked these questions: Within the criteria for HeadStart: How are we building resilience for all young people and with those in need? What evidence do we have of good practice – nationally and internationally? In targeted work do we: Learned helplessness or learned optimism Control risk or build protective factors Identify the change you want to see – what would make the difference? How can we measure impact Criteria for head start

What needs to change in order to achieve our goals? A common understanding that healthy development is based on nurturing, participatory relationships, grounded in trust and respect – infuses daily life and interventions Young people and families have said they want a timely personalised flexible response. Establishing and raising awareness of clear pathways of support - Young people and families want to seek solutions so that they can support themselves and each other and reach out when they need to For those who need additional support we need to see a move towards addressing root causes and strengthening protective factors or strengths of individuals and families rather than controlling risks or only addressing or symptoms Teach positive coping strategies in schools and other universal settings Systemic change–.

Long term goal = resilient young people in Kent Resilience as defined by: The opportunity for and capacity of young people in Kent – in the context of adversity - to negotiate for and navigate their own way to resources that sustain their mental health (BL) The ability for young people in Kent to be mentally strong enough to bounce back (YP)

The programme will enable…………. Resilient young people able to negotiate for and navigate their own way to resources that sustain their mental health…..and who are mentally strong enough to bounce back Demonstrated by: Reduced numbers of young people referred to CAMHS tier 2,3,4 Reduced persistent disruptive behaviour Reduce the numbers of adolescents becoming known to social care Increased sense of wellbeing Test approaches to achieve this change – within a district boundary Briefing of models

Test these models of intervention to achieve our goal Whole district approach using restorative methods of intervention and engagement Developing healthy teenagers – using the Penn State Resilience model Safe Spaces- combination of techniques including CYT, Mindfull, family intervention – group CBT Resilience mentors – using the Rochester Mentoring concept Digital – social marketing, self help, on line counselling – industrial level change

What did the BL think? One of the strongest applications Innovative, good use of models, connectedness – a coherent framework of action – strong digital solution Match funding Iterative learning through communities of practice Co-production – incredibly innovative Clearly understood the task was to enable systemic change and rethinking the way YP are supported As with other bids we will need to demonstrate how our theory of change will enable systemic change for the full 10million proposal Can change our models during the pilot if not having the impact – evidence

Co-production

Co-Production: To develop a learning culture which enables innovation, creativity and change. every opportunity to be involved in the design, delivery and review. Our programme needs to be accessible, relevant and effective. This will be a central part of the lotteries evaluation of us What have we Learnt: Accessibility Responsibilities Decision making Reward and Recognition

Shadow Board: YP see emotionally resilient 10-14 year olds are; Confident, have positive relationships. outgoing, bubbly, ambitious, actively engaged in school, optimistic about future, pride in themselves ‘shine’ bold and energetic Success is: Somewhere to go and someone to see, just pop in Tailor support to individual Knowing who to go to just one person Being treated normally Involvement needs to be practical and Active. What will Success look like in our models: Safe Mentors Safe Spaces Thanet Restorative Canterbury Digital Resilience Mentors Other ideas not in bid which young think need considering.

How will the partnership bring about Systemic Change

Board as a community of learning Our focus is to not only monitor the progress of the projects. Shape direction of travel and what will make us special – one of the 6 to get the long term investment Enablers – change champions Facilitate systemic change Model co-production - ensure the voice of young people is at the centre Model communities of practice - become actively involved n the projects and learning seminars Not be afraid of changing the programme if it is not working – experimentation model

Table discussion What would success look like – what do we need to do to enable long term change using the HS pilot as the springboard. What are the interdependencies and inter-relationship that can act as an enabler or barrier to enable change? How can the Board lead or affect this?

Measuring Success

Going forward Programme Board will receive evidence of progress and determine what will enable systemic change County programme team oversee and coordinate The local project teams and testing of the models Commissioning the delivery programme, financial compliance and monitoring Establish communities of practice with Universities Deliver the digital model Ensure co-production at county and local levels Local project teams establish logic model per district to test the models

Approach - Agile Each area will outline how the model being tested will enable Kent to meet the programme aims Establish a theory of change logic model in each locality and use outcomes chain – establish causal links Report against a logic model by using an agile approach Discussion and debate about impact with wider stakeholders in knowledge seminars – feed into the review process Board members to become actively involved in the projects –immersion in the projects Quarterly report presented at the next meeting of the adult and the young people’s board by the local leads for reflection and recommendation Working up the documentation over summer and circulated to the Board in early September and shared at the Seminar on 23rd September Give out handouts on Agile and logic model

Programme evaluation

Evaluation of HeadStart Kent : Introduction to the Evaluation Team Aims of the Evaluation Why we are evaluating? What questions do you want answered by this programme? What is the Theory of Change for this programme? 00/00/2013 Your Name

Introduction to the Evaluation Team: Evaluation of Head Start: Introduction to the Evaluation Team: Young People Ugochi Nwulu, Public Health Researcher Eileen McKibbin, Research and Evaluation Manager, Rob Comber, Monitoring and Quality Assurance Manager Jo Tonkin, Public Health Specialist 00/00/2013 Your Name

Aims of the evaluation: A. Identify/describe Head start interventions– so it is clear what ‘intervention’ is being evaluated - and establish a theory of change/logic model B. Learn from the implementation of the Head start programme C. Understand and evidence whether or not the interventions are improving emotional health and resilience , (compared to statistically similar cohort and context) D. Identify critical learning for subsequent bid and scaling up For those of you who have been involved in BL programmes before , you need to understand that this is very different – there is a real desire to test and to learn and that doesn’t always mean meeting the outcomes and being compliant with the project plan, but when it clear idea outcomes are not met we need to have a clear idea of why not. National Evaluation – this is a two stage evaluation– process evaluation – whether the theory is robust, credible link between what BL want tested and what we have in place, look at partnership working, whether the systems and processes are sound contribute to the discussion, fair to say that they are looking for innovation and ambition- really thinking outside of existing service models, this year will be action learning, iterative and require significant investment of reflexivity from you as Board members. We will have to ensure that learning is captured along the way, that there is effective feedback across the partnership and between Largely process evaluation, establishing and testing systems and processes 00/00/2013 Your Name

Stages of the evaluation: Time scale Phase September – November Development and Implementation – focus on setting up systems and ensuring data compliance – developing the culture of the programme learning December – February   Delivery – high quality and high compliant delivery of the programme and learning March – June Additional data capture learning, programme analysis and validation June – December Report and embed learning, transform and extend the programme For those of you who have been involved in BL programmes before , you need to understand that this is very different – there is a real desire to test and to learn and that doesn’t always mean meeting the outcomes and being compliant with the project plan, but when it clear idea outcomes are not met we need to have a clear idea of why not. National Evaluation – process evaluation – whether the theory is robust, credible link between what BL want tested and what we have in place, look at partnership working, whether the systems and processes are sound contribute to the discussion, fair to say that they are looking for innovation and ambition- really thinking outside of existing service models, this year will be action learning, iterative and require significant investment of reflexivity from you as Board members. We will have to ensure that learning is captured along the way, that there is effective feedback across the partnership and between Largely process evaluation, establishing and testing systems and processes 00/00/2013 Your Name

What are your indicators of success What are your indicators of success? What are the key questions that you want answering? 00/00/2013 Your Name

Commissioning Intentions