My name's Amy Hooks. I am the implementation lead at the Department for Education for the Families First Partnership programme. That includes quite a lot of the national programme work, which includes our Pathfinder local authorities, which I'll touch on a bit in this presentation, as well as our sort of comms and engagement approach and how we set the expectations for local authorities. And a series of other things that I won't, I won't list off here, but all the sort of national cross cutting, uh, approach of the programme. 

If you could just move on to the first slide, please. Whoever's sharing the slides, thank you very much. 

I thought it'd be useful, just give a brief overview. I'm not intending to hopefully speak for ages, it's because I'm not a huge fan of, of monologuing and I want a bit of time for Q&A [question and answer] and I'll have to drop off by half 10. I do have a couple of colleagues with me on the call as well who can be part of the Q&A if they've got other answers to me.

But I thought I'd give a brief overview of the programme just so we're all sort of like starting at the same point. So the Families First Partnership Programme is a national programme that's led by the DfE [Department for Education]. Funding for the programme is being provided to local authorities via the Local Government Funding Settlement. That's over 2 billion over this parliament, including in that is 520 through, it's actually 541, as of August million pounds this year, for the Families First Partnership programme that's ring fenced for that transformation. 

There are three key strands of the programme. So fam... the rollout of family help, multi-agency child protection teams and increased use of family networks. And essentially we're asking local areas to redesign their services at that sort of a target, early help children in need end of the system to encompass the expectations that we've set out in our national guide.

But with local flexibility, and that's sort of where the co design and family voice comes into the process. Lots of previous work has gone on in this space because most, most notably at the bottom of the page. A lot of the work from the Supporting Families programme which run from 2011 until this year as a sort of focused programme on supporting, supporting families as the title says. A lot of that learning has gone into the design for the national rollout of Families First. 

And also about three years ago we started our Families First for Children Pathfinder programme following the Independent Care Review, which was initially three local authorities and then seven more a year later who sort of worked very close to the department to design the specification and start testing these reforms, which are now been rolled out nationally.

So that is just to give a bit of a brief overview of the programme and what we're aiming to do through it. If you could move me onto the next slide. Thank you very much.

We've been really clear with local areas that this year specifically is transformation year. We know local areas are in different starting places, will have different elements of their service that they want to sort of like look at and redesign. And we also know that the way the funding has been allocated is not sort of an equal amount to each local authority. So we're, we're aware of that. And that there'll be different like partnership arrangements, et cetera, locally that we need to take into account as we are beginning transformation.

We have been clear as part of this, and the sort of expectation of transformation year that co-design is at the core of what local areas do this year. So working with safeguarding partners, with children and families in a local area to design services based on the national specification, but how that can look locally and how that can be set up locally.

So, I think, I mean we'll be through the whole of the rollout of this programme we are pretty like prudent now, I guess for us as a department to be having these conversations and really making clear that expectation around it's... we don't expect anyone to sort of just pick up what Pathfinder has done or pick up what the national guide says and do exactly that locally. It's about designing these services, including with local children and families to ensure it works for local areas. Next slide please. Thank you. 

As we've sort of learned and worked really closely, like side by side with our pathfinders over the last two or three years, there's been several sort of things that we think are key activities for this first year of the programme. 

So I won't list them all off and as we've said, we'll share these slides, people can sort of read what we think those key activities are. But I guess just to draw out like the completion of a population needs assessments so that services systems are designed to local needs, co-designing across the safeguarding partnerships with police health, education, and co-designing with children and young people, families, communities have been sort of that core to what our pathfinders have done and the model they've taken. 

And I think probably the useful ones to bring out for this, this group of people. But there are some additional things there that we think are core to this first year of transformation of the reforms. Next slide, please. 

So I imagine I'm probably telling a lot of people on this call stuff they already know if I just read this sign, but this study is just sort of to bring to life and things we've done with Pathfinders to help us identify some of the key principles for effective co-design. Be interested in views when we have time for reflections and discuss... discussion. 

So planning like early and sufficient time for engagement with, uh, individuals, avoiding reliance on the same individuals or groups, um, offering flexible formats, so sort of in person different times, different locations to ensure you have a good range of voices making materials accessible, showing things in advance, et cetera. 

Showing I guess quite importantly how like the sort of cycle of co design then influences and shapes services and how that has fed into the final product. 

This is obviously not a exhaustive list. We put some of this in one of our how to guides that we did with Pathfinders, which were about implementation, sort of tips and models to take. But we wouldn't say this was an exhaustive list or that it needs to be done in a sort of prescribed steps to take or specific order and it will need to be like built, um, in a local area and influenced the local design in that way.

And then I was just on the last slide please, before I stop for any Q&A, I was just going to bring like a couple of, and there's lots more examples to this and if people on the call are interested, I'm sure we can think about, well I say this, the team might say 'No we can't' but I'm sure we can think about how we can actually share other examples and best practice that we're seeing in this space if it's useful for people on this call. 

But so yeah, just a couple of examples from a couple of our pathfinders. So Wolverampton, which one of our wave one pathfinders worked with 25 families with a broad set of diverse experiences to co-produce their plan for their reforms. They had a ‘Families on Board’ group as it's called with young people who met fortnightly to like feed into the reforms and help co-produce the design. And then they also had a Guardian forum, which was a group of parents and carers who met fortnightly to input as well.

So several different avenues that they used to sort of design these reforms with the local population. And then differently, but on a similar vein, like Lewisham, one of our wave two pathfinders, so joined the programme sort of a year or so after the wave ones, they focused on the continued development of their materials with families and young people.

So they created a family friendly 'One Assessment' document and various others like consent forms, and information for parents, et cetera, and used that like continuously used, uh, their, uh, groups to like feed into that and influence what the final products were and iterate, et cetera. 

But there are just two examples of many, I just want to read lots out, but sort of show how some of that comes to life.

So that's just a brief overview. We're going to step back a little bit now and just kind of consider, um, some of the, the broader kind of, um, theoretics around the, the role of voice and information. Um, so Grace, could we get the slides back up? Lovely, thank you. Um, and onto the next one. 

So just over the next kind of, uh, 20 minutes, we'll look at the, um, some of the, the, the background and the justification framework around voice and we'll then we'll pick up on some concrete examples, um, some case studies, which will hopefully start to chime with some of those really, um, practical questions that were, and experiences that were just being shared. And then we will have that space for, uh, for discussion sharing experiences. It seems like there is a lot in the room, um, and we'd love to, to be able to give a good amount of time to that. 

So, of course, embedding voice is not something new at, uh, in, in practice. Um, we know that embedding voice and systems design and transformation does have to go beyond simple consultation. It really involves that commitment to actively listen and integrate diverse perspectives at all stages of systems design and operational implementation. And that includes the voices of children, young people, parents, carers, practitioners, managers, and other professionals as well as the wider community. And, uh, not forgetting, of course, the voluntary and community sector, of course. 

So embedding voice and systems design and transformation is really essential for creating that inclusive, transparent, ethical systems that really prioritise human centred values, equity and sustainability. And it can be a mechanism to ensure that systems are not only functional, but accountable and responsive. And I think in the context of the Families First transformation as well, and an early earlier intervention model that we're seeing that responsiveness kind of, really, um, rises to the top in terms of importance as well. 

So how can we make our systems responsive, uh, to needs? So I'm just going to go into that a little bit further on the next slide. Um, thank you, Grace. 

So we can see voices as many different things, but we're going to break it down into, into five kind of key points here before talking about where it's situated in terms of information more broadly. 

So it can be voice as a foundation for democratic and just systems. As I mentioned before, voice isn't only about listening, it's about the redistribution of access, agency and power. So it really promotes that information democracy to ensure that decisions about children, families, and communities are shaped by those who live, uh, in them and the con... consequences of them. 

So by embedding those diverse perspectives in design and governance, we can move towards local systems that address systemic disadvantage, move beyond that narrow reliance on quantitative indicators towards qualitative insights and redress whose voices are heard, uh, as well.

The second point, voice as a driver of trust, transparency, and accountability. So voice really fosters that trustworthiness and how information is gathered, interpreted, and acted upon. 

So when local... We know that when local systems establish participatory structures, such as some of the, the examples that we heard in Wolverhampton and Lewisham and we will hear moving forward around youth panels, learning networks, um, governance is enhanced by embedding accountability mechanisms that are co-designed with diverse stakeholders.

It also creates transparency in the process and strengthens shared ownership of that transformation process. So that kind of golden thread of voice, the linkage between voice and, uh, trust is really important here. And again, reflecting on that early intervention model and the importance of trusted relationships in, um, in service engagement. 

The third point, as voice as a step towards relational human-centred practice. So again, at the heart, at its heart transformation is about those relationships. And so including voice, uh, can really ensure that relational, respectful, and human centred, um, service design and implementation.

Therefore it can keeps, uh, decision making rooted in lived experience, encourages systems to design around care, um, prevents a drift towards overly technocratic processes.

Um, and so, uh, moving on to the fourth point there, voices and ethical compass as well. So it isn't just participatory, it's ethical as well, recognising the expertise of children, families, and practitioners in their own lives, which is helpful to promote that, uh, reflective professionalism. It grounds decision making in both evidence and empathy, but it also importantly builds that culture of integrity. 

And then finally, um, voice is a bridge for understanding and informed consent as well. So it's a core principle of that ethical transformation process is that, um, families, young people, understand how information inputs are being used. So the incorporation of voice into the transformation process can help children, young people and families make sense of how, um, that information is collected and processed. Um, but it can also make accountability tangible. The 'We said, you did' uh, or, um 'You said, we did' and how that has changed.

So situating voice within a kind of broader theoretical, uh, framework around information use. We can move on to the next slide, what the Children's Information Project has been doing.... Um, sorry, Grace, if we could go on to the next one. Thank you.

Um, we've been, the, the research teams have been working with those four local authorities to develop a common framework for effective information use, which incorporates key design features and practices, um, which have been identified through literature and through the intensive field work as essential dimensions of effective information use and voice is a key component of this. 

This framework that you can see on the right-hand side is really intended to serve as a common definition to articulate what ethical and effective information use means in practice.

And there are eight areas of practice that have really been, um, that have, that have risen to the top, um, to support implementation with two systems enablers - those on the side. 

So I'll just walk through these and then give a couple of examples of... in the pilot areas how the these practices have been implemented. So, um, whilst these are kinda distinct, uh, coloured, uh, bubbles, they're all interrelated. 

Um, so the practices that have surfaced are importance of theory of change, of having an outcomes oriented, uh, framework to be able to understand information. 

Drawing from national data sets as well, making sure that we're using broad sources of local information in, uh, parallel with or in collaboration with national data. 

Bringing voice into co design. That's what we're talking about today. Enhancing voice and information in aggregate and s... and strategic reporting. 

Improving voice in operational information use as well as components of mapping the system and mapping in information. 

And it's these two, um, systems enablers on either side in infrastructure and governance and behaviours and culture, which interconnect with these practices. 

So this framework is really just to situate how we might place voice within that broader information use approach.

And on the next slide, just a couple of concrete examples to kind of bring that to life in North Yorkshire in terms of enhancing voice and information in aggregate and strategic reporting systems. They've been developing a care leave... care leaver measures of success dashboard, which directly inserts that qualitative voice information of care leavers. When we're looking at improving voice in operational use, we've got two examples here - in Hampshire where they, there's been the development of voice notes to ensure parents' voice are represented in referrals, and in Oldham they've been developing ways of prioritising parents and practitioner voice as well as more holistic information.

So just to, uh, wrap up on the next slide, thinking about transformation without voice and what the risks might be. So this is by no means exhaustive and if there are any other thoughts about what transformation without voice might, uh, might result in, um, but I'll just run us through.

We,we might end up with designs that don't meet those real needs. So services misaligned with family realities leading to poor uptake and ineffective interventions. 

Linked to that, we may see also implementation failure where there could be resistance, um, or uneven practice.

Sustainability is also a key, uh, risk. Without voice, it might be that reforms depend on this kind of top down compliance power dynamic. Um, which of course fades once that funding can bracket, um, or mandate comes to an end, resulting in that it kind of a lack of that real cultural shift that this, um, this transformation is trying to achieve. 

We also might see missed learning opportunities without those feedback loops, without that voice in the feedback loop, we might see those kind of, inefficient inefficiencies or unaddressed service gaps. 

And also importantly, the erosion of relational practice. So removing that voice prioritises process over people.

Um, and then finally as well, another key risk is the reinforcement of systemic inequalities. Um, and that in, um, that the process could in fact lead to increased, uh, inequalities if we're not listening, um, to, to families and young people. 

To talk you through some practical examples of what people are doing. 

So we have looked a little bit further afield because the Families First programme is relatively new. We looked a little bit broader just to see what is already happening in the sector and hoping to sort of convey a little bit about what's already been done and how, and I know that there's a lot of experience in the room as well. We're gonna bring some of that in, into the breakout rooms, um, after I finish my presentation. 

I should note as well that the examples that I'm going to share, they're not connected to the Children's Information Project. We did look further afield. We just thought that these ones were really quite nice examples and gave a good cross section of, of what's actually happening and how people are doing things. Can I have the next slide, please, Grace? 

So the first example is the work that Rochdale has done with the Council for Disabled Children. And what they did was they developed a strategic outcomes framework and an integrated SEND [Special Educational Needs and Disabilities] system. So they wanted to shift from an outcome, sorry an outputs focused system to an outcomes focused system. And really the goal is to stop measuring success by what services were delivered and to start thinking about the actual difference that was made to children's lives. 

So they, um, in terms of how they did this, it wasn't a top-down exercise. It was a, a process that was guided by outcomes-based accountability principles with a commitment to co-design. And the first thing that they did was they built a comprehensive understanding of what the need was. And this involved a full joint strategic needs assessment, and they mapped out all of the existing provisions to find what was working well and what was working not so well. 

Um, most crucially, they brought voice directly into the design. They involved over 60 children and young people with SEND and around 40 parents and carers to better understand what their lived experience was. And they also brought in the multi-agency partners as well to think about how the system was functioning in terms of the way people were working and the information flows and those sorts of things.

So it wasn't just consultation, it was true co-design. And the feedback from these groups, they directly shaped, um, an outcomes framework where there was seven final outcomes statements and for example, a theme, um, sorry, the, the children and young people really shaped this.

An example of that is a theme where one outcome was called 'voice,' and that was redefined by the groups to be called 'My opinions are valued.' It's a really small but very significant change, and it was about being more inclusive of non-verbal children. So language has a big part of this as well.

So in terms of what happened next... So what do you then do with these outcomes? So the seven co-design outcomes became the foundation for how they moved forward and how the system was designed. So they created a logic model and sort of work backwards from the outcomes to define the specific activities and outputs that were needed. And thought about what the workforce training needs and service redesign might need to look like as a result of that.

They also built a multi-agency data dashboard. This was quite, quite key. It integrates data from health and social care and education into one central repository, and it allows them to track progress against the outcome. So it, it helps them to understand whether things are going well or not. And this enabled quite proactive action.

So for example, they redefined the dynamic support register, which is a system that identifies children at risk of inpatient admission. And they did this so that they could identify where people needed support before a crisis actually happened. And they also used the framework to review and enhance, um, the EHCP [Education, Health and Care Plan] templates as well, and make sure that the children's voice and aspirations were captured effectively. 

So these outcomes became an anchor point for redefining a lot of the systems. And the big impact that this had was, um, a lot of it was around culture. So people were thinking about their, the ways of working in a different way, and they, it created cultural foundations for an integrated data informed and outcomes focused SEND system. 

The seven co-designed outcomes became the golden thread and became a, a shared vision for all services. And they really sort of sent this around one central question and that, um, is, is anyone better off? So I thought that was a really nice example for you to share. There's a link there if you want to go and look at the full case study after the session, but let's go to the next example. 

And it was Sefton, and what Sefton did... so they looked at their complaints process. So their goal was to create a system that is restorative user-friendly and efficient. But more than that, the aim was to build a system that actually actively listens to families, embeds a culture of continuous learning and critically ensures statutory compliance.

This project was built around three objectives, and that was to manage complaints within legal timescales with robust tracking and reporting.

And then secondly, to place people, families, families and young people, most importantly at the, at the heart of service design and decision making.

And thirdly, to improve accessibility and making sure everyone understands how the process works, because part of their learning was that their complaints process was really difficult for people to understand and information wasn't necessarily getting to where it needed to get to. 

So in terms of how they did this, they started with a discovery phase and they engage directly with parents, carers, young people, and the workforce through mixed methods approach, through existing forums, but also setting up workshops, using surveys and doing listening sessions as well. 

And this voice first approach really quickly identified the core problems, which were inconsistent practice a complex and inaccessible process and a lack of confidence from families, um, and young people that their feedback would actually lead to any change.

So this struck a chord with Sefton and they redesigned aspects of their system and the, this is a work in progress as well. I should mention as well, this is an ongoing project. They're introducing a pre-compliant, um, sorry, pre-complaint conversations. This is, um, a new and restorative step that directly, um, works with people who are unhappy. It redirects them to a manager. And the idea is that there is an early resolution before it becomes a formal complaint. So working with people about how things can be better before it becomes formal.

They also piloted a drop-in clinic, which is a way to really just see, see families face to face and hear their concerns, because that was another aspect of the complaints process, were that they learned that people felt like it was, um, they never got to really speak to anyone.

So in terms of how this worked, um, to support this new culture, they had to build a new information infrastructure, and first they established a single point of entry. The idea was to fix the inconsistencies by ensuring that all complaints are logged and tracked centrally instead of a disparate system with different people.

And also they developed an inquiry tracker and this tracks the themes and responses for all, um, service inquiries, not just formal complaints. So it provides data to address concerns proactively before they escalate and become, um, more entrenched problems.

And finally, co-designing a new user-friendly process, sort of set of flow charts with, um, children, young people and families and staff. And the idea is to visually explain a process that was once very, very confusing. So it's actually about simplifying it and making it feel much more accessible to people who were actually using it. And the impact of all of this was, um, it's still a work in progress, as I said, but it's already showing impact on how information can be used to improve how things are done. For example, there was, they found that around 36% of care experienced young people didn't actually know that they were able to access advocacy. 

And what they did was they flipped this system around and they're launching a system where all children are automatically enrolled and they're delivering it now as an opt-out process where, um, they can make the choice about whether they want it instead of just not actually knowing that it's available to them. 

So that's kind of a, a simple switch to make. They've also launched some new strategic forums like the Care Council and a Young Person's Group, and this allows young people to have a forum so that they can participate more and share their views.

So Sefton is building a system where voice is no longer just collected. It's actually about gathering, analysing, and using voice in ways that really shape the way that the service works. 

Moving on to the next one. Grace, can we have the next slide please? 

This, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the use of technology. So we know that capturing voice is really quite difficult and we've got a situation where we can capture voice when we're trying to do system design, but how do we actually do that really well on an ongoing basis? 

And, and I think that we're at a stage where technology is becoming very accessible for people. It's, it's become a very normal way for people to communicate. And, um, I thought it's worth us sort of just touching on what's available, um, out there.

So traditional methods, like formal consultation meetings and surveys and things like that, or just asking a child 'What do you think?' in a room full of professionals. It can be intimidating or tokenistic or a bit ineffective. We're not sort of capturing a genuine empowered voice. We're capturing a reflection of a flawed process where it, it fits sort of into a, a, a little box. When we're using technology, we're able to, um, think outside the box a little bit. 

So some local authorities are looking at how apps can help. For example, Birmingham and other local authorities are using apps like the Mind of My Own app. It's an app that enables young people to express their views to their care team. They can use it to prepare for meetings and request a change in their care or to ask for a problem to be sorted out. It works by prompting them to... they just give their views and it, it's done in a way that is just much more engaging and attuned to the way that young people tend to communicate these days.

But as, as with any technology, it's not a silver bullet. It doesn't solve all of our problems. In fact, it actually can create problems as well. We have to be quite clear-eyed about the challenges. So things like digital poverty are a concern. Does the young person have access to a device or do they have reliable connectivity and do they have the digital literacy to be able to use the app? 

There may also be concerns around trust and surveillance. So do, do apps feel like a surveillance tool or do they, um, you know, feel genuinely like a two way form of communication?

And we also have to think about accessibility as well. So tech isn't for everyone. We almost, we always need to think about, um, you know, the different abilities that children and families have in terms of, um, technology, but also their communication needs too. And we have to think about what impact technology can have on our relationship. So will our traditional face-to-face approaches still be valued and resourced if we shift to a technology based system? And do we risk losing the communi... the human component of social work in communication if we do become overly reliant on digital solutions?