[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

The Development of Integrated Community Schools in Scotland

Chapter 2: Leadership and management of the initiatives

2.1 Leadership, policy and planning

Leadership was most effective when managers at all levels in partner organisations shared common vision, values and goals, and a commitment to the concept of ICS. In good practice, ICS initiatives were clearly linked to objectives in community plans, children's services plans, joint health improvement plans and national priorities. Where service managers and partner organisations had established agreed vision and values, and gave clear leadership, there was effective integrated policy development and planning.

However, more could be done in most authorities and boards in establishing a shared sense of leadership among senior managers in partner organisations. Chief executives did not always give a strong enough lead in promoting joint working. In the most effective authorities and boards, there was collaboration between senior managers of the different services and all partners within clusters were involved in the formation of the project submissions. Some felt that the timescales allowed by the Scottish Executive for project submissions were too short to allow full involvement of all partners in the planning process.

Authorities had developed their corporate responsibility for planning children's services in line with the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. In the best practice, ICS planning took account of Children's Services Plans to avoid duplication and to share objectives. Planning was most effective where senior managers did not view the initiative as an 'add-on' but as a sustainable core development or a framework to bring together a range of related developments. Some positive developments in, for example, out-of-school care and learning, and health promotion could have been brought more systematically into the ICS initiative. The lack of co-terminous arrangements for service deployment, particularly with regard to local authorities and health boards, was not always well managed.

As the ICS initiatives were being developed across authorities there was growing evidence of more strategic leadership in budget and resource management. Budgets in the first year in almost all the initiatives had been used to appoint staff, to purchase equipment or to carry out adaptations to accommodation. Arrangements to distribute funds were most often through a bidding scheme, although the criteria for evaluating bids were sometimes unclear. Despite this, a number of innovative activities had been developed through the imaginative use of resources. A few authorities had been pro-active in addressing the need for more corporate working and some had been successful in obtaining funding from private companies for specific initiatives. Overall, however, there was a need for authorities to ensure that partners worked together with a common sense of purpose to achieve agreed objectives for sustainable provision. Authorities and partners argued that short-term funding arrangements for a range of Scottish Executive initiatives had, to some extent, constrained their ability to commit to firm plans over the longer-term.

In almost all of the clusters reviewed, the lead role for operational responsibility lay with an Integration Manager or equivalent post. Integration Managers had key roles in ensuring the effective development of the initiatives at a local level. All were highly committed but their impact varied. In the few elements of good practice seen, Integration Managers had well-defined management roles along with the necessary delegated responsibility to ensure fully effective decision making and deployment of resources. In addition, attention had been given to supporting their development needs.

Integration Managers were often seen by teaching staff and some headteachers as having sole responsibility for the success of the initiative within the cluster schools. There was a clear need for staff in schools and other partner organisations to take greater ownership of the initiative. Impact was most effective where the Integration Managers had established constructive working relationships with headteachers and effective multi-agency working.

Some authorities were moving to appoint Integration Managers at higher directorate levels where they would have responsibility for developing joint working in a substantial number of clusters. Another approach was to add responsibility for cluster development to the remit of a number of senior management staff in a secondary school. In good practice, the officers responsible for cluster development held strategic management positions within the authority with dedicated time which enabled them to empower inter-agency working, to manage the use and deployment of resources, to disseminate an agreed vision for ICS and to carry out rigorous quality assurance of the impact of implementation.

All of the initiatives reviewed had set up a local steering group to oversee ICS developments at a strategic level. In almost all cases an operational management group consisting of senior managers from each of the partner organisations had also been established. However, the strategic and operational responsibilities of these groups were sometimes not well defined and often did not include representation from the voluntary sector, police, young people, parents and other members of the community. In the best practice, the groups met regularly to agree joint tasks and to provide clear leadership and policy guidance to ensure the development of shared vision and values. Some groups did not become mainstreamed due to the lack of long-term funding or the transfer of ICS staff to different posts at the end of the pilot initiatives.

Some headteachers made good contributions to leading and managing clusters. Where there was a strong sense of partnership among headteachers in a cluster, there was evidence of good leadership and effective curriculum development and, to a lesser extent, effective learning and teaching approaches. In the few elements of good practice there was clear mapping of existing provision and a shared understanding of the aims of the initiative so that existing good practice contributed to the stated objectives of a cluster. There were some effective examples of clusters and schools having developed a clear set of shared aims and objectives linked to authority, partner agency and national policies. A number of clusters and schools were benefiting from enhanced access to the resources and expertise of other agencies. This was most effective where joint audit and planning led to the effective identification and agreement of targets for improvement.

At primary school and pre-school levels in particular there were some examples of effective planning, through partnership with parents, to incorporate
out-of-school hours care and learning activities. There was a growing recognition by partner organisations of the potential of these activities to support the key aims of their ICS initiative.

In the few examples of good practice, targets stated by authorities in their ICS prospectus documents were reflected in cluster, school or local ICS plans. In some cases, Integration Managers, clusters, schools and other key partners had not always used these documents as a basis for measuring progress.

The eight ICS Clusters visited during this review were located within the geographical boundaries of six National Health Service (NHS) Boards. In Scotland, 8 of the 15 NHS Boards relate to more than one local authority area. From a strategic planning perspective there were advantages in terms of capacity and cohesion when NHS Boards and local authorities were co-terminous. Where there was strong leadership for the Community Planning process, partner organisations had a greater understanding of the different systems in operation, and this resulted in a more cohesive approach to the planning and delivery of ICS initiatives.

NHS involvement was limited primarily to health-promotion departments, school nursing managers and staff, health visitors, public-health practitioners and community dieticians. These staff made a valuable contribution to achieving ICS objectives. The delivery of these services through an ICS approach was recognised within the NHS as one of the primary strategies for achieving national and local targets for health and social justice. Other NHS staffs' awareness of, and involvement with, ICS was more limited. There was little evidence of ICS being reflected in General Practitioner practice development plans. A few examples of good practice in engagement with existing NHS monitoring and evaluation systems were seen.

Social work services were involved to variable extents at a number of levels in the ICS initiative. Most of the social work departments had long-standing commitments to multi-agency working and to community involvement. However, their involvement in ICS developments was often hampered by staff shortages. Senior social work managers were generally members of ICS steering groups and made some contributions to policy making and planning at this level. In the best practice, their contributions resulted in clear leadership and direction for the integrated delivery of agreed ICS objectives. In some authorities, social workers and care staff made valuable contributions to planning and delivering ICS services at cluster level. Where practice was good, they worked effectively with teachers and staff from partner services to assess and meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people. In many cases, however, there was a need for improved planning by senior managers and by Joint Assessment and Support Teams to ensure best use of the often limited numbers of social work staff.

In a few clusters the involvement of schools with community police, and of police in ICS management group meetings, had led to constructive links with a range of support agencies and with school staff. This had helped to address problems and issues through more effective use of resources and joint working.

Many voluntary agencies had been involved in local projects to support vulnerable children. There was a need to give greater consideration to the role of voluntary agencies in planning and delivering ICS services in clusters.

2.2 The provision and management of staff

Staffing levels had been enhanced as a result of direct funding of the ICS initiatives. In almost all of the ICS clusters, staffing levels and staff's professional backgrounds had been appropriate to support the initial aims of the pilot projects. The dedicated ICS teams generally developed a strong sense of teamwork and an awareness of each other's roles and responsibilities. However, the sustainability of staffing levels was an issue in a number of clusters. This was particularly evident when pilot initiatives were being extended or restructured as authorities involved a wider range of schools and spread staffing more thinly. The national shortage of social work staff was also a serious constraint on many of the projects. Some authorities had appointed a full-time Integration Manager supported by a multi-agency team, mostly made up of community learning and development, health and social work staff. A number of these teams were very effective but their impact overall was variable, partially due to short-term contracts, part-time appointments and staff vacancies. In some authorities, part-time Integration Managers were expected to carry out a similar range of activities as their full-time counterparts, often without the support of a multi-agency team. In the best practice, senior managers and partners gave consideration to mainstreaming new appointments or redeploying core ICS staff to support innovative practice after the pilots.

Some secondary schools and most primary schools and pre-school centres had responded positively to the initiative. Special schools often made a valuable contribution to ICS cluster developments that were often not formally included within the ICS framework. In the most effective practice, heads of these establishments had managed the initiative in such a way as to ensure the involvement of teaching and non-teaching staff in taking it forward. In these cases staff felt fully included and there were clear signs of improvement in the effectiveness of partnership between schools, partner agencies and parents. This was most evident when school senior management staff took account of the contribution of pupil support and the quality and impact of out-of-school care and learning.

Initiatives were most effective where there were sufficient opportunities for the professional development of staff in schools and partner agencies. In these cases, staff were aware of the key principles of the ICS initiatives and the roles of managers within various ICS teams. Joint working and team-building activities played a major role in developing the skills and expertise of the multi-agency ICS teams appointed in a number of clusters. In some clusters the responsibility for staff development lay with the Integration Managers, some of whom had insufficient time for this role. In good practice, senior managers made adequate provision to meet the staff development needs of ICS team members and Integration Managers. In some authorities, Integration Managers met as a group to discuss and share experiences, and this provided valuable opportunities for staff development. Good practice included opportunities for joint training among staff from partner agencies, but this was not always available.

2.3 Integration of service delivery

In some cases, partner agencies were working together effectively in coordinating and integrating aspects of service delivery. However, partner agencies, in particular social work and health staff, were not always sufficiently aware of the overall aims of the ICS initiatives. Integrated service delivery was effective when clusters and schools worked together to assess the needs of children and young people, and to plan service delivery which reflected the aims of the children's services plan. This was particularly effective where an authority had a youth strategy or community plan, or had made progress in developing a community learning and development strategy to support effective assessment within a community planning framework.

Provision of social work staff in an ICS team generally improved mainstream school staff's understanding of the social work role and assisted integrated delivery. The time for social workers to work directly with children, young people and their families was sometimes curtailed by the volume of referrals and through requests from school staff that did not need social work involvement. Their contribution was most effective when clear professional and line management support was provided and when roles and priorities were successfully negotiated. In most cases, social workers enhanced links between school staff and the local community social work offices. They also facilitated networking and opportunities for developing joint initiatives in integrated delivery. Social workers were often key contributors to the development of joint assessment models and to improving joint working.

Overall, clusters and schools were still developing integrated approaches to assessing children's needs. In most clusters there were some examples of developing a coordinated approach to identifying the needs of potentially vulnerable children and young people in the pre-school, primary and secondary sectors. This resulted from improved communication between professional support services and schools, often through enhanced joint assessment teams. In some clusters, partner agencies were working to meet needs through the more integrated planning and delivery of services. There were some positive examples of inclusion and support for children, young people and families. This was most effective where schools and other partners pursued the same objectives and had established common values.

Improved service delivery was often seen in the developing role of health professionals working more directly with school staff to enhance health-promoting activities for children and young people. A number of these initiatives showed potential but were at an early stage of development.

2.4 Evaluation and development of services

The quality of evaluation and development of ICS initiatives varied considerably across the clusters. Some clusters had produced evaluative reports on individual projects and a few authorities had commissioned external evaluations of the pilot phases. Most reports of either pilot initiatives or individual projects contained evidence of impact derived mainly from user responses and participant uptake. Some authorities had made some use of ICS Steering Groups to monitor progress. Whilst the impact of some initiatives would require further time to become evident, there was a need to ensure the more systematic evaluation of short-term targets along the way. Most authorities had made insufficient use of the experience gained from pilot ICS phases to inform future planning and development. Overall, there was a need for more rigorous evaluation of the impact of initiatives at both strategic and operational levels.

Partner organisations had difficulty in accessing performance data relating to areas of health, and pupils' and families' social development. This was often due to a lack of systematic baseline information against which progress might be measured. In most cases, clusters and schools had established some baseline information but this was often limited in range. The general absence of baseline information made it difficult to measure the impact of support for social and health needs, and for improving pupils' attainment and achievement. Information from evaluations was only occasionally used to inform future planning or to prioritise staff and resource deployment. This led to some innovative and potentially effective practices remaining undeveloped after funding for the pilot phases ceased.

Most headteachers set and monitored progress towards targets for pupil attainment in their own schools as part of their general approach to supporting self-evaluation and continuous improvement. This approach had not generally been extended to headteachers agreeing and monitoring joint ICS targets for attainment and broader achievements across clusters. Strategies to improve pupils' achievement within individual schools were also generally not widely shared across clusters. There would be benefit in further sharing existing examples of effective practice in relation to out-of-school care and learning, breakfast clubs or art and sports-based activities, within and between clusters in an authority.

Progress in ensuring coherent development of ICS initiatives varied considerably. In almost all cases there had been a lengthy delay in establishing the initiatives following the successful submission of project bids to the Scottish Executive. This was due to the time taken to appoint staff and to establish accommodation and related resources. In the most effective clusters, additional staffing had been used to develop existing provision such as the extension of health-promotion initiatives and the augmentation of guidance roles in secondary schools, as well as to develop new services. In some authorities the initiatives had led to some innovative longer-term strategies for staff and school resource deployment aimed at supporting effective learning communities. However, there needed to be more redeployment of existing staff and resources to ensure sustainability and ongoing development in the longer term.

The development of some ICS initiatives was under threat or had been reduced due to staff shortages, unfilled vacancies or the effects of short-term funding. Where ICS teams had been withdrawn, the exit strategy was not always sufficiently developed to prepare other professions and service users for the relatively abrupt loss of services. There was a need in almost all clusters to ensure that the design and development of services included suitable strategies for sustainability.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]