Supporting Families feasibility reports

Legacy Content

This project or publication was produced before or during the merger of What Works for Children’s Social Care (WWCSC) and the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF).

Supporting Families feasibility reports

Evaluation of Greenwich’s Family and Adolescent Support Service (FaASS) practice approach

Download

Evaluation of the clinical support provided to Islington’s Bright Futures team

Download

Evaluation of Rotherham’s systemically informed Edge of Care team

Download

Evaluation of the provision of data via Transform Data View (TDV) to housing officers in Somerset

Download

Summary

This series of evaluation reports presents findings from four feasibility evaluations that were conducted to develop the evidence on effective approaches within the Supporting Families Programme. Four feasibility studies were conducted, three on psychologically-informed keyworker practice and one on joint whole-family working between Early Help practitioners and housing providers.

Aims

The evaluations were designed to answer the following feasibility questions:

  1. Evidence of feasibility: Is the approach being delivered as intended; and what are the enablers and barriers to delivering the approach?
  2. Evidence of promise: What are the potential benefits of the approach for families, practitioners and the wider service; and are there any unintended consequences?
  3. Evaluation feasibility: What is the most feasible way to evaluate the approach; and which outcomes are critical to measuring impact?

Method

The evaluations adopted a mixed-method approach which involved:

  • analysis of administrative data
  • surveys
  • interviews
  • observations.

Two evaluations (Greenwich and Rotherham) also included a pilot of outcome measures.

Key Findings

The three feasibility studies on psychologically-informed keyworker practice (Greenwich, Islington and Rotherham) demonstrated that these approaches were feasible to deliver and showed promising evidence of positive outcomes for practitioners and families. Although the evaluations were not designed to detect causal impact, they did provide important learning on how robust impact evaluations could be undertaken on similar approaches.

The study on whole-family working between Early Help practitioners and housing providers (Somerset) found that although there are signs that this approach could be beneficial for families and staff, there were no current viable opportunities for testing this approach.

SHARE

Related Publications

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.