V7 30.04.13
Introduction to this document
This discussion paper is divided into four broad sections:

Section 1 provides a brief outline of the policy context in Wales
 Section 2 provides some of the underpinning research and theory regarding evidence informed practice

Section 3 provides a summary of organisations involved in the development of evidence informed practice
 Section 4 sets out a proposed approach to the development of evidence enriched practice in Wales

The Appendices include proposed action plans, an evaluation framework and acknowledgements
1.1 Social care research context and the Huxley Report
Historically, the relationship between research and social care practice has not been a strong one (Lorenz, 1994; Jones, 1996; Lyons, 2000). Orme and Powell (2007) suggest a number of reasons for this, including the fact that the Diploma in Social Work did not require competence in research methods, and there is a strong history of reliance on tacit practitioner wisdom within practice.
Even in the world of health care services where research has a higher profile, there is a body of evidence to suggest that the use of research and guidelines in practice is limited (Gabbay and Le May, 2004; Kidney et al., 2011)
A study of research use by social work practitioners in Wales resulted in similar findings
(Phillips and Murray 2010). Practitioners did not always recognise the relevance of research in their day to day practice, and there were capacity related issues in spending time on this subject. The Welsh study also suggests that it is important to foster visible commitment to practice based research at a managerial level and within the culture of organisations to ensure that time and space are provided to develop research focussed activities.
Building on this Welsh study, the Huxley Report (Huxley 2009) provides a detailed review of the current research capacity in social care services in Wales. It suggests the need to increase research capacity and usage, and makes a number of recommendations which focus on a need to:

Develop a ‘research active culture’ in both academic and practice settings
1

V7 30.04.13

Promote and support better dissemination of research findings

Increase involvement of service users, carers and agencies in all stages of research development
 Better define and measure ‘outcome focussed social care provision’
1.2 Social care policy in Wales
There is an urgent need for service innovation and workforce development within social work and social care provision. Reasons for this include:
 Greater demand due to demographic changes and an ageing population
 Increased expectations of service users and carers

Financial constraints over the coming years
It is important that both service innovation and workforce development are evidence informed, in the hope of being able to make the best use of existing resources in promoting good outcomes for service users, carers and frontline staff.
Key ‘transformational’ themes identified in Welsh Government Policy (Welsh Government
2011) include:
 A citizen centred and outcome focussed approach.

Strengthening ‘voice and choice’

Rethinking ‘assessment and care management’ – putting professional practice before excessive bureaucracy
 The health & social care integration agenda and the development of interprofessional practice

Supporting prevention and well-being in the community
1.3 The development of the All Wales Social Care Research Collaboration (ASCC) and its aims
ASCC has been developed in response to the Huxley (2009) report and Sustainable Social
Services in Wales (Welsh Government 2011), which have both identified a clear need for increased social care research capacity, and greater levels of collaboration between Welsh academia, social services, and policy makers.
The project is funded by the Welsh Government’s National Institute for Social Care and
Health Research (NISCHR). The pilot phase of the project commenced in 2012 and will run until 2015.
ASCC will work in partnership with practitioners from the field of social care to:

Promote and support the development of evidence informed practice

Increase capacity and research skills in the workforce
2

V7 30.04.13

Facilitate new and innovative research in the field of social care

Develop and utilise national datasets
ASCC is an all Wales initiative which will be working out of three regional centres based in the Universities of Cardiff, Bangor and Swansea.
The work in Swansea University is focused on the development of a distinctively Welsh model of research informed practice and testing this model out in a local context with a small number of local authorities and social care provider agencies.
2.1 Recognising research as only one element of evidence
It is important to recognise that research is only one element of evidence in the full sense of the word (Gerrish et al., 2007), and that the effective use of research evidence requires it to be considered in the context of other forms of evidence, which are of equal, if not more value. For the purpose of this paper, the following definitions have been adopted:
Research – any investigation towards increasing the sum of knowledge based on planned and systematic enquiry. It should provide empirical support or theory, but is only one part of evidence.
Evidence – the available body of facts or information about a particular subject
Knowledge – the interpretation of evidence, including research
The following diagram illustrates a range of evidence that influences practice (Davies et al
2004):
Professional wisdom
Service user
‘voice’
Research evidence
Individual practice
Peer values and pressures
Organisational resources
Organisational culture & norms
3

V7 30.04.13
In order for research evidence to be taken seriously in Wales, it is therefore suggested that we apply the exchange model (Smale and Tucson, 1993), which can support a co-production approach to the use of research in collaboration with other forms of evidence, in the coproduction and application of knowledge:
This co-productive approach brings into question, the term ‘research into practice’ and suggests that a more appropriate term might be ‘research informed practice’, which requires a two way dialogue between researchers and practitioners.
2.2. Recognising obstacles to the use of research in practice
Davies, et al (2004) highlight seven enemies of evidence based policy and practice:

Bureaucratic logic – the logic that says things are right because they have always been done this way
 The bottom line – the logic of the business environment and the throughput measurement that goes with this

Consensus – this involves excessive consultation to find out what matters, followed by an inclusive task force drawn from all interested parties to determine the limits of a solution that will satisfy everyone, which is defined as that which will work.

Politics – the art of the possible rather than what is rational or might work best

Civic service culture – in particular a strong distrust of information gathered outside the system
 Cynicism – an attitude of mind that allows us to go along with the ‘company view’ or
‘conventional wisdom’ even though we know it to be false
4

V7 30.04.13

Time – no wonder there is so little room for evidence based policy; there is scarcely room even to think
They go on to suggest that it appears to take an extraordinary set of circumstances for research to influence policy and practice decisions directly. However, there are conditions that are more likely to suit the instrumental use of research:

If the implications of the findings are relatively non-controversial, neither provoking rifts nor running into conflicting interests;
 If the changes that are implied are within a programme’s existing repertoire and are relatively small scale;

If the environment of a programme is relatively stable, without big changes in leadership;

When a programme is in crisis and nobody knows what to do (Weiss, 1998)
2.3. Using research in practice – what works?
It is important to avoid the simplistic and linear notion that research findings can be shared as facts to be implemented, especially within the context of social care, where research evidence is often ambiguous and contextualised (Nutley et al 2007). It must first be interpreted and then applied within particular contexts, which often requires the development of two way dialogue between practitioners themselves and the research community.
Over the past decade, a plethora of web based resources have been developed, many of which are research informed. Examples include the SCIE Dementia Gateway. These resources often assume the simple linear transfer and application of knowledge, whilst there is little evidence as to how much practitioners engage with and use these resources. In a study of the use of evidence by nursing practitioners, Gerrish et al. (2011), suggests that many make relatively little use of web based resources, and even those who do often lack the critical appraisal skills that are required to translate this into practice.
There are at least four ways of using research:

Instrumental – the direct application of research, e.g. NICE guidelines for specific clinical procedures. The instrumental use of research is less easy in social care, where many of the findings are ambiguous and contextualised (Nutley et al., 2012).

Conceptual – the use of research as a focus for reflective dialogue and the development of discourse, practice and culture. There is good potential for this within social care, especially within the context of innovation, where the way forward is uncertain. Action learning is one approach to this.
5

V7 30.04.13

Process – there is evidence to suggest that being involved in the research process can of itself, have positive outcomes in terms of improved thinking and critical reflection.
 Abuse – there are plenty of examples from within public services where research findings are ‘cherry picked’ to support a particular ideology or decision. This may be countered by the use of robust systematic reviews, rather than individual pieces of work
Davies et al. (2004) suggest that there are five mechanisms that can support the increased use of research:

Dissemination – circulating or presenting research findings in tailored format. This mechanism assumes a one way flow of information from research to practice.
 Interaction – developing stronger links and collaborations between research, policy and practice communities. This mechanism assumes that two way flows of information are required.
 Social influence – relying on influential others, such as experts, peers or
‘champions’.

Facilitation – enabling the use of research, through technical, financial, organisational and emotional support. This mechanism stresses the importance f giving practical assistance for individuals and groups to change.
 Incentives & reinforcements – using rewards or other forms of control to reinforce appropriate behaviour. This mechanism assumes that behaviour can be influenced by controlling external stimuli.
Following a review of the above mechanisms, Walter et al. (2005) suggest that interactive approaches and social influence seem to show the most promise in improving the use of research. This is also the opinion of agencies such as RiP, RiPfA and IRISS (see Section 3).
There is a growing recognition that ‘information telling’ approaches, emphasising careful, rational argument to communicate a prior analysis are flawed, and that ‘’changing minds’ is an infinitely more subtle process of influencing – drawing in experience, emotion, aesthetics
and appeals to identity’ (Davies and Powell, 2010, p1). This has led to the development of some innovative approaches to knowledge transfer and discourse development, using narrative, metaphor, personal stories and the arts.
Bringing all these various strands together, Nutley et al (2007) suggest that the different ways of using research and the mechanisms that can support the use of research can be pulled together into three models of research informed practice, which are outlined in the next section.
6

V7 30.04.13
2.4. Three broad research informed practice models
The Research Unit for Research Use (RURU) was established in St Andrews University to promote research and development in the effective use of research. As a result of this work, Nutley et. al (2009) have identified three broad though not mutually exclusive models to support the effective use of research in practice, which are as follows:
Model
Research based practitioner
Outline
Where research use is the responsibility of individual practitioners. This model is most effective for instrumental use of research by highly motivated and autonomous practitioners. It is rarely effective on its own, even with highly qualified staff (e.g.
GPs). Research use is perceived as a linear process that involves accessing, appraising and applying research in largely instrumental ways.
Embedded research Where the instrumental use research is embedded into systems, processes and standards (e.g. built environments, assessment and quality assurance frameworks). Responsibility for research use lies not with individual practitioners, but organisational managers, commissioners and regulators.
Organisational excellence
Where research use is promoted through the development of appropriate structures, processes, culture and values within organisations. There is strong focus on the contextual use of research, visionary and people centred leadership, experimentation, risk taking and being open to learn from mistakes within a dynamic complex adaptive system (McMillan,
2008). Responsibility for research use in this model is across the whole organisation, with strong support from senior managers.
Nutley et al (2009) suggest that the organisational excellence model is probably the most important, yet least well developed model and that there is a need to take a mixed method approach, combining all three models, which are often interdependent. They also highlight to need to recognise and address potential tensions between the three models. For example, the assumption of professional autonomy which underpins the research based practitioner model, and the constraints placed on individual practitioners which may result from the embedded research model.
Nutley et al (2012) suggest a particular need to nurture a bottom up rather than top down approach to the use of research. This is consistent with evidence of effective integrated working and inter-professional practice, where horizontal relationships and co-productive activity are of more importance than the top down implementation of policies and procedures (Innes et al., 2006; Edwards and Daniels, 2008; Dickinson et al., 2013).
7

V7 30.04.13
3.1 England and Wales
Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) – SCIE is an independent charity that was established by Government in 2001 and works to disseminate knowledge-based good practice guidance, involve people who use services, carers, practitioners, providers and policy makers in advancing and promoting good practice in social care and enhance the skills and professionalism of social care workers through tailored, targeted and user-friendly resources. It has a remit to cover England and Wales and is currently part funded by Welsh
Government.
SCIE has developed a wide range of on-line resources, including practice guides, ‘at a glance’ summaries, e-learning, SCIE TV, and good practice examples. More recently they have developed an outreach consultancy service, partly as a result of losing core government funding.
SCIE have also developed a ‘Get Connected’ support programme in England to enable small and medium sized social care provider agencies to make the most of ICT.
There has not been an independent evaluation of the impact that SCIE resources have made on service and workforce development, although SCIE monitor access to their web based resources. A 2012 customer survey showed that the following products were the most useful:
 SCIE website – 99% (63% extremely useful, 36% useful)
 e-learning – 95% (60% extremely useful, 35% useful)

Social Care TV – 92% (61% extremely useful, 31% useful)
Frontline practitioners thought the following resource types were extremely useful:

Social Care TV – 80%
 Elearning – 71%

Practice guides – 70%

Full reports – 69%
In terms of supporting the development of evidence informed practice:
 87% of all respondents said that SCIE resources had increased their personal knowledge and understand.

55% said it helped them to communicate best practice

60% said it had increased the knowledge and understanding within their organisations

42% said it helped to develop best practice
8

V7 30.04.13

79% had recommended SCIE resources to a colleague
In 2006 and 2010, SCIE completed their own surveys on the e-readiness of social care staff in England (employers and employees registered with CQC). Topline findings of the latest report are:
Employers’ survey

Employers say that e-learning study programmes are used by over half of their staff

74% feel it is or could be an effective form of training or management, and 63% for operational staff

65% train employees using some form of e-learning

64% of those using e-learning, do so in combination with face to face training

The employer survey indicated that domiciliary care employers were less receptive to e-learning as they deliver less than half of their training in this way (but see below re employees receptiveness)
Employees’ survey
 Most have access to a PC at work, and 52% use one daily
 98% can access at least one IT device at home – and 94% have access to the internet
(most with broadband or wi-fi) – 75% use ICT in their own home

65% say they are interested in learning via ICT

Domiciliary care employees are most comfortable with electronic devices and report the greatest access and use of remote technology devices in the sector (note small sample size – 68 respondents)
SCIE, in partnership with RiP, RiPfA, PSSRU and EPPI have recently been awarded a contract with NICE to develop guidance and quality standards for social care in England. Given the fact that much social care research is qualitative, ambiguous, contextualised and best used conceptually, it will be interesting to see whether this work tries to follows the approach taken in the development of the NICE guidelines in health which promote the instrumental use of quantitative medical research.
Making Research Count (MRC) centres – The Making Research Count (MRC) network is an informal association of currently thirteen universities, who individually organise and provide regional seminars and associated support to local authorities and social care provider agencies in close proximity the university. They charge an annual subscription fee of around
£5000 to £6000. Each MRC operates differently and some are more well-established than others (e.g. King’s College and York University). Each University appoints an academic lead and an MRC co-ordinator who organises knowledge exchange activities. Some MRC centres have a stronger focus on either children & families or adult services. Others (e.g. King’s
College) focus on both.
9

V7 30.04.13
Research into Practice for Adults (RiPfA) and Research into Practice (RiP) – RiP and RiPfA are national agencies based in Dartington, Totnes that both produce accessible on-line resources like SCIE, but have a greater focus on how these resources are used in practice. In addition to providing hard copy and web based resources for subscribing local authorities
(the current annual fee for RiPfA is £14,200), they also provide what they call sector led and tailored support:
 Sector led support - provided in the form of national workshops, conferences, webinars and knowledge exchange events

Tailored support – provided in the form of 20 hours/year one to one support,
Reason evaluation service, and action research based Change Projects
A key feature of the RiP and RiPfA work is the identification of a Link Worker in each of the participating agencies. They play an important facilitative role and are supported both individually and as a group through annual retreat events.
RiP ran a Welsh College from 2007 to 2011. It was funded by the SSIA to the sum of
£10k/year and local authority partners in Wales each contributed between £2-5k/year.
There is no formal evaluation as to why the Welsh College was unsuccessful, but a number of discussions with stakeholders suggest that the onset of the ‘credit crunch’ appears to be one contributing factor, and possibly the establishment of NISCHR and associated projects, including the ASCC Project. It would also appear that in terms of value for money, the impact on frontline practice was variable, as was the quality and consistency of the partner agencies link workers. It has also been reported that uptake of web based resources was often poor.
Having said this, five local authorities (RCT, Powys, Cardiff, Flintshire and Newport) in Wales continue to hold a contract with RiP in order to access their resources. RiP also work closely with the Care Council for Wales (CCW) to support the development of their CPEL programme, including the proposed facilitation of a number of national seminars on the subject of Family Justice Review in England and Wales. They are also in discussion with CCW on the development of a Welsh context version of their Evidence Matters guidance.
As with SCIE, there has not been an independent evaluation of the impact of RiP and RiPfA on service and workforce development, but internal reviews are completed with partner agencies, who presumably continue to fund on the basis that engagement with RiP and
RiPfA is having a positive impact.
3.2 Scotland
Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services (IRISS) – IRISS is a registered charity, funded by Scottish Government which was established to promote positive outcomes for the people who use Scotland’s social services by enhancing the capacity and capability of the social services workforce to access and make use of knowledge and
10

V7 30.04.13 research for service innovation and improvement. It is committed to work in collaboration with other organisations across three interrelated work programmes:

Evidence-informed practice – co-productively working with members of the social service workforce (all roles and sectors), carers, people supported (or sometimes not supported) by carers or services, social service students, social service educators and researchers.
 Innovation and improvement - developing tools, training and interventions that will support and enable the sustainable transformation of social services in Scotland.
Collaborating with social service and care organizations in Scotland to test out and demonstrate new ways of working and innovative approaches. The programme also provides resources and training on innovation to help support the sector to develop, and celebrates where new approaches are already happening.

Knowledge media – the production of multimedia learning resources which are freely available for educational use as well as the Learning Exchange, a digital library of thousands of learning resources. IRISS look for new ways to exploit web-based communication to disseminate and embed knowledge and evidence in practice, for example by digital story-telling, creative storyboards and internet radio.
IRISS have also been working in partnership with Edinburgh University on the development and implementation on a programme of small scale practitioner led research under the title of Practitioner Research Older People (PROP) Project.
The work of IRISS has not been subject to an independent evaluation, but as with SCIE, RiP and RiPfA, they have developed their own approach to evaluation based on Contribution
Analysis (Mayne, 2001)
3.3 International
Practice and Research Together (PART), Canada – PART was founded in 2006, has an annual revenue of approximately £350k and is an Ontario membership fee based research utilization initiative, the core function of which is to distil and disseminate practice relevant research findings to child welfare practitioners. They have developed a banding approach to fees, depending upon the size of the partner agency, and work in close partnership with RiP, with whom they share resources. They have a simple and very accessible website, which enables navigation to their range of resources and activities, which are:

PARTicles – short and accessible literature reviews

Guidebooks – more detailed information including videos, e.g. staff supervision in social care

Storyboards – short videos using animation to get across a message in an engaging way
 Interactive case studies – setting research in the context of individual lives
11

V7 30.04.13

E-library

PARTcasts – sound recordings on particular themes

Webinars – short monthly online seminars that can be viewed in real time or downloaded.
 Conferences – large annual events bringing researchers and practitioners together around a particular theme. They are simultaneously webcast, and discussion questions can be posed via the Internet.
 Link partners – designated individuals within agencies who act as a go-between between the agency and PART.
A formative evaluation report (Shera and Dill, 2011) highlighted the crucial role of individual link partners in participating agencies, but also how they often felt isolated and unsupported. Not surprisingly, the most effective link workers were those who volunteered for the role, rather than those who were ‘voluntold’. Annual link partner retreats have proved beneficial. Some partner agencies have developed a small team of link partners, rather than relying on one person. This appears to have strengthened buy in.
Frontline practitioners reported that they had little time or resources to use the programme materials, and supervisors stated that although they support the concept of evidence informed practice, they lack the skills and abilities to move these ideas forward. A standards and targets driven approach within many organisations does not allow for or support critical reflective practice. Executive directors requested more evidence and support to promote organisational and systemic change.
The banded fee payment system has encouraged smaller organisations to become partners.
Webinars are more affordable than conferences and there has been good uptake. It has been important to use low cost technology that is user friendly with high quality audio.
Learning events, webinars and PARTicles were the three most popular resources.
All of the findings are consistent with evaluation work in the UK, including the OPAN hosted project in Wales (Phillips and Murray, 2010). The evaluation adds weight to the argument that we need to go beyond evidence dissemination and develop more interactive and facilitative approaches across the whole system.
3.4 Research organisations with a strong focus on dissemination and impact
There are a number of well-established and new academic organisations and projects, with a strong focus on systematic reviews and research dissemination. These include:

The Research Unit for Research Utilisation (RURU) is a cross-university research collaboration that investigates the use of social science research in public policy and service delivery settings. The core RURU team are based at the School of
Management, University of St Andrews, but the unit benefits from collaboration with a team of research associates from across the UK.
12

V7 30.04.13

The Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations, which are international organisations which work towards making systematic reviews of research evidence available to policy makers, practitioners, researchers and the public. The Cochrane Collaboration has a focus on health services, and the Campbell Collaboration has a focus on education, crime and justice and social welfare.

The NIHR School for Social Care Research (SCCR), aims to increase the evidence-base for adult social care practice. The SSCR undertakes high-quality primary research and provides a focus for applied research in social care within the NIHR. The location of the School within the NIHR is recognition of the significant contribution that social care makes to the nation's health.

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-
Centre), which is based in the Social Sciences Research Unit at the Institute of
Education, University of London, has been at the forefront of carrying out systematic reviews and developing review methods in social science and public policy. The organisation is dedicated to making reliable research findings accessible to the people who need them, whether they are making policy, practice or personal decisions.

Creating an Impact: Social Care Research in Practice is project being led by the
London School of Economics to bring social care practitioners and researchers together to apply evidence to key policy and practice issues and to measure the impact of research (e.g. the Care and Support White Paper and long term care)

The NICE Collaborating Centre for Social Care has recently been commissioned to use NICE's methods and processes to develop social care guidance for NICE. NICE will then use these as a basis for its quality standards for social care. The Centre will support the adoption and dissemination of these quality standards. The contract for the Centre has been awarded to a partnership between SCIE, RiP, RiPfA, EPPI-Centre and PSSRU
3.5. National agencies in Wales with an interest in social work and social care service and workforce development
It is important to recognise that the development of evidence informed practice in social care services is not a new initiative in Wales, and a number of agencies have been working toward this including:

Care Council for Wales (CCW) and associated Social Care in Partnership (SCiP)

Social Services Improvement Agency (SSIA)
 Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW)

British Association of Social Workers Cymru (BASW Cymru)
It will be important for the ASCC Project to work in close collaboration with these agencies, as well as Welsh Government in terms of support the development of evidence informed policy in Wales.
13

V7 30.04.13
Drawing on associated research and practice developed elsewhere, this section suggests a particular approach to developing evidence enriched practice in Wales.
The term enriched has been chosen in preference to informed because it suggests that research should not only inform, but also ‘add value’ to practice development.
It is also felt that we need to develop an approach rather than a model, because the latter suggests a fixed framework that has to be mechanically implemented, rather than a flexible approach which is organically grown within the context of particular organisations.
4.1 Underpinning principles
Underpinning the approach are the following principles:
 Collaboratively ‘adding value’ to and not duplicating the work of existing organisations with a focus on service and workforce improvement (e.g. Care Council for Wales and Social Services Improvement Agency)
 Placing an equal value on all stakeholders within the social care system, e.g. social work practitioners and social care provider staff

Applying an ‘exchange model’ approach to analysis and practice development, combining the use of research with other forms of evidence (e.g. practitioner wisdom, organisational knowledge and user/carer voice)
 Focussing on the priorities identified by national and local stakeholders

Taking a whole system and mixed method approach based on three models identified by Nutley et al (2007)
 Promoting both the instrumental and conceptual use of research
 Recognising the importance of making an emotional as well as intellectual impact
(e.g. through use of creative arts and personal stories)

Evidencing a commitment to sharing the learning

Building evaluation into the project from the beginning
 Using MRC work as a pathway to increasing the quality and capacity of social care research in Wales, including the development of small scale practitioner led research and Research Development Groups
4.2 Methodology
The approach will initially be developed on two levels:

Nationally - working in close partnership with the Care Council for Wales, the Social
Services Improvement Agency and Welsh Government.
14

V7 30.04.13

Locally - with a small number of stakeholder agencies and associated SCiP Coordinators in close proximity to Swansea University. This should enable a detailed, robust and effective approach which will be subject to thorough evaluation before being rolled out more widely.
4.3 National Action Plan
Collaborative working with key national agencies will be explored and developed. As part of this work, there is an intention to develop a joint concise and accessible Developing
Evidence Enriched Practice in Social Care Strategy for Wales, which will support the development of a common vision and framework to support effective co-ordination of associated work activities.
Additional initial actions with national partners will be as follows:
National Government – a conversation with Welsh Government representatives on the development of evidence enriched policy, and opportunities for partnership events and activities to strengthen the links between evidence enriched policy and practice.
Care Council for Wales – developing links with current work programmes that have a focus on research informed workforce development, including:

A national survey with frontline practitioners regarding the use of research in practice
 CPEL programmes for Social Workers and Social Care Managers

Partnership work with RiP and RiPfA, including the development of ‘Evidence
Matters’ guidance for Wales
Social Services Improvement Agency – developing links with current work programmes that have a focus on research informed service development, including:

Team Manager Development Programme

Learning and Information Networks
 Delivering Sustainable Social Services in Wales Programme
Partnership arrangements with SCIE, IRISS, RiP, RiPfA, PART and MRC centres – during the life of the pilot we will explore partnership arrangements with all of these agencies, in order to make the best possible use of all available resources
4.4 Local Action Plan
Initially we will work with the following five local authorities and a local third sector provider agency:

City & County of Swansea
 Neath & Port Talbot
15

V7 30.04.13

Bridgend

Carmarthenshire

Monmouthshire
 Gwalia
City & County of Swansea, Neath & Port Talbot and Bridgend are currently working together on a regional basis under the Western Bay Collaborative (WBC). The work with these three local authorities will be co-ordinated through the WBC Programme Board.
Gwalia have been selected as a partner agency because their services cover the same geographical area as three of the local authorities. Working with them will enable a focus that spans the commissioner-provider divide.
ASCC Link Workers will be identified within local partner agencies. These workers will be supported both individually and as a network. As advised by PART Canada, these workers need to be committed volunteers, not press-ganged ‘voluntold’.
The project will work closely with the local Social Care in Partnership (SCiP) Co-ordinators
Local partners will identify specific areas of work where they would like to develop evidence enriched practice. These will then be priorities, with activities being spread out from April
2013 to March 2015.
Wherever possible, a mixed method approach will be taken to developing evidence enriched practice, under the three models suggested by Nutley et al (2007). For example:
16

V7 30.04.13
Thanks go to the following for the helpful discussions and e-mail exchanges I have had with them and the advice they have given me (apologies if I have missed anyone out):
Alison Petch (IRISS), Dez Holmes and Gerry Nosowska (RiP/RiPfA), Kate Gerrish and Mike
Nolan (Sheffield University), Joan Orme (Glasgow University), Harry Daniels and Anne
Edwards (Oxford University), John Gabbay and Andrée le May (Southampton University),
Geraldine McDonald (Queens University, Belfast), Jo Rycroft Malone (Bangor University),
Martin Webber (York University), Julienne Meyer (City University), James Blewitt (King’s
College, London), Sandra Nutley (St Andrew’s University), Ann James (Care Council for
Wales), Iris Steen and Patricia Kearney (SCIE), Eavan Brady and Matt Hollingshead (PART
Canada).
17