Developing a programme theory for the Systemic Practice Model in children's social care: Key informants' perspectives

Abstract

Vague programme descriptions are known to impede implementation and evaluation. Yet social work change programmes often fail to describe in detail how they aim to provide better outcomes for children and families. This study focused on the Systemic Practice Model (SPM), which is a Finnish adaptation of Reclaiming Social Work, a practice model developed in England. The SPM aims to deliver systemic practice in children's social care and has recently been widely disseminated across Finland. However, research has found both considerable variation in its delivery and a lack of clarity about what it is. This study, applying realist evaluation, aimed to formulate a programme theory based on the perceptions of key informants (n = 12) involved in the national development and dissemination of the SPM during the period 2017–2019. The analysis yielded three core components (a systemic team, systemic weekly meetings, and systemic practice) and two context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) configurations, which represent causal chains of the SPM. The findings should enable its quality implementation and meaningful outcome and process evaluation. The findings will also aid organizations and practitioners both to identify changes required in their service provision and prevent adverse effects. This programme theory should be tested and refined with empirical data.

Respite care from the child’s perspective – The Support Family Intervention in Finland

“…The CCPT clarifies the argument that the foremost aim of SFI is to support the child. It is a complementary conceptual model which describes the intervention from the child's as well as adults' perspective so countering the tendency for adults' and professionals' views to predominate (Aaltio and Isokuortti, 2021). It offers an example of how the child's voice can be incorporated into a programme theory and increases the visibility of the child as both a service user and an actor who can impact the intervention.…”

“…This article addresses the issues of the invisibility and lack of participation of the child raised in previous research (Larsen, 2011;Lehto-Lund en, 2020) and the need for more programme theories in child welfare contexts (see Aaltio and Isokuortti, 2021). Since the existing SFI programme theory explains how the intervention contributes to a chain of intermediate results, culminating in the intended or observed outcomes, we decided to explore how the intervention goals and logics could be clarified from the child's viewpoint in order to strengthen their participation (see Funnell and Rogers, 2011).…”

Achieving agreement on service needs in child protection. Comparing children’s, mothers’ and practitioners’ views over time and between approaches

“…The purpose of these sessions is to formulate hypotheses from multiple perspectives and plan the next steps to take with the family. Compared to service as usual, practitioners should engage more in mutual reflection, share responsibility and knowledge of cases and receive case supervision more frequently (Aaltio and Isokuortti, 2021).…”

“…The purpose of these sessions is to formulate hypotheses from multiple perspectives and plan the next steps to take with the family. Compared to service as usual, practitioners should engage more in mutual reflection, share responsibility and knowledge of cases and receive case supervision more frequently (Aaltio and Isokuortti, 2021). Regarding direct practice with families, practitioners are expected to spend more time with families and apply systemic tools and methods, such as genograms and hypothesis.…”

“…Regarding direct practice with families, practitioners are expected to spend more time with families and apply systemic tools and methods, such as genograms and hypothesis. Using these methods should provide both practitioners and service users with insights and new perspectives on families’ dynamics, histories, patterns and narratives (Aaltio and Isokuortti, 2021). While systemic practice is inspired by ideas central to systemic family therapy (Lorås et al , 2017), the intention is not to turn social work practice into therapy.…”