EXTENDED FOSTER CARE IMPLEMENTATION
Amongst your circle of friends, family and work colleagues, do you have someone who is so passionate about Apple products that they would queue outside an Apple store overnight for the latest iPhone release? Or maybe there is someone who is so reticent about technology that they only use a cloud service when it is the only remaining method of performing a required task, or they simply don’t understand (or care) how some services would likely improve their lives?
Many of you will have heard of the technology adoption lifecycle. According to Wikipedia, it is a sociological model that describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation, according to the demographic and psychological characteristics of defined adopter groups. Over time, the process of adoption is typically illustrated as a ‘bell curve’ or classical normal distribution. The model indicates that the first group of people to use a new product is called innovators followed by early adopters. Next come the early majority and late majority, and the last group to eventually adopt a product are called laggards or phobics. And while technology may be a more extreme example, the model also powerfully highlights the extent to which these demographic and psychological, attitudes, and (buying) behaviour change as you make your way across the bell curve.
Regular readers of my posts will likely know that I believe that conventional business has much less to teach government and the social sector than those in business themselves tend to think, and that indeed we could teach them a thing or two! However, what the likes of Apple are very good at, is in recognising that their market is made up of potential users of their products or services with very different profiles (be it with a view to targeting their marketing towards the most profitable). What is also in their DNA is a crystal-clear understanding that designing a quality product or service is only the beginning!
Extended foster care has recently become available in some shape of form in New Zealand, Victoria, ACT, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Let’s assume that the scheme:
has been co-designed with care leavers, those still in care, foster carers, social workers, managers and providers
there are a clear set of policies, procedures and systems that will likely meet the needs
has either been robustly piloted or has some other evidence to support it, and
is implementable!
Without getting caught up in the unhelpful language of ’laggards’ and ‘phobics’, when it comes to implementation what are the range of views and needs amongst those in care and care leavers, and can any specific subgroups be usefully identified who may need to be engaged differently from others, whether in terms of why, how, what, when, who? And then go through the same thinking process with say foster carers, social workers, managers, and provider organisations.
We’ve long recognised that care leavers are not a heterogeneous group. For example Mike Stein from York University in the UK, differentiates between those ‘moving on’, ‘survivors’ and ‘strugglers’. Foster carers, social workers, managers and provider organisations are not necessarily homogeneous groups either. What is their existing knowledge and understanding here? How does it align with organisational and personal priorities? Are there any workload implications for them? Do they have any other concerns and worries? What do they need and do they have any preferences to be taken into account? Who are the innovators and early adopters who could support you?
Our sector is littered with poorly implemented legislation and policy initiatives that deliver disappointing results. Effective differentiated engagement with those who are expected to take up, deliver or support the change is critical. Let’s get this one right!
I’d love to hear your thoughts! You can email me at: iain@betteroutcomes.co.nz
Kia kaha (Stay Strong).
Iain