News

A project in which people with learning difficulties were trained to help recruit staff had mixed results. But, writes Ruth Townsley from the Norah Fry Research Centre, the most successful examples depended on behind-the-scenes commitment.

Enabling people with learning difficulties to have more control over their own lives is a central objective of the recent learning disability white paper Valuing People. It emphasises that people with learning difficulties should be fully involved in decisions that affect them, including operational matters such as staff selection. Involving people with learning difficulties in staff recruitment also offers many opportunities for putting Valuing People's key principles of rights, independence, choice and inclusion into practice.

Both the white paper and the Social Care Institute for Excellence stress the importance of evidence-based practice that promotes good outcomes and Best Value. Our Learning to Choose Staff project, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, put research evidence into the hands of professionals and people with learning difficulties. The project team, based at the University of Bristol's Norah Fry Research Centre, brought together two trainers, a consultant on service user involvement and a researcher. We used good practice recommendations from our previous research¹ about user involvement in staff recruitment as the basis for our work.

We worked with five sites in southern England that provided services to people with learning difficulties. We offered a training programme, supported the development work of the sites and evaluated the success of the process, both in terms of its impact on the practice of the sites and as a model for promoting change and improving practice. We documented the successes and challenges that participants and the project team faced because we were aware that promoting and implementing evidence-based change can be difficult to achieve, even with the best intentions.

The programme used a four-step format:

- Bringing people together.

- Reflecting on current practice.

- Learning and planning.

- Developing, supporting and evaluating the initiatives developed by each site.

At each step we disseminated key findings about the value of including people with learning difficulties in staff recruitment. We also provided opportunities for participants to practise skills, learn and work together and evaluate their own practice and progress.

The third step involved the running of a five-day training programme at each site. This covered the main stages of the recruitment process using activities drawn from our two existing resource packs². Professionals and people with learning difficulties worked alongside each other to learn about the recruitment process and each other's strengths, needs and perspectives. We also encouraged participants to draw up detailed plans for implementing user involvement back in their own organisations.

Immediately after the training, enthusiasm was running high and people wanted to put their learning and planning into practice. But evidence from our follow-up meetings with the sites a few months later showed that three of the five had implemented their plans at policy or practice level and two had struggled to initiate anything. It became clear that generating and maintaining commitment and using evidence of success to change attitudes was fundamental to the sites' longer-term success to implement change. When commitment was lost, challenged or eroded it seemed that even the most well-planned initiatives were unable to flourish.

Several sites involved in the project produced policy documents which set out their overall commitment to the concept of user inclusion. Although helpful in raising awareness of the issue and in setting an agenda for change, organisational commitment was not enough. Commitment from individuals who were likely to be involved or affected was also essential.

Successful sites identified champions at policy and practice levels who played an active role in responding to different levels of commitment and challenging attitudes. They also used evidence of success to promote the concept of user inclusion.

Staff and service users at one of the sites, Cherry Tree House, admitted that they had never considered the idea of user inclusion in recruitment before and had reserved judgement about whether it would work for them until they had taken part in the training. But evidence of success from the training programme was exemplified by a support worker from Cherry Tree House who said: "I felt somewhat dubious about the training and what it could achieve, and was pleasantly surprised at the interest shown by people with learning difficulties and the hard work they put in."

The training also offered a rare chance for the proprietor, managers, support staff and people with learning difficulties to build relationships and to work together as co-learners. One service user said: "The support we got on the course was really important. It's too difficult to change things on your own."

Those who had taken part in the training continued to act as champions for inclusion in recruitment and planned, developed and documented the initiative. As well as writing policy to clarify the site's commitment to the concept, staff and residents put together several useful recruitment tools for the next selection exercise. They kept the initiative alive by keeping it as a regular item on house meeting agendas. And they shared their developing skills and knowledge with other staff and residents by talking through the outcomes of the training and referring to training notes in order to "prove" that learning had occurred. But, most important, residents had the chance to take part in two recruitment exercises that provided excellent opportunities to practise their newly developed skills.

It was this evidence of hard work, completed by people with learning difficulties themselves, that changed attitudes among staff who had not done the training. Words were not enough; they needed real proof that user inclusion was possible and achievable. As one worker said: "I must admit that I thought it would be something that the residents wouldn't get much out of. But it has surprised me how much interest they have shown and when they interviewed someone recently they were so professional. It has taught me not to underestimate them."

The role that people with learning difficulties played in making the initiative a success also influenced the attitudes of policy-makers at Cherry Tree House. Initially the proprietor had not been convinced that user involvement was a "good thing". But her attitude changed when she saw what people had achieved.

Participants at Cherry Tree House had used their involvement in the project as the foundation for building commitment to the concept of inclusion in recruitment and for developing relationships across boundaries. But it was the work behind the scenes by service users and practitioners that got things moving. It seems that sustained commitment is best achieved where up-to-date and real-life evidence is used to promote better practice.

Key points

- Define and document commitment to the initiative and to the underlying principles of the initiative.

- Identify or develop champions and other key people to take the initiative forward and support them as appropriate.

- Find champions at policy and practice levels.

- Respond to different levels of commitment and challenge attitudes.

- Promote the role of people with learning difficulties as central to the success of the initiative.

- Use evidence of success to promote and maintain commitment.

Ruth Townsley is a senior research fellow at the Norah Fry Research Centre. She is a co-author of Committed to Change? Promoting the Involvement of People with Learning Difficulties in Staff Recruitment; published by Policy Press and available from 0117 954 6800

References:

¹ R Townsley et al, Getting Involved in Choosing Staff, Pavilion Publishing, 1997

² R Townsley and M Macadam, Choosing Staff: Involving People with Learning Difficulties in Recruiting Staff, audio tape and booklet, the Policy Press, 1996