I have just read an excellent article published on the Nursing Times website (click here for 'Exploring the evidence on strategies to reduce teenage pregnancy rates' by David Paton, PhD, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School).
The overall thrust of the article is that the current strategy on teenage pregnancy reduction is just not working. As the conclusion says:
Despite more than £200m being spent on the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, there has been little discernible impact on conception rates, at least at a national level. Although disappointing, these results should not be surprising.
The article is well worth reading in its entirety. You may not have a huge interest in the subject (although I am sure we are all concerned with reducing teenage pregnancy) - but do read it for its analysis and the incisive way in which the author uses an evidence based approach to slice through existing strategies.
I have left a comment at the end saying
This is an excellent and provocative article that I hope makes policy makers and indeed the Teenage Pregnancy Unit sit up and think about their practices and assumptions. I am sure this will not be the end of the story - but the ball is now firmly in the Government's & TPU's court to evidence their continuing strategies. I only wish more Government (at all levels) strategies could undergo such scrutiny - we need more evidence based policy and practice - in every aspect of the public services (not just in health care).
Are your strategies evidence based? How are you evaluating the impact of your strategies?
UPDATE (& EXCELLENT NEWS): 29 October: report shows that restorative justice reduces reoffending - The Prison Reform Trust today publishes Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland, the study reveals that reoffending rates were much lower when offenders were involved in restorative justice schemes. Figures showed four in ten 10 to 17 year-olds committed another crime within a year, compared to 71% of those who had been locked up. (Click here - pdf file)
A great story of how evaluation has shown that a policy has worked - in this case remarkably well!
From http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/
Jon - interesting. Having read what you say and the Nursing Times article three separate issues occur to me.This is another example of the futility of targets in public policy. No doubt in 1999 a 50% reduction in the under-18 conception rate in England by 2010 seemed challenging and stretching but also safely distant. The chickens now come home to roost.On the subject in hand, like you I claim to be no expert but I find it interesting that nowhere in the Nursing Times article is there any reference to the root causes of the problem. When I was first introduced to structured problem solving (oh, a long time ago) I remember the emphasis laid on establishing the root causes of a problem. It can be really challenging to establish those in relation to human behaviour but I am sure on this issue they are deeper than the programmes referred to in the article.Finally, although the connection is indirect the subject has interesting resonances for me in the whole area of evidence-based policy which sometimes seems to be taken as an unarguable requirement. Currently Professor David Nutt ex-government drugs adviser is finding the limits of that approach! Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments - I agree! To respond: I compare Professor Nutt to being a court jester - the art is in challenging things only so far - before you get your head chopped off. It is a tricky role to do well. Although I note Professor John Beddington backing him up yesterday. Root causes are critical - especially in the realm of such social problems as these. I am reminded of the Black Report from many years ago. It's conclusions on the links between social class and health still resonate. And as for targets - I have talked and written extensively on this subject as well - you will not be surprised to learn I am sure! (see http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/07/bonfire-of-targets.html & http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/05/matrix-planning-agreeing-few-things.html)
ReplyDeleteH Jon - these were some thoughts on strategies i had earleir this year. http://www.communities.idea.gov.uk/reg/blog-display.do?id=1120242&userId=684695
ReplyDeleteHi IqbalThanks for the link to your other blogpost. You are correct in my view - ink is hardly ever dry on a document calling itself a strategy - before it is out of date. I stand by my view that efforts to create social outcomes need to be evidence based - but we must avoid the danger of 'paralysis by analysis' (or versions thereof as comments on your blog post suggest). I am of the view that we need far more 'stractegies' than 'strutegies' (ie strategies that live in action rather than ones that look pretty on the glossy page): http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/05/have-stractegy-rather-than-strutegy.html For me the art is in engaging people to take action. The job of the public services is to enable citizens to take evidence based action that makes a difference - a process I call 'empowered citizenship' (http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/05/empowered-citizenship.html) But none of this is new - community development has been going on a long while. But I do believe we don't just want merely active citizens - we all need citizens to be actively doing the right kinds of things. Thanks for your comments
ReplyDelete