Case 6: SOS Children’s villages

Eeva Toivanen, The Finnish Association of Social Enterprises, ARVO

SOS CHILDREN’S VILLAGES

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE CASE STUDY

Organisational background Societal need2

SOS Children’s Villages is an international Approximately 100,000 children live in vulnerable organisation with operations in over 130 countries. conditions and almost 19,000 have been placed The Finnish branch was established in 1962 and today outside their homes in Finland. Even if Finland has a it operates in over ten locations around Finland. They good variety of public child welfare services, research offer different services for underserved families and shows that they do not succeed in meeting the needs children, like foster care, family rehabilitation, support of individual families at the right time. A small number families, after care, family work and family partner of families is using an increasing number of services service. In 2019 they helped almost 1300 children in without the desired outcomes. SOS Children’s their services. Villages Finland started a joint development project with the municipality of Varkaus in 2016. Together they wanted to find out the points where in the service paths intervention would most be needed and what could be done earlier so that the problems would not Vision escalate. They found out that for about 1–2 years the families in need are using about 1–2 welfare services and after this “search period” the number of services escalates up to even six simultaneously in use. The vision of SOS Children’s Villages is that every child grows up with love, respect and security and has SOS Children’s Villages and the city of Varkaus came the opportunity to reach his/her full potential. The to the conclusion that the child welfare services are long-term societal goal is to prevent the children of ill-coordinated, don’t discuss with each other and underprivileged families from inheriting their parents’ most of all don’t look at the family’s situation as whole. situation, prevent the social exclusion of children and The intervention should start earlier.3 youth and thus save public money. It is estimated that by cutting the number of children taken into custody by 20%, €300m of public money could be saved annually. The vision is that youth are supported on their path to adulthood and families are supported until their own wings carry them. Social exclusion is prevented.

SOS Children’s Villages Finland’s Family partner service1 is a new (2016) service to families that have multiple challenges in their lives and do not seem to get the help and services they need. The family partner comes to support the family individually with organising and prioritising their social services and everyday life. For the family, the family partner is there to listen and understand. He/she is someone who looks at their situation as a whole and hears their point of view. On the other hand, for the service provider which is usually a local municipality, the Family Partner serves as a link and trust builder between the family and the public officials. Usually the Partner helps the family for 3–6 months.

Goals

The goals of the Family partner service are: Trust in the service system improves in the targeted families and a trustful relationship is formed between the family and family partner. The exact services and support mechanisms will be co-developed with the family and the family’s control of own life and feeling of belonging improves. Resources Crucial resources are the trained and professional (background in social work) employees who work as family partners. The family partners are working for SOS Children’s Villages Finland but get limited operational access to the municipal officials and their data (social workers, service handlers, certain data etc.). Access to the data and officials is important. The family partner works as a link and navigator between the family and all the different public services. The first family partners in Varkaus are former social workers, so they are already familiar with the public organisation and the service structure.

A family with three children has been using multiple One full-time working (38h/week) family partner can different social services for years. The mother is work with approximately 20 families in a year. struggling with severe mental illness and is on unemployment pension, the family is in a debt management programme, the father is in unemployment services and one of their children is diagnosed with ADHD and is entitled to special support. Despite all the services and support directed to them, the family’s situation does not seem to improve. Their problems pile up and the parents feel that trying to navigate with all the different officials and municipal departments takes most of their time and energy. The parents have been told that the officials are considering taking their children into care if their difficulties with everyday life get worse.3

 In this article the service is addressed in the form it has been used during the pilot phase and later on in the city of Varkaus. The model is slightly modified in other cities and the target groups are a bit different. However the core idea remains the same.  The whole impact chain is quoted from the Measures of Good project 3 Measures of Good: SOS Children’s Village 4 Imaginary story inspired by true customer stories.

Funding and the service are arranged in a few different ways in different municipalities (currently the family partner service is operated in 5 municipalities). In Varkaus the service is funded by philanthropic donation from a large Finnish co-operative, Tradeka. In Helsinki, Vantaa, Lohja and Kemiönsaari SOS Children’s Villages family partners service is one of the service providers in a Social Impact Bond (SIB) aimed to prevent child and youth social exclusion.

More about SIBs, please see pages 30-31.

Actions5

Municipal officials, often in the social service sector, can recommend the family partner to families they think would benefit from the service. These are usually families that are using multiple different social services (mental health, rehabilitation, economic trouble, child services etc.). The criteria for the service are that the family should show motivation to improve their own situation and willingness to work with the family partner.

The family partner service is a 3–6 month intervention where the partner walks alongside the family and supports where needed. The goal is that by getting to know the family’s situation as a whole, the family partner is able to get to the bottom of the family’s problems. The family partner can help the family to decide which services are most helpful and how to organise all their services (and life in general). Parents and children can freely talk to the partner about all aspects of life without bureaucracy and fear of negative consequences. Listening, understanding, and reacting to actual needs is key in the success of the family partner.

At the same time the family partner helps the public officials to understand the family’s situation better. The partner can give valuable information about the family’s needs to the municipality actors, who then can suggest different services/options to the family.

The family partner builds trust and understanding between the families and the public service provider. The partner clarifies the situation to both parties and helps with choosing the right path.

 Please note that “actions” described here only talk about the organising of the service in the city of Varkaus.

Outcomes

According to the Measures of Good impact evaluation the family partner improved the customer families’ trust in the service system. The families’ sense of control over their life and sense of belonging have improved. They are more committed to the social services they receive.6

 Measures of Good: SOS Children’s Village 7 The story is imaginary but inspired by true customer experiences.

Societal impact

The overall self-reported wellbeing of customer families has improved. With the help of the family partner the family gets the services they need and that increase their wellbeing. Unnecessary and unworkable services are dropped. If the family partner prevents even one child from ending up in foster care the service saves annually €90,000 of public money and is cost-efficient to the municipality.

The Family we started with is slowly but steady improving their situation. The mother goes to therapy and is finally taking the medication she needs. She found just talking with the family partner helpful. She is able to take little more responsibility over the family’s everyday life: taking the trash out, cooking, helping the children in little chores. The father is doing an internship and hoping to get permanently employed after the interning period. With the help and knowledge of the Family partner the family got a part-time nurse to help them at home, so that the children have someone watching over them when the father is at work. The father felt that with the help of the Family partner he could trust that everything at home would be fine while he is attending his internship.7