Play Shaper Evaluation A Final Report to Play England

Laurie Day, Nicola Smith and Jo Barham

Table of contents

1 Introduction and Context 1 1.1 Background to the Play Shaper Programme 1 1.2 The Evaluation 4 1.3 Report Structure 5

2 Programme Design and Development 7 2.1 Programme Development 7 2.2 Awareness-Raising and Recruitment 9

3 Effectiveness of Programme Delivery 12 3.1 Effectiveness of the Cross-Professional Training Events 12 3.2 Effectiveness of the Additional Information and Support 15 3.3 Local Embedding and Dissemination Activities 16

4. Impact, Outcomes and Sustainability 23 4.1 Continuous Professional Development 23 4.2 Knowledge and Competencies 24 4.3 Strategic Impact and Outcomes 26 4.4 Comparison with Other Forms of Support 28 4.5 Value for Money 29 4.6 Sustainability / Future Demand 30

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 33 5.1 Overview of the Evaluation Findings 33 5.2 Impact and Effectiveness of Play Shaper 34 5.3 Models for Sustaining Play Shaper 36

Annex One: Additional Consultation Data 40

Annex Two: Play Shaper Goals and Logic Model 45

1

1 Introduction and Context

This report presents the findings from an evaluation of the Play Shaper programme, which was carried out between January and October 2010 by Ecorys (formerly ECOTEC), on behalf of Play England. This first chapter provides some background to the programme, outlines the evaluation aims, and summarises the methodology used.

1.1 Background to the Play Shaper Programme

In November 2008, Play England was commissioned by the former Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to implement the Play Shaper programme, in partnership with Playwork Partnerships and SkillsActive. Play Shaper was allocated £2.3M in funding between October 2008 and March 2011, with the following core aims:

1. to raise awareness of the importance of children's play with professionals who are responsible for planning, design, and management of public spaces;

2. to support Local Authorities and their partners in creating more child-friendly public spaces and communities;

3. to reinforce the Statutory Guidance to Children's Trusts with regard to inter-agency cooperation; and

4. to support Children's Trusts and their partners to implement the objectives within the national Play Strategy.

The intended legacy of the programme is to change the way that professionals think about children and young people; putting them at the heart of the planning, design, building and management of public spaces. This is to be measured by the following:

Regular and ongoing training that is led by and for local authorities; An understanding of play being built into nationally available, initial and

ongoing training; An increase in the number of play partnerships at the local authority level that

include senior representation and councillors; Representation of play interests on the Children’s Trust; and, Inclusion of play in the Children and Young People’s Plan. Play England has also developed a more detailed set of short, medium and long-term outcome measures, which were developed into a Logic Model by Ecorys (see Annex Two). 1.1.1 The Partnership The roles within the Play Shaper partnership are as follows:

Play England is the lead partner. They managed the marketing and communications elements of Play Shaper, including the design and hosting of the web-site, awareness-raising and support via regional teams;

2

Playwork Partnerships, based at University of Gloucestershire, developed the Play Shaper training; recruited and trained facilitators; delivered the events; developed and managed the online assessment and learning environment; and,

SkillsActive, the Sector Skills Council for Active Learning and Leisure had responsibility for Quality Assurance of the content and delivery of Play Shaper. This role included liaison with the other relevant Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), to provide a consistent and comparable approach to other professional standards.

1.1.2 Play Shaper – Core Elements The original Play Shaper programme consisted of

1. A one-day Cross-Professional Seminar offered to every top-tier local authority, with a target audience of a senior professionals from a range of disciplines (see overleaf);

2. A Placemaking and Play module with a specific focus on planning and the built environment, to be delivered on a more selective basis on demand;

3. A Community Safety module, targeting senior police staff and those responsible for the safety and supervision of children and young people out playing;

4. A train-the-trainer element to secure a legacy of trained facilitators to embed the programme;

5. A quality assurance element to ensure consistent high quality across all the modules and allows professionals attending the programme to count this towards their continuing professional development where applicable; and,

6. A website including information for the general public, the target audience and an online learning environment for those that have attended the programmes.

The primary audience for Play Shaper included all of the following (Figure 1.1):

3

Figure 1.1 Key Stakeholders for Play Shaper

Source: Play England: 2009 The one-day format for the cross-professional training was targeted at senior managers, and included a mix of presentation, practical exercises, case studies and group discussion from experts. Each Local Authority was responsible for planning their Play Shaper event. This role was usually undertaken by the Lead Officer with responsibility for the local Play Strategy, and involved the following tasks:

Identifying and bringing together up to 20 participants from across the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) who hold key strategic positions for delivering the local Play Strategy and achieving the goals set out within the statutory guidance to Children’s Trusts; and,

Working closely with the Play England regional lead to ensure that the event is tailored to meet the needs of the Local Authority; ensuring that there are appropriate links in place with their Play Strategy, Local Development Framework, Children and Young People’s Plan and other key local plans.

Delegates attending a Play Shaper were asked to identify a set of commitments ('pledges') for integrating children's play within their area of responsibility. The pledges are then passed to the Lead Officer for children's play to review and follow up as appropriate, with support from the Play England regional teams. 1.1.3 Play Shaper – Core Elements The programme underwent a review and re-focussing exercise in March 2010, and a new format was agreed with the funders, DCSF. This included a more flexible range of options, with Local Authorities able to select a two-hour briefing session, and for two-tier Local Authorities to run two separate events if requested.

4

At the time of writing, Play Shaper was ongoing. By March 2011, every top tier Local Authority in England will have been given the opportunity to run a one-day professional development seminar in the new format, leading to the award of a Play Shaper certificate, which acknowledges ten hours of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for those participants who undertook and successfully passed the two-part optional assessment online. A targeted number of 'Placemaking and Play' seminars will also be made available to Local Authorities where planning and the built environment is an area for development. 1.2 The Evaluation

The overall aims of the evaluation identified, as by Play England, were to:

1. demonstrate the impact of the programme in supporting the delivery of the long term vision for play as set out in the Play Strategy;

2. demonstrate whether the Play Shaper programme offers good value for money;

3. provide feedback to improve the programme and ensure that it is meeting the Play Strategy goals and objectives;

4. provide supporting information for a business case for the embedding of Play Shaper in local authority strategic priorities during both the term of the programme and after March 2011 so that the benefits may be wide-reaching and sustained;

5. suggest the best models of sustaining Play Shaper; 6. measure the extent to which the Play Shaper programme results in the

embedding of the strategic planning process across local services including: Children’s Trust; Children’s Services; health; schools; planning; police; parks; and community regeneration; and,

7. provide a baseline for future evaluation of subsequent programmes.

The evaluation focussed primarily on the activities undertaken within Play Shaper up to the end of March 2010. This included the 13 pilot events, and a further 17 Cross-Professional Seminars. The Placemaking and Play events were piloted outside of the timescale for the evaluation data collection and are not included within this report.

1.2.1 Methodology

The evaluation methodology incorporated a mix of primary and secondary data collection, drawing upon the programme data and supplemented with consultations and qualitative interviews. A series of in-depth case studies were originally scheduled for the final quarter of 2010, with reporting in February 2011. This stage was not taken forward due to the wider financial profiling of Play Shaper. The final combination of methods is shown below.

Stage One: establishing a baseline: a desk-based analysis of programme data, including progress reports, pledges, and analytics data from the website and online training module; culminating in a Logic Model and Evaluation Framework Document1. A small number of exploratory telephone interviews

1 The full Evaluation Framework with the review of baseline data forms a separate document.

5

were also conducted with members of the Play Shaper partnership, to reflect on lessons learned from the programme.

Stage Two: consultations with Local Authorities and Partners: a 30-35 minute semi-structured telephone consultation was completed with 20 Local Authority lead officers for children’s play. Based on a population of 30 Local Authorities who had completed a Play Shaper event at the time, this represents a 66% achieved sample. It is therefore possible to have a good level of confidence in the results with regard to the degree to which they are representative of the Play Shaper programme, although the low numbers in absolute terms mean that it would be inadvisable to draw any firmer conclusions about what works for different types of Local Authorities. The interviews were administered at a minimum of four months after the initial Play Shaper events, although for some of the early events this interval ranged up to nearly one year. The leads were asked to nominate additional respondents who attended their original event, and a further 20 other professionals were interviewed.

Stage three: fieldwork research: a case study visit was conducted to East Riding, to interview the Local Authority lead and a cross section of other professionals involved in the original Play Shaper event, which took place in March 2009. In-depth qualitative telephone interviews were also conducted with the Play Leads in a further four unitary Local Authorities; two of which took part in the initial wave of pilots.

Stage four: tracking pro-forma: finally, a short self-completion pro-forma was distributed to each of the 53 professionals who made ‘pledges’ after attending their initial Play Shaper event and who provided contact details. It examined the extent to which the pledges were followed up in a period of between six and twelve months following the original Play Shaper event, and respondents’ views on the types of support they would most value in the longer term. A total of 12 pro-formas were completed and returned to Ecorys.

1.3 Report Structure

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Chapter two examines the development stage of Play Shaper, including the lessons learned from developing the training and the wider partnership and networks, and raising awareness with different professionals across Local Authorities;

Chapter three considers the effectiveness of the delivery of the Play Shaper training, drawing upon participants' accounts of the events, and examining patterns of participation. It also considers the effectiveness of the additional support provided through the programme, including the web-sites and role of the Play England regional teams, and the steps taken to embed and disseminate the programme;

Chapter four reviews the evidence for the impact and outcomes from Play Shaper, including with regard to Continuous Professional Development (CPD), and the wider strategic impact in gaining leverage over Local Authority

6

planning and processes. The chapter also examines the costs associated with Play Shaper delivery, and the extent to which the programme offered good value for money; and,

Chapter five draws together and concludes upon the findings from the evaluation, and provides a series of recommendations for Play England.

Annex One presents the more detailed charts and tabulations from the consultations. The original Play Shaper goals, as defined in the evaluation brief, and the Theory of Change Logic Model developed by Ecorys are presented at Annex Two.

7

2 Programme Design and Development

This chapter considers the lessons learned from the design and development of Play Shaper. It first examines the early challenges that were encountered in developing the training and content of the events, and recruiting the facilitators. It then goes on to review the effectiveness of the different approaches that were taken to raise awareness of Play Shaper, and to recruit the participants. 2.1 Programme Development

The initial stages in developing Play Shaper underlined the scope of the different elements of the programme, and the need to coordinate the efforts of a relatively large number of partners at different scales. These included

national: through the core partnership; subcontractors responsible for the specialist modules and website, and coordination with other Sector Skills Councils;

regional: through the Play England regional teams, and local: in securing ownership of Play Shaper by play leads.

The programme was perhaps somewhat ambitious in this respect, and the pilots did not get underway until March 2009 despite a launch in October 2008. However during the first three months of the project a number of key activities were completed culminating in evaluated pilot events:

A development group of 19 professionals was recruited from wide range of linked sectors and professions, and a full development day was planned and delivered to inform the development of the cross-professional programme focus, structure and content

A team of Play Learning Advisors was recruited, to form an expert group to develop and write the programme;

A one-day course was devised, written and submitted to the Steering Group for review and approval;

Ten local authorities were recruited to participate in the piloting of the course; Nine pilot events were held in a 3 week period to test and evaluate the

programme; and, A full (internal) evaluation was undertaken. 2.1.1 Challenges and Lessons Learned

The first of the initial challenges encountered for Play Shaper related to the drafting of the training materials. Whilst it was possible to draw upon a substantial bank of existing resources at Playwork Partnerships, these were generally targeted at the core playwork workforce. In contrast, Play Shaper required a focus on non-playwork professionals requiring adaptations to the structure and content. This was reportedly a challenging task to complete.

There was also a difficult balance to strike between meeting the objectives of the (then) department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF), by linking with other professional agendas at a strategic level, and the desire within the sector to

8

retain a strong ‘playwork’ element. This required some fine-tuning, and ultimately two waves of pilots were considered advisable before the rollout2.

A second challenge related to staff recruitment and capacity. An early shortfall in management capacity was largely addressed following the appointment of a full time National Programme Manager, Development Officer and Training Manager, however this did not occur until August 2009. This was thought to have strengthened the communication within the core partnership. However, some respondents considered that Play England continued to lack responsiveness at a regional level. This was reflected in the numbers of postponements and cancellations during 2009, as demand increased.

The volume of events being cancelled and low uptake in bookings during the latter part of 2009 meant that there was often a time lag between new facilitators being trained, and their opportunity to deliver a Play Shaper event. This in turn delayed the Quality Assurance process, as the verifier needed to wait longer for facilitators to meet the standard. In the interim period, a number of events received poor feedback, which led to some negative publicity for the programme. The launch of the Play Shaper website and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in January 2010 was generally thought to have provided a timely opportunity to re-vamp the programme, as well as publicise the free training that was available and encourage take-up from local authorities.

2.1.2 The Programme Elements

The Cross Professional Seminar was the first to launch, and has continued to achieve by far the greatest momentum out of any of the Play Shaper elements. In contrast, the specialist modules have taken longer to get underway.

The Community Safety module was considerably affected by the low attendance of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) at the steering group meetings for Play Shaper. SkillsActive also reported difficulties with engaging the other appropriate Sector Skills Councils to finalise the Quality Assurance for the module, and there was a low response to the Invitation to Tender to develop the training. Following successive attempts, the inaugural workshop took place in March 2010 and the decision was taken to incorporate the module into other elements of the programme rather than delivering it as a stand-alone. The key learning point was that greater time was needed to fully engage the national stakeholders, to ensure that Play Shaper added value to their work.

The Placemaking and Play module also took longer to design and pilot. The module was written in January 2010. The DCSF identified a need to provide additional briefings for the Play England regional teams before delivering the module, and rollout is now due to take place during the final phase of Play Shaper up to March 2011. In practice, however, some of the Local Authorities reported already having incorporated a strong ‘placemaking’ and public realm element to their Cross-Professional Seminar. This is discussed in Section Three.

2 Nine Local Authorities ran a Play Shaper in March-April 2009, which became Wave One of the pilot, and a further four Local Authorities ran in July 2009 with an adjusted model of Play Shaper.

9

2.2 Awareness-Raising and Recruitment

The data from our consultations shows that the Local Authority play leads generally understood the aims of Play Shaper and found them to be well communicated by the partnership (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.2 How clear did you find the publicity for Play Shaper, in communicating the aims of the programme?

024

68

1012

1416

Play Leads Partners

Num

ber (

n)

Very clear Fairly clear Somew hat unclear Very unclear

Base: 40 (Play Leads: 20, Partner Organisations: 20)

All but one of the Local Authority lead contacts responding to the consultation were satisfied with the clarity of the Play Shaper publicity. The one respondent who found the publicity to be ‘somewhat unclear’ felt that there needed to be a stronger message for why other professionals should participate, as they had experienced difficulties in persuading colleagues that children’s play was relevant to them. The qualitative interviews also highlighted that some Local Authorities thought the initial focus was weighted too heavily towards playwork, and more was needed to promote and explain the concept of child friendly spaces as a collective area of interest.

The partner organisation consultation was similarly positive, with just two of the twenty respondents finding the publicity ‘somewhat unclear’, and the remainder giving a positive response. These findings should be approached with some caution, as the partners were nominated by play leads completing the consultation, and it would be fair to assume that those who had a less positive experience were less likely to have been nominated or to have responded at all.

2.2.1 Targeting Partner Organisations

The Play Shaper guidance requires up to 20 senior professionals to be invited to the Cross-Professional Seminar, with guidance from Play England on potential delegates. The qualitative interviews show that there was a general interest amongst the Local Authority play leads to use Play Shaper to strengthen engagement with departments and organisations with which links were less well developed. For example:

Several of the play leads had reviewed the membership of their Play Forum as a start point to see who was missing, or looked for possible gaps in their Play

10

Strategy to identify where the objectives would benefit from additional professional support. This process was a useful one for taking stock: “…there are many thousands of people in the Local Authority and there were a few professions I wasn't fully aware of…”;

In another example, the play lead had specifically targeted the Spatial Planning Team and Traffic Management, who had been less involved in children’s play up to that point. The play team had already made some links, but these were at an officer level, and it was hoped that the event would make the connection at a senior level. Having a nationally funded project was felt to have helped provide some extra ‘kudos’; and,

A further respondent (a local play lead) had sought to create: “…the right balance between the converted and the non-converted”. They invited some contacts who were known to be already supportive of the play agenda, as well as addressing gaps. The reason was to help reinforce the messages from the play service, drawing on good practice from the local area.

It quickly emerged that the Cross-Professional Seminar was more problematic for two-tier Local Authorities. This was due to the greater number of delegates who might wish to attend from county and district. An alternative model was developed to address this issue, offering either ‘conference’ format to accommodate a greater numbers of delegates, or two events running in parallel.

A few respondents considered that the guidance from Play England on Play Shaper delegates was too open-ended. It was thought that certain Local Authorities had simply mirrored their local Play Partnership, so that the event featured “the usual suspects”. One of the stakeholders perceived an overall lack of representation by Housing, Health, Education, and Regeneration, and felt that a stronger steer by the Play England regional teams could have helped to address this. Others disagreed; however, noting that it was important to rely on the local knowledge of the play leads to make the best selection.

2.2.2 Recruitment Methods

The specific methods of recruitment varied between local areas. The qualitative interviews showed that there was a general reluctance to target Heads of Service during the pilot stage of Play Shaper, and that Assistant Heads or their equivalents were targeted instead. This was partly driven by pragmatism – it was felt that Heads of Service (particularly Head Teachers or Chief Police Officers) would be difficult to book; and partly by the reluctance to expose very influential councillors to what was an untested model at the time.

Approaches that were generally thought to have been effective included:

Getting the Director of Children’s Services (DCS) on board – DCSs were commonly thought to be key ‘gatekeepers’ to other partner organisations;

Linking with established strategic forums – one play lead raised awareness at a Children and Young People Strategic Partnership event, and persuaded the Chief Executive to send out information to all members; and,

11

Linking to other ‘prestige’ play or youth projects - stakeholders at East Riding felt that the recently awarded Play Pathfinder status was a boost in attracting delegates, as the profile of play had been raised across the authority and generated interest as a result.

One respondent noted that the level of seniority of the play lead could have a direct bearing on who they were able to recruit for Play Shaper, as did the enthusiasm and influence of individual local Members. A certain amount of delegation was also thought to have taken place, and the actual attendance on the day did not always reflect the original delegate list. The consultation provides a more detailed snapshot, as discussed in the following chapter of the report.

12

3 Effectiveness of Programme Delivery

This chapter sets out the effectiveness of delivery of the Play Shaper programme, examining the extent to which it has successfully facilitated a cross professional approach to training activity, and the extent to which the programme has provided effective information and support embedding Play Shaper objectives in wider training and operational practices. 3.1 Effectiveness of the Cross-Professional Training Events

Play England data showed that a total of 30 Local Authorities from across England had planned and run a Play Shaper training event by March 2010. This suggests that the programme was at early stages in achieving national coverage at the time the survey took place, although activities were continuing at the time of writing. A number of insights were provided by the consultations, as follows: Play Shaper had achieved a fair geographical spread by March 2010 when the

data was compiled, with three events held in the East of England, one in the East Midlands, three in London, five in the North East, three in the North West, one in the South East, four in the South West, three in the West Midlands, and five in Yorkshire and Humberside.

The considerable majority of events (27 out of 30) took place in Unitary Authorities; perhaps reflecting the greater challenges posed for some Two-Tier Authorities (see also the discussion in Chapter Two); and,

The interviews showed that Play Leads often consciously linked Play Shaper with other funded play initiatives in their local area as a mechanism for raising awareness or celebrating success.

3.1.1 Stakeholder Engagement The Play England delegate lists for Play Shaper, whilst incomplete, show that representatives were engaged from a wide range of Local Authority departments and other organisations. As might be expected, representation was consistently high from Play, Children's Services and Parks and Leisure. There was also fair representation overall from Planning, Highways and Transport, Libraries, Community Development and Regeneration. The extent to which participants felt that any key stakeholders were ‘missing’ from the events varied between Local Authorities, and depended on who had been invited. One of the respondents with a strategic overview of the programme observed some possible gaps for Housing, Health, Education and Regeneration team; although it was acknowledged that this was a perception based mainly on informal feedback from Play Shaper events, and was therefore largely anecdotal. The consultation findings accord that Health was quite often under-represented at the events, along with Police (refer to Annex Two for a full list). Other potential gaps were identified primarily on the basis of grade or seniority rather than

13

sector, with Directors of Children’s Services, Heads of Service and Heads of Commissioning also amongst those most commonly cited within the consultations. The Play England delegate data seemed to indicate that Third Sector representation was also lower than might be expected, although this was not identified as a particular gap by the consultation respondents. Those responding to the consultation gave the following as their main (perceived) reasons for non-attendance by key stakeholders:

Time pressures on senior staff; Lack of interest or recognition of the relevance of children's play; Poor communication (i.e. key people were overlooked) ; Short notice period to confirm attendance; and, Limited availability of places. In just under half of the reported instances where key individuals did not attend the event, the Play Lead identified that they were subsequently able to secure their engagement through correspondence or via other forums. A number of respondents commented that it took a greater amount of time to engage senior managers. A few considered that Play Shaper should be included as part of existing forums (such as a Local Strategic Partnership meeting), because a full day of training was too much to commit on this basis. However, it was also recognised that the attendance at a Play Shaper event could be relatively unique, and that there were few ‘ready made’ forums that would be likely to achieve the same coverage. 3.1.2 Structure and Format of the Cross-Professional Seminar The evaluation data showed that there was a learning curve with regard to getting the right format and content of the Play Shaper events. Several of the Play Leads who were interviewed by Ecorys for the evaluation considered that the initial content was too Playwork-oriented, and therefore inappropriate for senior members of the Local Authority. However, it should also be noted that the Play Shaper partnership received positive feedback from some of the other pilots.

The training format underwent redesign prior to further piloting and subsequent wider rollout, and indeed there was generally very positive feedback regarding the content and format of the events once they were rolled, as Figure 3.1 (overleaf) illustrates.

14

Figure 3.1 How highly did you rate the following aspects of the initial event?

05

1015202530354045

Opportunities toengage in

discussion withother local

stakeholders

The amount oftime spent on key

topics

Tailoring to yourLocal Authoritysituation and

priorities

The clarity of thenext

steps/actions tobe taken forward

locally

Num

ber (

n) PoorSatisfactory

Good

Very good

Base: 40 (Play Leads: 20, Partner Organisations: 20)

Respondents generally agreed that the Play Shaper event provided a good opportunity to engage in cross-professional networking, and the face-to-face format was thought to be necessary for this to be effective. The flexibility of the format and the small group discussion were valued by most. Participants highlighted the need for the training to be more than 'just a talking shop', however, and emphasised that it wasn't enough simply to make new contacts, unless these relationships could be sustained. The one day format, whilst problematic in some respects (such as gaining the commitment of senior staff), was sometimes considered to have had benefits in enabling an in-depth discussion around the value of play and the meaning of child friendly spaces that would not be possible within the tightly controlled agenda of a strategic partnership forum. Play Leads considered that the session was often the most effective where particular local priorities were tackled from a cross-professional standpoint. For example, one Local Authority used the afternoon workshop at their Play Shaper to address their local 'Swings and Roundabouts Playground Strategy'. There was a commitment from each department to link in to this, and to take a specific responsibility. Having the external trainers present, and representation from Play England was also thought to have been an important success factor by some Play Leads. This was mainly because it provided independent validation for the key messages at the event. Play Leads described routinely organising publicity and lobbying at a local level to raise awareness of the importance of play anyway, so the event helped to corroborate these messages. Similarly, one Play Lead had found it useful to actively involve colleagues from other Local Authority departments in preparing and delivering parts of the day. Again, this helped to underline the relevance to different professional roles. 3.1.3 Priorities for Improvement The main suggestion for improving Play Shaper's format related to making the event more ‘strategic’, even following the re-design process from the pilot stage.

15

There was a tendency for some Play Shaper events to default to a more traditional "playwork training session", and opportunities were thought to have been missed in some local areas to embed the day in local strategic processes surrounding the Local Development Framework or Green Spaces Strategy. The Play Shaper monitoring reports to the Department indicated that Play Shaper facilitators were sometimes under-prepared, which meant that events were not always appropriately tailored to the needs of the Local Authority. This was perceived to have been largely as a result of the high volume of event cancellations, and the lack of opportunities for new facilitators to co-deliver a session prior to facilitating on a solo basis. Finally, some of the respondents noted that a more recent development by Play England was to offer two hour strategic briefing sessions to senior managers as part of the Play Shaper programme. It was understood that this format was part of a two-stage process, which first involved engaging more senior members who would be able to attend a full training day, and to generate the interest in a subsequent one-day event. Whilst this format was at an early testing stage, some were concerned that it could be used as a light-touch alternative to a Cross-Professional Seminar, and that this risked losing many of the benefits. 3.2 Effectiveness of the Additional Information and Support

The Play Shaper website went live in December 2009, with the optional assessment offered at the events and an online learning environment launched in January 2010. Additional resources were made available on the website. The analytics data captured by Play England shows that the Play Shaper website was visited 4,166 times between February and August 2010, with 2,899 unique views. The web traffic included 334 international visitors, underlining the role of the website in providing wider dissemination for the programme. The web traffic data further illustrates that visitors were able to access the site through general keyword searches relating to the benefits or importance of play (see Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 Traffic to the Play Shaper Website

Source: Play England analytics (1st Feb – 31st August 2010)

Most respondents indicated that they were aware of the written materials and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), but had not used them to date (see Figure 3.3, overleaf).

16

Figure 3.3 To what extent have you used the following additional resources?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Play Shaperw ebsite (public

pages)

Dow nloads/w rittenmaterials

Virtual LearningEnvironment

Num

ber (

n)Ongoing use

Accessed once or tw ice

Aw are of resource but not used todate

Not aw are of this resource

Base: 40 (Play Leads: 20, Partner Organisations: 20)

Only one respondent had completed the online assessment for the Play Shaper module, and none had gained the Level 4 accreditation. The low uptake is unsurprising, given that the option had only been live for two months at the time the consultation took place. However, most respondents also felt that they would be unlikely to go on to complete the assessment or accreditation in the future. Latest data on the actual numbers of completed assessments / accreditation was not available at the time of writing. 3.3 Local Embedding and Dissemination Activities

At each Play Shaper training event, a series of pledges were made by the stakeholders in attendance. Three levels of pledges were made, to reflect the different timescales for taking action as a result of attending the event, and to acknowledge their intended impact. The guidance was that:

'Pebble' pledges were to be implemented in the days following the event; 'Stone' pledges within the next few weeks, and 'Boulder' pledges within the next few months. Play England collated pledges from over 200 participants at 19 events, via their regional teams, which provide a snapshot of the types of actions that were pledged. The nature and extent of the pledges varied considerably depending on the respondents' areas of responsibility (see Table 3.1).

17

Table 3.1 Specimen pledges made at Play Shaper events

Stakeholder Pledges made

Pebble pledges – next few days

Stone pledges – next few weeks

Boulder pledges – next few months

Example 1:

Police

Share the importance of integrating the play agenda into the work/project of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership.

Contact [name] and others to find out how our team can work more closely with the play agenda and how our projects can impacts positively on play in [place name].

Have at least one project in the CDRP that identifies the links between play and the community safety agenda, and that project to be well on the way to delivery. This could be intergenerational work.

Example 2:

Planning

Hold a team meeting for all the DC planners at [place name] and discuss issues and outcomes with a view to improving awareness / changing attitudes.

Meet with key senior staff to challenge the 'norm' about design of play equipment, so that opportunities for creativity are explored and introduced.

Challenge my S106 Working Group and Management Team… so that it becomes more proactive about expenditure of S106 monies regarding off-site public open space and play equipment. Ensure monies are prioritised in areas of need.

Example 3:

Health

Contact Children’s Centre lead and ask about impact of play development workers across city and also consider further provision of the services.

Consider further links of play with attachment / relationships to build into service review and commissioning plans

Explore how play can form core element of HN1SN service commissioning review

Example 4:

Parks and Leisure

1) Incorporate play into the vision and objectives of the draft Green Infrastructure Strategy. 2) Look at small scale play elements in the wild green spaces in [name of place]

Look at a range of schemes that could feature in the final version of the Green Infrastructure Strategy and talk to partners about their involvement.

Embed play in the final version of the Green Infrastructure Strategy including a range of play type indicators, especially natural play in action plan.

Example 5:

Highways and Transport

Learn more about play strategies and check if included already in national and regional guidance. Ask regional bodies if aware of the national agenda

Raise awareness of ‘play’ in the transport and traffic team and the need to reflect it in service delivery

Ensure that ‘play’ is incorporated into the new Local Implementation Plan (Transport Plan) and appropriate policies and proposals are included

Example 6:

Library Services

Liaise with children & young peoples librarians re: work with children and young people by the library service - what we are doing already? Are there any quick wins?

Build into next year’s library service annual aims

Build into next library strategy and into designs for new library buildings

The nature of the pledges also varied according to the associated timescale. The following draws out some key themes from the pledges that were made for the short, medium and longer term.

18

3.3.1 Short-term pledges (Pebble) For those local authority training events for which information was received,

the pebble pledges tended to reflect either undertaking further reading about play and the play agenda, or sharing the information gained during the training with colleagues more widely. For example, one delegate who worked as the area co-ordinator in the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) pledged to: "…champion the need to consider play and play issues and benefits within the PCT."

For stakeholders in a department with fewer established links to play, the short-term pledges tended to be more about sharing information with colleagues in the first instance: to "Read information and share with others in the team", or to "Give a presentation on the value of play to my team." This tended to be, although was not always, the case for Planning and Regeneration professionals. Where there was already a strong remit for play, however, the information-sharing was more outward-facing to wider stakeholders such as schools, and other external agencies. For example, one delegate from a Play team pledged to: "Link the Further Education College with the Childcare Development Team to look at play training for nursery nurse teachers."

Many of the pebble pledges were about ensuring that more senior colleagues were made aware of the training, perhaps reflecting the difficulty in engaging senior colleagues to attend at the initial event. For example, one delegate pledged that: "In the next few days I will talk to the head of Planning and Transport about how to get play as a priority in the Local Development Framework."

3.3.2 Medium-term pledges (Stone) The medium-term pledges were commonly associated with a wider

embedding of play within local strategies and action plans. There was a good sense of continuity from the pebble pledges in this respect. For example, one delegate from Schools and Children's Services pledged to: "Meet with colleagues to ensure that play/play provision features as strongly as possible within the Children and Young People's Plan (CYPP) so that it impacts in the sustainable community strategy." This built on the same delegate’s initial pledge to download information about embedding Play Shaper. A delegate from Transport and Planning pledged to: "Consider how the play strategy fits with the transportation priorities", which followed a pebble pledge to feedback information from the day to colleagues.

Where short-term pledges were about information sharing, the medium-term

pledges were more action-based. For departments with more experience of play; these pledges were more likely relate to the development of new areas of activity. For example, delegates from Schools and Children's Services at one event pledged to: "Develop a play policy for [name of town], to include values and principles for adoption by Children's Trust Board," and to: "Start

19

thinking about how I can work with partners to use play in working with young people in [name of] Library."

3.3.3 Longer-term pledges (Boulder) The longer-term pledges again provided continuity, with the aim of

mainstreaming play within Local Authority strategies. They were generally more ambitious in scope, and reflected an aspiration to bring about culture changes as a result of Play Shaper. For example, a delegate from Parks and Leisure pledged to "Embed play into Equality and Diversity Impact Assessments and business planning"; a delegate from the Police pledged to "Develop information regarding Play Shaper to influence my Police Youth Strategy" and a delegate from Regeneration pledged to "Discuss with the Regeneration Manager how play can be linked onto the next refresh of the Regeneration Strategy". Not all delegates made a longer term pledge.

In some areas, the longer-term pledges sought to further educate colleagues

about the benefits of Play and to raise awareness more widely. Pledges made associated with training initiatives included a delegate from the Police, who pledged to: "Be involved in developing the Police play shaper module", and a delegate from Highways and Transport who pledged to: "host a number of events in relation to road safety and play with children and where possible, parents and carers on things like road safety walks and rides in various schools in the City."

On balance, the concept of the pledges was thought to be a good one; particularly the sense of progression from small actions to larger ones through a “ripple effect”. In practice, however, the concept was not always felt to have been introduced clearly at the Play Shaper events or the method of following them up explained. Similarly, the respondents generally felt that the pledges could have been made SMARTer to make them more achievable. In one example, a Play Lead noted that it was only after the event that they became aware that the Play England regional representative intended to follow-up the pledges. As this was not known at the time, they had not been collected in, and there was no means of tracking them. 3.3.4 Progress with Implementing the Pledges

There was a mixed response in relation to whether the pledges had been implemented since the event, and just over a third of respondents did not answer this consultation question, suggesting the respondents did not know whether they had been followed up or not. As Figure 3.4 shows; around half of the consultation respondents felt that their own pledges had been addressed to some extent, although relatively few considered their pledges to have been 'fully addressed'. It was rare for either Play Leads or Partners to have taken no further action since the original event.

20

Figure 3.4 What progress has been made in following up the pledges you made at the event?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fullyaddressed

Partiallyaddressed

Littleprogress to

date

No furtheraction

Don't know

Num

ber (

n)

Base: 38 (Play Leads: 18, Partner Organisations: 20)

Stakeholder interviews showed that some delegates were unaware of the expectation to implement the pledges made on the day, or they had forgotten about them entirely. Others again viewed the pledges to be largely unhelpful, and treated this as a paper exercise, but nonetheless reported having adopted the ethos of the Play Shaper event in their working practices. As with other aspects of Play Shaper, the seniority of the person attending was thought to have been important to what happened with the pledges. Whilst more junior members of staff had often expressed a genuine interest in taking action as a result of Play Shaper, there was not always the same level of willingness on the part of the department or organisation that they represented. The pro-forma tracking exercise provided an opportunity to more closely examine the issues that were involved with actioning the pledges. Of the twelve respondents who returned the pro-forma, all but one had implemented their short-term ('pebble') pledges, which related to actions to be taken immediately following the event. There was a similar outcome with regard to the medium-term ('stone') pledges, of which only three had not been addressed. The longer-term ('boulder') pledges proved more difficult to implement, with only five of the twelve respondents having fully addressed them. A number of common challenges were identified in implementing the pledges:

The wider economic climate during the period was identified as a significant challenge, as Local Authority departments experienced budget cuts and internal restructuring;

Some respondents noted an ongoing cultural challenge in encouraging other professionals to think more laterally about play; especially at a senior management level;

The nature of local planning cycles meant that sometimes the initial momentum was swept away. For example, in one Local Authority, a re-draft of the Local Strategic Plan had seen the play agenda sidelined; and,

The time-bound nature of much play funding was also problematic in some areas. Other initiatives that had initially buoyed Play Shaper, such as the

21

Children’s Play Programme were often coming to an end, shrinking the wider infrastructure. As one respondent commented: “We still use the principles on other play projects but these are smaller and more low key”. The decision to freeze Playbuilder funding nationally was also thought to have caused some colleagues from other departments to lose interest.

3.3.5 Wider Awareness Raising and Knowledge Exchange Approaching two thirds of those responding to the consultation had actively shared and disseminated knowledge from the Play Shaper training event to staff within their own organisation following the event. This was more often the case for play leads than partner professionals. Where respondents had not raised awareness with colleagues, the reasons were:

Lack of time; Not considered a priority; or Negative experience of the event. Around two thirds of the Partner Organisations that attended a Play Shaper event also said that they had disseminated knowledge from the event to other departments or organisations. This indicates that the cascade effect of Play Shaper was realised - to a certain extent at least. The consultation showed that a diverse range of additional organisations were reached through this process (see Annex Two for a full breakdown). Planning departments would seem to have been particularly targeted for the subsequent awareness-raising, with efforts also concentrated on Youth Services. The consultation also explored the extent to which there had been any further communication about Play Shaper between the delegates who attended the event (i.e. on a cross-professional basis within the original group). This proved more difficult to achieve. Similar numbers of Play Leads responding to this question said that the level of contact was 'occasional' (8 out of 20), or had maintained more regular contact on an ad hoc basis (7 out of 20). A few reported regular and systematic communication (e.g. one Local Authority had maintained quarterly meetings with the Play Shaper group). At the other end of the scale, a few others reported no further communication between the group members since the event. One of the main challenges for sustaining the contacts made at the initial Play Shaper event was found to be the lack of an obvious forum for doing so. As one Play Lead noted: "all of the forum members were there on the day [at the Play Shaper], but not everyone on the day sits on the forum". This sometimes proved to be frustrating where much hard work had gone into persuading senior members of the Local Authority to attend the initial event. One Play Lead recounted how it had been a coup to persuade the Head of Children's Centres to attend a Play Shaper, and gain their recognition of the need to take a more systematic approach towards children's play in Centres across the city. The Head kept in contact following the event, but this did not prove possible to sustain. This issue around follow-up and embedding was partially addressed in one Local Authority area by organising Task Groups to keep the momentum from the day.

22

The approach experienced early success due to a focus on a smaller number of common targets that had been discussed at the event. For example, they had started by looking at a Risks and Benefits Policy, involving a senior Health and Safety Officer. The group meetings tailed-off as a result of the subsequent reduced capacity of Play England; the wider economic climate, and Local Authority restructuring. The Play Lead was philosophical about the extent to which a single event could provide lasting strategic engagement. 3.3.6 Demand for further training Around half of those responding to the consultation indicated that there was demand for further play-related training as a result of the initial event, and some Local Authorities had contacted Play England to request a second Play Shaper. The consultation and interviews showed that the reasons for this were as follows:

For those who participated in the early Play Shaper pilots, the main reason for needing an additional Play Shaper was as a result of key people within the Local Authority having moved on, which had broken the continuity in the relationships that were established at the initial event.

There were fewer instances where an additional Play Shaper was due to extra demand created by the first event, and the intention to refresh the training with a wider range of professionals within the Local Authority; and,

There were also a few instances where the reason was dissatisfaction with the quality of the initial event or poor attendance.

None of the partner organisations responding to the consultation reported having attended any additional training for Play Shaper or understanding how to embed children's play, since the original event. Combined with the low uptake for the VLE (see also section 3.2), this suggests a low propensity for the actual uptake of training opportunities; despite an apparent interest in future events.

23

4. Impact, Outcomes and Sustainability

This chapter sets out the impact and outcomes of Play Shaper; looking at the impact on participants themselves, as well as the wider strategic impact and outcomes of the programme. Two case studies are also provided, to illustrate the difference Play Shaper has made in two Local Authorities. The chapter goes on to consider the questions of value for money and sustainability. 4.1 Continuous Professional Development

The consultation explored the extent to which Play Leads and partner professionals considered Play Shaper to be beneficial as a tool for Continuous Professional Development (CPD) (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 To what extent has the Play Shaper training module been useful as part of your own continuing professional development?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Play leads Partner organisations

Num

ber (

n)

Very useful Quite useful Not very useful Not at all useful

Base: 40 (Play leads: 20, Partner organisations: 20)

As Figure 4.1 illustrates; most of the play leads reported some benefits, with three in four finding the training "quite useful". At the other end of the scale, a few play leads reported that the training was "not at all useful". This was accompanied with strongly negative feedback to other sections of the questionnaire, indicating a bad overall experience of the programme.

The training was found to have resulted in actual changes in professional practice for around a third of the play leads responding to the consultation (6 in 20). When prompted further, these changes were described as follows:

Adopting best practice; Improved strategic work around play; Taking a firmer stance; and, Raised awareness and understanding of different professional roles.

24

Play Leads routinely identified that they felt more confident in their ability to raise matters relating to play with different departments as a result of Play Shaper. This was brought about through the opportunity to discuss their role in an open environment with a cross-section of other professionals. For example, one of the Play Leads who was interviewed noted that their team was thinking more strategically about play “on a day-to-day basis”, following the Play Shaper training. They commented that:

"It's about changing hearts and minds, and we've done that through various things that we've been involved with."

(Local Authority Play Lead)

Partner professionals were generally more positive about the CPD benefits than were play leads. Most reported some level of benefit, and a third described the training as "very useful". This was consistent with the feedback from the tracking exercise, which illustrated that Play Shaper sometimes resonated strongly with partners who had previously received little or no training on the subject.

4.2 Knowledge and Competencies

The consultation also explored the more specific areas of professional knowledge, competence and understanding that were developed through Play Shaper. Figure 4.2 below provides a summary of the results for the Play Leads.

Figure 4.2 To what extent do you consider that Play Shaper has improved your knowledge and understanding of the following? (Play Leads)

0 5 10 15 20 25

The benefits of play for children

The relevance of play to your local area ofprofessional expertise

The benefits of play for local communities

The roles of different local partners in bringingabout 'child friendly' communities

The meaning and importance of 'child friendly'communities

The strengths and w eaknesses of w hat yourLocal Authority currently does in this area

The options for improving your current practice

Number (n)

Improved considerably Somew hat improved Little or no improvement Not applicable

Base: 20 Play Leads

Outcomes for Play Leads were strongest in relation to an improved understanding of local strategic processes and priorities. Some degree of

25

improvement was reported in most areas. However, a "considerable improvement" was reported by at least 4 out of 20 Play Leads for the following:

awareness of strengths and weaknesses of what the Local Authority currently does in the area of children's play;

understanding the options for improving current practice; and, awareness of the roles of different local partners in bringing about 'child

friendly' communities.

The outcomes for Play Leads were less evident around improved knowledge about the roles and benefits of play. This might be expected, given their prior specialist knowledge. Even so, just under half of the respondents reported some improvements to their knowledge of the benefits of play, following Play Shaper. Moreover, just under half of the Play Leads reported a better knowledge of the meaning and importance of 'child friendly' communities as a result of discussing this concept with other professionals at a Play Shaper event.

Partner organisations reported considerably higher levels of knowledge acquisition from Play Shaper across all competency areas, with the exception of a few individuals who already had a specific remit for children's play (see Figure 4.3). As noted previously, a likely upward bias must be taken into consideration within the results (see also Section 2.2).

Figure 4.3 To what extent do you consider that Play Shaper has improved your knowledge and understanding of the following? (Partner Organisations)

0 5 10 15 20 25

The strengths and w eaknesses of w hat yourLocal Authority currently does in this area

The roles of different local partners in bringingabout 'child friendly' communities

The relevance of play to your local area ofprofessional expertise

The meaning and importance of 'child friendly'communities

The options for improving your current practice

The benefits of play for children

The benefits of play for local communities

Number (n)

Improved considerably Somew hat improved

Little or no improvement Not applicable / don't know

Base: 20 Partner Organisations

As with the Local Authority Play Leads, some levels of improvement were reported across the spectrum of outcomes. Outcomes for partner professionals were strongest ("considerable improvement") in relation to the following:

26

knowledge about the roles / benefits of play for children and communities; and understanding in the concept of 'child friendly' communities and contribution of

different professional roles.

The following quote provides an illustration from one Local Authority area:

"A number of the relationships with colleagues in other departments made at the Play Shaper event have… resulted in greater awareness about the needs of children and how best we can work together to meet those needs. Senior colleagues reported that they had not been aware of the impact their work has on play prior to the seminar".

(Play and Childcare Manager)

As highlighted previously, an overall upward bias should be taken into account for the partner consultations.

4.3 Strategic Impact and Outcomes

In addition to participant outcomes, the evaluation examined any evidence for wider impacts on local strategic processes, planning and targets. These represent the 'higher order' outcomes within the Logic Model (see Annex Two).

4.3.1 Impact on Local Strategic Processes

The consultation explored respondents' perceptions of the impact of Play Shaper on a range of local strategic processes (refer to Annex Two for full tabulations). The play leads reported quite significant benefits from Play Shaper in terms of the regularity with which play is communicated internally to their department. Over half of the respondents identified some level of difference at both a strategic and operational level. This is reinforced by the qualitative interviews, which showed that Play Shaper sometimes prompted Play Leads to refresh the membership of play forums, or to improve communication with key partners. For example, one Play Lead described how they had subsequently sent out additional invitations to attend the forum, with some degree of success: "we have seen one or two new faces… we are getting these on a regular basis". The consultation also provided an insight to the relative importance that was assigned to the different Play Shaper achievements. One of the themes to emerge quite strongly from this was around strengthening the links between children's play and built environment professionals. Four of the thirteen respondents who answered this question made some kind of reference to planning (see Table 4.1).

27

Table 4.1 Key Achievements: Engagement of Planning Teams

Q. What do you think has been the most significant pledge completed to date?

Why?

Planning being involved Because it has bought play to the forefront of their minds when discussing new projects

To get organisations together, i.e. planning and key officers

It is giving us a wider influence

Planning working alongside the Playbuilder department

It brings play into all planning

We made contact with a very play-focused architect

Committed to us being able to review a brand new play site in a residential area

The consultation did not, however, give an indication of the sustainability of these outcomes, which was felt to be more problematic by some (see also Section 3.9).

4.3.2 Impact on Strategic Planning and Governance Arrangements

The evidence from the evaluation indicates that there has been a 'ripple effect' from Play Shaper in terms of improvements to strategic planning and governance. These effects were often difficult to attribute to the programme, due to the possible influence of other initiatives that were in operation at the time. The Play Lead consultation showed a more limited impact from Play Shaper on strategic and operational planning within play teams. The level of impact on actual service commissioning was also thought to be low. The interviews suggested this was partly because priorities had already been scoped out, and that the emphasis was on influencing other departments. The partner consultation also showed that there was a weak overall link between Play Shaper and actual service commissioning. However, over a third of partner professionals felt that Play Shaper had achieved some impact on integrating play provision within operational or service delivery plans. Perhaps most significantly, over half of the partner respondents thought that Play Shaper had resulted in the improved integration of play provision within key strategic plans for their area of responsibility. This was a core aim of the programme and provides a strong indication that Play Shaper events have achieved their desired result where stakeholders were effectively engaged and where the pledges were appropriately designed and implemented. The tracking exercise and consultation identified a number of more specific examples of impact on strategic planning. These included the following:

New play provision within local regeneration plans; Expansion or re-focussing of the Playbuilder programme; Play now included in the borough transport strategy and Play now included in the PE and Sport Strategy.

28

These types of impact were sometimes achieved in combination, following the initial catalyst provided by Play Shaper. In one local area, for example, the play section in the Children and Young People's Plan was re-written immediately following the event, and the play team identified some new action points to include within the Play Strategy for the following year. Awareness and support was also gained for Play Builder amongst the stakeholders in the same group. In another example, the Play Shaper event was used to strengthen the level of strategic involvement in the local Play Pathfinder. The event had been very timely in bringing together Heads of Service to reflect on the significance of children’s play and to build relationships. The Play Lead commented that:

"…now people are acknowledging what we do and understanding what we do a bit more because of that top level structure."

(Local Play Lead) In a further example, the Play Shaper underlined a common priority within the Local Authority to better meet the needs of children with disabilities. Although the play team already planned to bid into Aiming High for Disabled Young People for an extended year-round programme of play activities, the Play Shaper "…helped to provide the focus for the bid… really drilling down".

Partners were also more confident than play leads that Play Shaper has increased the likelihood of community involvement in decision making around play. Half of the partner professionals who were interviewed thought Play Shaper would make a contribution, whilst only a third of play leads thought the same. In one Local Authority, progress had been made with community involvement through Play Shaper by linking children's play more closely with volunteering projects. Levels of resident engagement had previously been poor.

4.3.3 Creating Child Friendly Spaces Finally, there were a few examples where Play Shaper was thought to have helped achieve a tangible impact on local places or spaces. These examples were rarer within the evaluation, but included the following: One Play Lead noted that, as a result of links established with the housing

department at the Play Shaper event, it was possible to secure funding from developers to purchase a minibus and undertake physical improvements to play spaces within a local housing estate.

Another Play Lead described how, as a result of closer working relationships

with Transport and Highways, and with the Planning department, they had become engaged in several projects. For example, a graffiti mural was included as part of a new underpass development.

4.4 Comparison with Other Forms of Support

29

The Play Leads were asked to compare the importance of Play Shaper with other forms of support and guidance in raising awareness of the play agenda at a Local Authority level (Figure 4.4).3 Figure 4.4 How important do you consider Play Shaper has been in raising awareness of the play agenda across the Local Authority, compared with other types of support and guidance provided during the same period? (Play Leads)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

National DCSFguidance:

Embedding thePlay Strategy

Externalconsultancy

support

Support from PlayEngland regional

teams

Training andawareness-

raising by thelocal Play

Partnership

Involvement inother pathfinders

or pilot

Num

ber (

n)

More effective than this About the same Less effective than this Don't know/not applicable

Base: 20 Play Leads The response to this question varied considerably, but Play Shaper fared well within the overall comparison4. The programme was considered more effective in raising awareness about children's play than external consultancy support (+4), and national written guidance from the DCSF (+3). It was considered marginally more effective than training and awareness-raising undertaken by the local Play Partnership5 (+2), and on a par with other support from the Play England regional teams, and involvement in other pathfinders. It would be fair to surmise, therefore, that Play Shaper has played an important role within certain Local Authorities as one of a number of mechanisms to raise awareness at a strategic level. However, the comparison question also underlines that not all of the impact can be attributed to Play Shaper, and that a cross-professional working is likely to have improved to a certain extent even in the absence of the programme. This is important to keep in mind when interpreting the consultation findings.

4.5 Value for Money

One of the evaluation aims was to explore the value for money offered by Play Shaper, in achieving the intended aims. Two thirds of all respondents (26 out of 3 Partner professionals were not asked the same question in the consultation, given that not all had a prior level awareness

of the children's play agenda before attending the event. 4 Calculated on the basis of ('more effective' subtotal – 'less effective') subtotal to give an aggregate figure 5 Although this support measure in particular is likely to be subject to wide variations at a local level

30

40 Play leads and Partners) considered Play Shaper to be either good or excellent value for money (see Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5 To what extent do you feel that the time / cost inputs for Play Shaper offer good value for money, compared with the benefits and outcomes achieved?

0123456789

10

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Stakeholder Group

Num

ber (

n)

Excellent value for money Good value for money Fair value for money Poor value for money

Base: 40 (Play Leads: 20 and Partner Organisations: 20)

At the negative end of the scale only three Play Leads and one Partner said that the programme offered poor value for money.

The qualitative interviews were more tentative on this subject. Discussions revolved not around the cost of running the event (which was offered free to Local Authorities) but around the costs of bringing together senior staff. Whilst there were some positive responses; several Play Leads did not consider it cost effective to bring together Chief Executives for a whole day, and thought the approach disproportionate when set against the other commitments of Directors or Heads of Service. One respondent considered that the time required to plan and deliver an event did make Play Shaper relatively cost intensive, and that the benefits were constrained by the lack of an effective mechanism for sustaining relationships. Had the model more effectively planned for ongoing consultation after the event, this may have been viewed more positively.

4.6 Sustainability and Future Demand

The sources of evidence from the evaluation demonstrate that there is a reasonable level of demand for continued impetus or action to promote cross-professional working around children’s play. Most respondents were positive about the prospect of running a Play Shaper style event again to help maintain this dialogue, although it was recognised that this is unlikely to be possible on the scale that was achieved during the programme without a nationally funded programme as a catalyst. Several of the stakeholders felt that the national profile and direction to the programme from the (then) DCSF and Play England had been critical to gaining strategic level buy-in from other professionals. One stakeholder viewed Play Shaper as a “time-specific investment” that was intended to address a gap in the

31

marketplace at a key point in the implementation of the national Play Strategy, and that Local Authorities would be likely to face a different set of priorities in 2011. They considered that the website and materials would provide a legacy for the programme, but the events as originally conceived might not. At a more practical level, the interviews highlighted a number of priorities for adapting the Play Shaper format if it were to be repeated. The specific areas for improvement were as follows:

Improved communications - some respondents demanded further direction regarding who Play Shaper is intended for. They felt that the recruitment was too open-ended, and risked key stakeholders being overlooked.

Pragmatism - the aim of supporting the development of child-friendly spaces was considered to be ambitious with the event format. As one respondent noted: “I am not convinced that we have yet had a robust discussion on what kind of environments we should be creating… Play Shaper seems a single issue, not an agreed comprehensive approach to local development.”

Guidance for embedding - there was also demand for a more effective mechanism to maintain the level of engagement of other professionals after the initial session. Some considered this a weakness in the current model.

4.6.1 Future Support Requirements There was a fair level of demand for future events of some kind. The play leads expressed a marginal preference for either the Local Authority to lead on the running of future events, or for this to be done by the Play Shaper partnership. Figure 4.6 What type of additional or extended training would be the most useful in future?

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Further events run by the Local Authority (i.e.'second tier

Further events run by the Play Shaper partnership

Further events led by the third sector

More formal accredited programmes for middlemanagers

Other external consultancy

More formal accredited programmes for seniormanagers

Number (n)

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Base: 40 (Play Leads: 20 and Partner Organisations: 20)

Demand for events led by the third sector was also relatively high. The respondents differed mainly in relation to accredited training. Whilst there was

32

moderate interest from play leads, the partner professionals saw greater value in potential accreditation and further CPD to spin out of the programme.

Finally, the consultation asked whether any other sources of (non-financial) support would be helpful to ensure the sustainability of the approaches developed via Play Shaper. This was an open-ended question, and the responses included:

Clarity of national policy regarding children's play; Leadership from the sector; Networking opportunities with other Local Authorities; Policy updates; Lobbying and awareness-raising; and, Further training.

There was not an opportunity to explore these themes further within the reduced timescales for the evaluation.

33

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This report has presented the findings from the Play Shaper evaluation, which was conducted by Ecorys on behalf of Play England. Chapter one set the background context and explained the evaluation methodology. Chapters two and three went on to review the effectiveness of the programme design and implementation, before chapter four considered the impact and outcomes. This final chapter draws together and concludes upon the evidence from the evaluation. It provides an overview of the key findings, and considers the extent to which each of the Play Shaper aims was fully met. It goes on to outline some characteristics of effective practice from the programme, before concluding with a set of recommendations for Play England. 5.1 Overview of the Evaluation Findings

The Play Shaper programme was funded to transform how different professionals think about children and young people; and to put their interests at the heart of the design, planning and management of public spaces. This evaluation concludes that Play Shaper went some way towards demonstrating the demand for training around children’s play, and challenged professionals from different backgrounds to view their practice in a new light. The Play Shaper aims were generally considered appropriate to a wide range of professional areas, and were communicated effectively; including through the programme website. It is also evident that there was a steep learning curve in designing and piloting the programme, which caused delays and setbacks to the timetable and required some adjustments to the original model. Specifically, this entailed the following: The original Play Shaper concept was overly ambitious in scope, and

stretched the partnership to its limits by seeking to develop more specialist variations for Police and Community Safety organisations and Placemakers, before the generic cross-professional training was fully piloted and rolled-out;

The regional and local infrastructure for Play Shaper was underestimated, with the Play England regional teams lacking some responsiveness in supporting the events. There was a knock-on effect for the Quality Assurance of Play Shaper from the event cancellations. Moreover, considerable negotiation was required between SkillsActive and other Sector Skills Councils to gain endorsement for the programme; and,

A culture clash was encountered between the aims of those within the sector to raise awareness of good practice in playwork, and the goal of the Department to engage senior Members within Local Authorities. Ultimately, it was recognised that the programme needed to start with a wider debate about children’s roles in public space. This was a two-way process that required reflective practice on the part of play teams on how best to work with other professionals, rather than a one-way dissemination of good practice.

34

It would be fair to say that these issues were acknowledged by the Play Shaper partners, and efforts to re-scope the original programme have been well managed in responding to local feedback. This is reflected in the adaptation of the Cross-Professional Seminar to cater for the needs of Two-Tier Local Authorities. These later developments unfortunately fell outside of the timescales for the evaluation. 5.2 Impact and Effectiveness of Play Shaper

Play Shaper had four core aims, to which we now return to consider in turn. Aim 1: to raise awareness of the importance of children's play with professionals who are responsible for planning, design, and management of public spaces

The evaluation has shown that Play Shaper played a valuable role in raising awareness of children’s play, and was often rated on a par with other pathfinders and support from Play England as a mechanism for promoting cross-professional working. The format challenged play leads to engage a much wider range of professionals than were already involved with Play Partnerships. Moreover, the consultation feedback indicated that those who attended the cross-professional training routinely improved their knowledge and awareness of children’s play. In those instances where the Play Shaper events were effectively planned and implemented, they achieved a high degree of success in relation to the following: Building the confidence and credibility of play teams to lobby other senior

professionals, and to make children’s play more relevant to their roles;

Raising levels of knowledge and awareness of the benefits of children’s play amongst other professionals, many of whom had previously undertaken very little prior training on this subject;

Embedding play across a wide range of strategies and partnerships, including local Children and Yong People’s Plans, Regeneration Plans, Transport Strategies, and PE and Sport Strategies; and,

Providing a platform to galvanise cross-professional support for other play programmes; including Playbuilder and BIG Children’s Play Programme.

The outcomes reported through the consultation must be treated with caution, as respondents were self-selecting, and therefore more likely to report a positive experience. Moreover, the consultation underlined that other programmes also played a role in raising awareness, and the outcomes must be shared between them accordingly.

The evaluation highlighted a number of common themes and priorities within the participating Local Authorities, which included:

An emphasis on linking with Planners and Architects, to extend the work of play teams into a wider range of built environment projects;

35

Targeted work with Children’s Centres, Early Years teams and Youth Services, to raise awareness of their contribution towards children’s play; and,

A strong equality and diversity agenda, with a focus on supporting children with disabilities to access public space and to exercise their play rights.

The impact of Play Shaper was constrained to quite a significant extent by variations in the quality and effectiveness of local delivery arrangements, and gaps in the representation by different professions at a Local Authority level. These gaps varied by Authority, but were thought to include: Police, Health, Housing and Schools; whilst the play leads regularly struggled to ensure representation from Heads of Service, Head Teachers and Chief Executives. It is evident that more effective targeting and recruitment is needed if Play Shaper or a future equivalent is to engage all of the desired professional areas. The durability of the impacts was also a potential area of concern. The play leads identified that the enthusiasm generated at the training did not always translate into lasting benefits at a local level. This was sometimes as a result of staff turnover and Local Authority restructuring, but was often because there was no suitable mechanism to sustain the communication within the group of professionals that attended the original event. This is perhaps one of the main drawbacks of the model, which was thought to be less effective as a stand-alone. Aim 2: to support Local Authorities and their partners in creating more child-friendly public spaces and communities The direct impact of Play Shaper on public spaces and communities is more difficult to measure. The evaluation showed that professionals attending the Cross-Professional Seminar routinely valued the opportunity to discuss approaches for developing child friendly communities, and often improved their understanding of what this means for their own professional role. However, it was rarer for respondents to be able to demonstrate a specific example where Play Shaper had directly informed a public project or development. Respondents identified a need for a wider debate to reach professional consensus on what child friendly public spaces should look like, and to test the significance of different levers such as national policy, and planning regulations. It was also recognised that Play Shaper provided just one part of a much bigger picture, and that grassroots community participation was also essential for transforming children’s experiences of public space. This is likely to require a greater focus on third sector capacity-building than was evident in Play Shaper.

36

Aim 3. to reinforce the Statutory Guidance to Children's Trusts with regard to inter-agency cooperation The evaluation shows that Play Shaper had a strong emphasis on inter-agency co-operation, and supported the work of Children’s Trusts by demonstrating the value of different professionals working together in relation to children’s play. This was achieved at a practical level within the format of the Cross-Professional Seminar. The direct level of engagement in Play Shaper by senior figures within Children’s Trusts was unclear from the evidence gathered during the evaluation. It should also be noted that the Statutory Children’s Trust guidance has since been withdrawn by the coalition Government, although there remains an emphasis on inter-agency cooperation determined at a local level. Aim 4. to support Children's Trusts and their partners to implement the objectives within the national Play Strategy Play Shaper had a core focus on supporting the achievement of the Play Strategy objectives, which was embedded in the format of the training and reinforced by showcasing the achievements of play teams in each local area. 5.3 Recommendations for Sustaining Play Shaper

Play Shaper was still underway at the time of the evaluation, following a re-focussing exercise in March 2010. As such, it remains an early stage for determining the final options for sustaining Play Shaper beyond March 2011. The evaluation evidence indicated that there was demand for future events and training of some kind, but the Play Shaper model is unlikely to be replicable in the current format without alternative funding becoming available. The consultation and interview data highlighted a number of elements of Play Shaper that were thought to add most value or be 'unique' to what is already available to Local Authorities through internal training or external consultancy. These were as follows:

The bringing together of different professional roles from across the Local Authority and independent sectors - which is relatively unprecedented within any equivalent local partnership where children’s play is discussed;

The face-to-face format of the cross-professional training - with the opportunity to network and develop individual relationships;

The intensity - an entire day of focussed training and discussion, which was sometimes sufficient to break new ground or tackle issues at a level of detail that is not possible via other forums; and,

The independent validation and prestige - afforded by being part of a national initiative with financial support from national Government.

Taking a pragmatic view, it is likely that a number of different types of support will be necessary to strengthen cross-professional working around children’s play in the future, given that Play Shaper will no longer be funded. The evaluation showed a potentially good level demand for further training and CPD in relation to

37

children’s play and developing child friendly communities, although this was not borne out in the actual take-up of opportunities through Play Shaper. Addressing any such potential future demand through a single initiative seems infeasible, therefore, and there is a need for other stakeholders to take ownership for their particular areas of responsibility. We recommend the following actions which could help sustain the knowledge and learning from Play Shaper going forwards.

Recommendation 1: Play England could use the evidence from Play Shaper and other programmes to make the case for continuing to promote a focus on cross professional development around embedding play. Potential actions to achieve this might include engaging with:

Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and sector bodies outside of the play sector to further recognise the value and relevance of play and build this into initial training and CPD programmes (e.g. for planners, designers, housing officers and regeneration managers);

Professional associations to review planning and regulatory frameworks to deliver on children’s play, by considering children’s needs within major public projects.

Government to provide clarity on national policy objectives regarding children’s rights within the public realm, and to continue and extend previous cross-departmental collaboration on this theme.

Recommendation 2: Play England might make the research, case study information and resources on the subject of ‘child friendly public spaces’ more widely available, to reinforce the learning from Play Shaper. This might include linking with international evidence from programmes such as Child Friendly Cities Initiative, via the Innocenti Research Centre at UNICEF. Play England is arguably well placed, having previously commissioned independent research on children and young people in the public realm6. Recommendation 3: Play England should continue to act as advocates for children’s play at arms length from the Local Authority (where resources allow), and assist with sharing good practice from other areas. This advocacy role is likely to continue to be important in the future, although it is recognised that capacity will be limited given that there have been no regional teams since August 2010.

Recommendation 4: Play England might consider making materials or a scaled down level of support available in the advent that some Local Authorities might wish to run (or re-run) their own version of Play Shaper after March 2011. The feasibility of this type of approach could be strengthened by looking at more cost effective ways to plan and deliver a Play Shaper event without the current infrastructure, such as:

6 The evaluators understand that this work is already underway at the time of writing.

38

pooling resources and expertise between Local Authorities to cover the costs of delivery, e.g. by jointly funding the time of a facilitator;

linking with complementary initiatives that have a focus on child friendly spaces and communities, such as CABE Spaceshaper and MyPlace;

running a targeted Play Shaper that focuses on a smaller number of key stakeholder groups / departments that are considered to be of highest priority for the delivery of the play strategy goals within the local area;

adopting a stronger action-planning approach to the Play Shaper events, so that the event is geared towards updating a particular local strategy (e.g. Regeneration), with less of a focus on awareness-raising and dissemination. This would require more of a time-specific approach, to synchronise with local planning cycles to maximise the potential for impact; and,

strengthening the role of third sector organisations within Play Shaper at a local level, through the engagement with umbrella organisations, charities and residents’ associations; to identify how child friendly communities can be achieved through a ‘bottom-up’ approach. This is consistent with the Government’s Big Society agenda, and new models of public service delivery. The current Engaging Communities in Play programme provides an example of how this work is already being taken forward.

Annex One: Additional Consultation Data

A2.1 Were any key stakeholders missing from the initial event who you consider important to the success of Play Shaper? (Play Lead consultation)

Frequency

Health 7

Police 4

Director of Children's Services 4

Heads of Service 4

Heads of Commissioning 2

Planning and Highways 2

Elected Members - Cabinet Member 2

Housing Association 1

Education Department 1

Regeneration 1

Community Safety 1

Base: 20 Play Leads

A2.2 To what extent have you shared / disseminated the knowledge from the event?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Stakeholder group

Num

ber (

n)

Actively at all levels

Actively, at astrategic/board level only

To some extent

Not at all

Base: 40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

Frequency

A2.3 Have you shared / disseminated the knowledge from the event with other departments / partner organisations? (A. Yes)

(Play Lead consultation and Partner Organisation consultation combined)

Activ

ely

at a

ll le

vels

Activ

ely,

at a

st

rate

gic

/ boa

rd

leve

l onl

y

To s

ome

exte

nt

Tota

l

Planning Department 7 4 0 11

Parks and Leisure 2 1 3 6

Youth Service 3 1 2 6

Transport 2 1 2 5

Police 3 1 1 5

Schools / Extended Services 3 0 1 4

Third Sector 1 3 0 4

Local Strategic Partnership 2 1 1 4

Housing 1 2 0 3

Area Teams 1 1 0 2

Sports Development 0 2 0 2

Regeneration 2 0 0 2

Health and Safety 1 1 0 2

Community Engagement 1 1 0 2

Specialist - Disabilities 0 0 1 1

Places Directorate 0 0 1 1

Private Play Providers 0 0 1 1

Safeguarding 0 0 1 1

Funding Co-ordinators 1 0 0 1

Education 1 0 0 1

Health / PCT 1 0 0 1

Libraries 0 1 0 1

Environment 1 0 0 0

Base: 40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

A2.4 To what extent would you say that Play Shaper has resulted in improvements to the following key indicators?

Frequency of communications to operational staff regarding the importance of play

3

9

2

6

0

1

9

4

3 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Num

ber (

n)

40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

Inclusion of play provision within key strategic plans for your area of responsibility

3

2

6

7

2 2

10

4

1

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Has made asignif icantdifference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Num

ber (

n)

Base: 40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

Inclusion of play provision within operational or service delivery plans for your area of responsibility

3 3

6

7

1

3

5

4

3

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know Has made asignif icantdifference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Num

ber (

n)

Base: 40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

Regularity with which play is discussed at departmental or directorate meetings

2

9

2

6

1

9

0

5

4

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Num

ber (

n)

Base: 40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

Inclusion of play provision within newly commissioned services for your area of responsibility

1

3

6

8

2

0

5 5

3

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Has made asignif icantdif ference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know Has made asignif icantdifference

Has madesome

difference

Potential tomake a

differencebut not yetachieved

Unlikely tomake a

difference

Don't know

Play Leads Partner Organisations

Num

ber (

n)

Base: 40 (20 Play Leads and 20 Partner Organisations)

Annex Two: Play Shaper Goals and Logic Model

Play Shaper Goals

Short-Term

Understanding of the event and the training received; especially in terms of individual role and profession

Knowledge transfer as a result of the event

Change in attitudes – impact of the event on how individuals feel about play and their role in play

Understanding of requirements for the future including dissemination of information on the role of play as explained at the event and in particular how play fits in with individuals department/ team/ profession

Medium-Term

Provision for play discussed or included in local authority (team/ department/ directorate) training plans/ meetings

Development of contacts and communications regarding the importance of play provision in local services

Policy or committee documents include more about play provision and show that provision for play is considered at decision making level

Requests for internal Play Shaper training/ events including nominated trainer

Degree to which pledges made at Play Shaper event have been actioned or followed up

Extent to which the day to day work of the participant has changed

Long-Term

Extent to which local authority has embedded training on play and play provision in its own development programmes evidenced by a play dimension included in:

i) representation on the Children’s Trust

ii) inclusion of play in the Children’s Plan

iii) planning/ regeneration/ community regeneration

iv) crime prevention and anti social behavior strategies

v) road safety and traffic planning

vi) school and health services

vii) other cross-authority departmental activities

Range of policies and practices embedding play provision and opportunities.

More active cross-cutting play partnerships

Evidence that local authorities understand the need to actively plan, design, build and manage play into their thinking and subsequent actions

New modules of Play Shaper events/ training being requested, funded and developed by LSP organisation or local authority

Play England, 2009

Theo

ry o

f C

hang

e

DC

SF c

omm

issi

ons

Pl

ay E

ngla

nd w

ith

Play

wor

k Pa

rtner

ship

s an

d Sk

illsAc

tive,

to

deliv

er P

lay

Shap

er –

a

prog

ram

me

to s

uppo

rt lo

cal i

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e P

lay

Stra

tegy

, and

C

hild

ren'

s Tr

usts

st

atut

ory

guid

ance

on

inte

r-ag

ency

coo

pera

tion

Inpu

ts

£2.3

M in

fund

ing

prov

ided

by

DC

SF

betw

een

Jan

2009

an

d M

arch

201

1,

chan

nelle

d vi

a th

e Pl

ay S

hape

r pa

rtner

ship

Act

iviti

es

P

ilotin

g an

d ro

llout

of

3 tr

aini

ng m

odul

es

with

top

tier L

As a

nd

partn

er o

rgan

isat

ions

S

econ

d tie

r tra

inin

g

Q

ualit

y as

sura

nce

W

ebsi

te a

nd V

LE

Out

puts

4

8 ev

ents

de

liver

ed

A

ll 15

2 LA

s st

and

to re

ceiv

e tra

inin

g an

d gu

idan

ce

W

ebsi

te

deve

lope

d

Out

com

es

Long

-term

P

lay

embe

dded

in

loca

l gov

erna

nce

arra

ngem

ents

, tra

inin

g an

d C

PD

M

ediu

m te

rm

P

lay

embe

dded

in

loca

l stra

tegi

c pr

oces

ses

and

com

mun

icat

ions

Sh

ort t

erm

P

ract

ition

er

attit

udes

and

aw

aren

ess

of p

lay

K

now

ledg

e tra

nsfe

r

Stra

tegi

c A

dded

Val

ue

P

rogr

amm

e su

ppor

ts a

coo

rdin

ated

stra

tegi

c ap

proa

ch fo

r add

ress

ing

the

natio

nal P

lay

Stra

tegy

com

mitm

ents

L

ever

age

over

loca

l res

ourc

es a

nd k

ey s

take

hold

ers

C

atal

yst f

or lo

cal i

nnov

atio

n an

d sh

arin

g of

goo

d pr

actic

e

Play

Sha

per P

rogr

amm

e: T

heor

y of

Cha

nge

Logi

c M

odel

Con

text

/ Pro

ject

Rat

iona

le

Chi

ldre

n's

play

is n

ot a

lway

s af

ford

ed a

hig

h pr

iorit

y by

the

prof

essi

onal

s w

ho d

esig

n,

build

and

man

age

loca

l com

mun

ities

.

Thos

e w

orki

ng o

utsi

de o

f the

imm

edia

te 'p

lay

sect

or' s

omet

imes

lack

an

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

thei

r rol

es in

dev

elop

ing

child

-frie

ndly

pub

lic s

pace

s.

Prio

rity

to im

prov

e in

ter-

agen

cy c

oope

ratio

n to

impr

ove

wel

l-bei

ng fo

r chi

ldre

n, y

oung

pe

ople

and

thei

r fam

ilies;

incl

udin

g w

ith re

gard

to th

e bu

ilt e

nviro

nmen

t.

Impa

cts

Num

bers

of h

igh

qual

ity p

lay

spac

es

Enha

nced

inte

r-ag

ency

co-

oper

atio

n to

im

prov

e ch

ildre

n's

wel

lbei

ng th

roug

h pl

ay

Num

bers

of n

ew p

ublic

pro

ject

s ta

king

in

to a

ccou

nt c

hild

ren'

s pl

ay ri

ghts