Anticipation is part of a holistic picture for child well-being. Finland published its first National Child Strategy in February 2022 with the aim to create a consistent foundation and better co‑operation for all policies and practices concerning children in Finland, embed consideration for children's rights in the mainstream, and better secure the status of vulnerable children. In this reform, co‑ordination for child well-being is to shift from national-local to a three-level approach, namely national-county-local. The pilot case study looks at how anticipatory innovation can be fostered across different government levels and what tools, methods and structures are needed to make it impactful.
Anticipatory Innovation Governance Model in Finland
Towards a New Way of Governing
OECD Public Governance Reviews
11. Child well-being in Finland’s welfare service counties
Abstract
Introduction
The pilot case study on Child Well-Being in Finland’s Welfare Service Counties seeks to create new possibilities for anticipatory innovation on children’s well-being, with coherence and synergies across multiple actors at various levels of government.
At the core of this case is an issue of collaboration and coherence. A new challenge and need for close co‑operation in policy affecting children’s well-being has arisen from the health and social services (SOTE) reform, in which health and social services will be transferred from municipalities to new well-being counties, thus creating a new layer of governance which must be taken into account. Additionally, child well-being concerns multiple domains such as education, healthcare, and family services—which often span multiple institutional domains such as different ministries, thus creating a multiplicity of actors contributing to the issue.
Also at the core of this case is anticipatory governance, since children’s well-being is (like many policy fields) in a context of uncertainty, complexity, and novelty. This is because it is subject to evolutions and transformations in the future involving society, technology, environment, and the economy. No governance model—even with the most successful of reforms—can deliver support to children’s well-being over meaningful periods of time, unless it has the ability to constantly perceive, understand, and act upon the changes of the future as they emerge.
To identify ways forward, the OECD undertook multiple activities to support the analysis in this document:
Child well-being task force: a dozen experts in child well-being, senior policy makers, and public officials met monthly to provide information on the Finnish context, reflect on critical questions, and provide feedback on the ongoing study.
Workshops and expert consultations: experts and peers from welfare service counties in Finland participated in interactions on elements of the analysis, and responded to information and updates on the study.
International case study analysis: in consultation with Finnish partners, a set of case studies from six other countries was chosen to highlight successful practices in anticipation, child well-being, and national-local co‑ordination; results include a set of most pertinent findings for Finland, provided in this report.
International learning sessions: policy analysts and experts with international experience, including a project on a future scenario for child well-being in municipalities in the Netherlands, participated in a learning session with the Finnish task force.
OECD consultation: experts from several OECD directorates in the fields of child well-being, child protection, education, skills, and several other domains brought multidisciplinary knowledge to bear, including topics such as capacity-building and evidence management for child well-being policies.
Findings in this chapter are supported at several instances with anonymised quotes from task force members, as well as participants in dialogues between civil servants and policy makers, hosted internally by the Finnish Government.
The chapter opens with an analysis of child well-being as a domain with multiple and uniquely pertinent connections with the discipline of anticipation. Following sections explore the context of child well-being in Finland through a number of institutions, initiatives, and other work. The case presents international practices in anticipation and child well-being help to identify successful practices in anticipation and child well-being. Drawing on this analysis and consultations with a task force of Finnish experts and senior decision-makers, a gap analysis identifies four key areas where the Finnish system could be made more conducive to the practice of anticipatory innovation. Finally, the chapter outlines opportunities for action are elaborated based on a set of objectives and mechanisms of anticipatory innovation governance (AIG). These opportunities lead to three concrete options for Finland to consider implementing in order to further the quality and quantity of anticipatory innovation undertaken in its child well-being governance system. These options are:
1. Child well-being missions to generate concerted and collective impact
2. Ecosystem building to strengthen quality of collaboration between various actors
3. Signal exchanges to promote the generation and use of futures knowledge
The final reflections consider the implications for the model of AIG more generally for Finland and beyond. The analysis finds that it is not just the existence of static components such as a task force or a report that create systematic anticipatory innovation. Attention must be given to the system’s behaviour too. How things fit together and interact is primordial to identifying the activities needed to initiate, motivate, and sustain a dynamic AIG system that exceeds institutions, and delivers true collaboration and concrete benefits. Hence, a system dynamics analysis would be a valuable next step in developing the AIG blueprint for governments.
Child well-being: A uniquely anticipatory domain
As a policy domain, child well-being has several characteristics that make anticipation particularly valuable. Some international policy work recognises this and seeks to address current and emerging needs.
Anticipatory governance (and hence anticipatory innovation governance) has particular relevance and value in the field of child well-being for a number of reasons. These include:
The changing nature of childhood, whereby the world in which children grow up tomorrow is different from the world in which previous generations grew up
Changing policy and measurement considerations for childhood, with new concepts emerging and an incomplete evidence base
The sense of uncertainty and complexity inherent in policies affecting people early in their lives, whereby the impacts could be unpredictable, profound, and long-lasting for the future of society, economy, and the environment
The changing nature of childhood
To design, implement and monitor effective child well-being policies, policy-makers need data that better capture children’s lives, measure what is important to them and detect emerging problems and vulnerabilities early on. Despite improvements in recent decades, there are still important gaps in both national and cross-national child data (OECD, 2021[1]). Children are growing up irrespective of this research, and decisions must be made in the absence of perfect knowledge about what will best support their well-being. In this sense, anticipation is all the more essential since waiting for sufficient evidence means waiting until it is too late to have a positive impact on children’s lives. For example, it is not sufficient to refer to previous technological advances to understand how artificial intelligence may enable transformations not just in delivering child well-being services in today’s frameworks, but in the entire concept of children’s well-being (Polchar, 2020[2]).
Children in the 21st century are better off than their predecessors in many measurable ways: better public safety and support for physical and mental health, as well as greater access to education and improvements in gender equality are all good news (OECD, 2016[3]; 2019[4]). Yet children today report more stress and anxiety, and many developments such as digital technologies are presenting new hazards such as cyberbullying (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[5]).
While many of the needs of children (such as good nutrition, emotional support, and opportunities to learn and play) will never change, the world around them is very different. Some examples of developments affecting the future well-being of children include the effects of urbanisation and increasing education pressure on time for play (OECD, 2019[6]); and the emergence of technology-related phenomena such as cyberbullying and harmful online content. There is at least some indication of a link between digital technologies and child well-being: a majority of children in OECD countries report feeling bad when they lack internet access (Hooft Graafland, 2018[7]).
Aside from these tentative indications, the overall picture is that much is still unknown about recent and future developments and their implications for child well-being, so more research is needed (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[5]). Not least among these uncertain developments are the latent and long-term effects of the coronavirus pandemic and related measures on the well-being of children. Lockdowns, school closures, and remote learning “have resulted in an erosion of many protective factors that attending school offers, including daily routines, social contact, social and emotional support from teachers, sense of belonging to a community, and access to physical exercise. While many young people have been able to maintain connection with peers through digital means, the loss of in-person interaction resulting from school closures could have long-term negative consequences for mental health.” (OECD, 2021[8]).
Changing policy and measurement considerations for childhood
In addition to the evolving nature of the issues, the very concept of child well-being is relatively new in public policy and potentially still subject to further evolution. An analysis Google Books over the last century, shown in Figure 11.1, shows a dramatic increase in use of “children’s well-being” and related terms starting in the late 1980s and continuing to the present.
Figure 11.1. Frequency of terms related to child well-being in Google Books over time
Source: Google Books
In spite of this increased interest, there is no widespread and systematic use of any set of concepts and evidence covering all three of the main areas of interest of this study: well-being, children, and anticipation.
Regarding well-being, substantial progress has been made to codify and quantify concepts of better living (OECD, 2011[9]; 2015[10]; 2020[11]). None of the Sustainable Development Goals is exclusively aimed at children, although all of them are of some relevance, particularly SDG 4 on quality education (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021[12]), and many of the indicators are child-related.
Regarding children, OECD analysis has identified more than 50 indicators, covering 43 of the 169 targets and 11 of the 17 Goals to evaluate the distance that OECD countries need to travel in order to reach the SDG targets for child well-being (Marguerit, Cohen and Exton, 2018[13]). Another example is an assessment of countries’ performance in delivering what children need to survive and thrive, with an accompanying “child flourishing index”: this analysis takes into account current situations as well as the detrimental contribution of current actions to children’s well-being in the future through climate change (Clark et al., 2020[14]).
Regarding anticipation, prospective research in the field of child well-being can be found in the literature on intergenerational fairness and justice. The OECD (2020[15]) has published a Public Governance Review on the relevance of an array of public policies and actions for young people, including national youth strategies, engagement of youth in democratic processes, and incorporating intergenerational analysis into policy impact assessments. Another example is the assessment framework for intergenerational fairness (School of International Futures, 2021, p. 8[16]), which uses situation and impact assessment along with scenarios to whether a decision is fair to different generations, now and in the future.
A case of policy innovation which deals with intergenerational effects is The Well-being of Future Generations Act in Wales, which requires public bodies to consider long-term and sustainability effects of decisions taken in multiple policy domains; it also establishes the role of a Future Generations Commissioner, tasked with promoting intergenerational justice (Government of Wales, 2015[17]). More examples of national public-sector work on anticipation and innovation in child well-being are explored in the section on international cases.
Uncertainty and complexity in child well-being policy
It cannot be assumed that policy objectives of child well-being in 2022 will remain the same indefinitely. It is recognised that child well-being is a set of problems characterised by numerous interconnected factors, incomplete and contradictory information, and no clear idea of what the solution would be if it existed. Such situations are called wicked problems (Camillus, 2008[18]; Devaney and Spratt, 2009[19]). It is not possible to conceive of child well-being as the exclusive domain of only one institution such as education; instead it is increasingly necessary to foster partnerships between educators, parents and families, health professionals, psychologists, and law enforcement among others (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[5]).
Numerous initiatives and studies have been created in response to the above needs for anticipatory work. These include a vast number of visions and strategies specific to child well-being, some of which will be explored in greater detail below. But this work is also complicated by numerous factors. One of these is the fact that the most important relationships and preoccupations of children change as they grow (for example, the role of parents is much greater for young children than for teenagers) (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[5]). Hence, the policy levers which are most appropriate and effective to each individual will vary over time. There are also issues of agency and ethics: children develop their own reason and conscience over time, and therefore need differing levels of protection, guidance, and autonomy accordingly. For example, children have a sense of privacy from as early as five years old, but gain the ability to use it in decision-making some years later (Livingstone, Stoilova and Nandagiri, 2018[20]).
Existing anticipation for child well-being in Finland
To develop options for action for an AIG model for child well-being in Finland, it is important to determine the main trends and developments that are likely to affect the governance of future of child well-being in Finland, as well as preferences of stakeholders about what this future should look like. This section considers the capabilities of Finland to develop anticipatory innovation governance in child well-being through the lens of a number of structures, processes, and developments:
National Child Strategy, adopted in 2020, which outlines the strategic policies, governance, services and measures necessary to lay a sustainable, consistent and lasting foundation for national child and family policies, in line with children’s and human rights.
SOTE Reform, which will restructure how social and healthcare as well as rescue services will be organised in Finland, by transferring the responsibility to organise these services from municipality-level to 21 self-governing “well-being service counties”. In addition the city of Helsinki will be responsible for organising health, social and rescue services within its own area (Government of Finland, 2021[21]).
Child-oriented budgeting pilot, a forthcoming initiative for the 2022 budget.
Itla, the children’s foundation.
Finland’s national foresight system, a collection of activities, networks, and processes underpinning anticipatory innovation activity in the country.
Report to Parliament by the Ombudsman for Children 2022, a quadrennial assessment of the situation of children and their rights.
National Social and Healthcare Innovation and Strategy Network, a forum for sharing practices and innovations in the welfare county of North Ostrobothnia.
Perhekeskus (family centres) and Ohjaamo (one-stop guidance centres).
Out of scope in this analysis is an inventory or dissection of the overall system of governance for child well-being in Finland, as well as the day-to-day workings of organisations such as ministries, welfare counties, and municipalities. While these elements are key for considering how and where to implement AIG, such an analysis would be excessively time-consuming and produce a good deal of knowledge superfluous to this report. Instead, these elements are considered where most relevant in light of where there are gaps and areas for improvement, in the sections on gap analysis and opportunities for action.
National Child Strategy
Groundwork for a national child strategy in Finland was laid by previous governments (Ministry of Education and Culture Finland and Ministry of Social Affaires and Health Finland, 2019[22]) before Finland published its first national Child Strategy in February 2021. Due to the fragmented nature of decisions and policies concerning children in Finland, the rights of the child were not fully and equally realised in all areas of society. The goal is a society that respects the rights of children. The National Child Strategy is based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (The UN Convention is founded on the principles of non-discrimination; the child’s best interests as the primary consideration; a child’s right to life, survival and development; and the child's participation.) The aim of the Strategy was to create a consistent foundation and better co‑operation for all policies and practices concerning children in Finland, embed consideration for children's rights in the mainstream, and better secure the status of vulnerable children. The task is to formulate a vision for a child and family-friendly Finland that spans government terms and crosses administrative boundaries. The Child Strategy will be based on information and research evidence, and it will promote the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
According to the parliamentary Committee on National Child Strategy, “The committee considers that the National Child Strategy should create a child- and family-friendly Finland that respects the rights of the child. The Child Strategy is closely linked to broader strategic forecasts and choices concerning the future of society.” (The parliamentary National Child Strategy Committee, 2022[23]). The anticipatory dimension is therefore explicit with respect to the context within which children’s rights are to be implemented.
Another dimension of anticipation is evident in the articulation of a vision for children’s well-being, which includes securing adequate income for families, work-life balance for caregivers, good public services, and good education. It further expresses a desire to listen to children's views and include multiple generations in societal questions. Children are also seen as full and future democratic agents, with a right to intergenerational justice.
Reform of healthcare, social welfare and rescue services (SOTE reform)
The introduction of the social and welfare (SOTE) reform completely re-envisages how child well-being services are governed and organised (Government of Finland, 2021[21]). Co‑ordination for child well-being is to shift from national-local to a three-level approach, namely national-county-local. While services are co‑ordinated on the county level, the actual provision of services is likely to continue taking place on the local level (e.g. doctors, social services).
The introduction of 21 regional welfare service counties (hereafter simply “welfare counties”) is unprecedented in Finland and is therefore subject to some level of uncertainty about its implementation. The groundwork for the present report coincided with the moment at which the welfare counties assumed their responsibilities with respect to child well-being. The associated workload was cited as a reason for low engagement and uptake of the opportunity to contribute to the project on anticipatory innovation among welfare counties. Given their key role in the system, the ability and willingness of welfare counties to participate in anticipatory innovation in the future is of critical importance to the potential success of building anticipatory innovation governance.
The SOTE reform in principle presents an opportunity for new organisational habits to be tried, refined, and embedded while the institutional setup is still relatively young. The options for action presented in this report take this novel situation into consideration. The roadmap for the reform’s implementation includes some reference to anticipation of potentially changing service needs (Government of Finland, 2022[24]), however it is not explicit about how this anticipation should be conducted.
The SOTE reform has already been in development for many years, and the individuals responsible for its implementation and the subsequent administration of welfare counties have prior experience and practices that they will carry forward. Hence, while the attention and novelty of the reform present opportunities, there is still a risk that path dependencies and competing priorities could overshadow efforts to try new approaches.
[One challenge is] how to reach a systemic, bird eye view and train/educate the decision makers and future leaders of welfare counties so that they have courage and knowledge to reform with human-centred, purpose-driven and cost-effective goals. We should avoid the risk that the welfare counties just adopt the old, current structures and working cultures and continue with the same problems.
Child-oriented budgeting pilot
Work on “child-oriented budgeting” has sought to address issues of fragmented budgeting in Finland (Government of Finland, 2021[25]). Child-oriented budgeting means that the central government budget is examined from the perspective of the rights of the child. It involves monitoring budget expenditure and revenue allocated to children and assessing the impact of budgetary decisions on children. At the end of 2020, the Prime Minister's Office appointed a working group as part of the national strategy for children to examine how child-oriented budgeting and related expertise should be developed across government terms. According to the Committee on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children's rights should be taken into account at all stages of the budgetary process. However, child-oriented budgeting has so far been modest in Finland. The work being carried out by the working group on child-oriented budgeting is part of the implementation phase of the National Child Strategy. The working group has made proposals on how child-oriented budgeting could support the implementation of the National Child Strategy. The committee proposes that:
1. Child-oriented budgeting be piloted in the 2022 budget proposal and that a standardised version be introduced for the 2023 budget proposal
2. Child impact analysis be carried out covering each government term
3. Monitoring and reporting of local government (and later also of well-being services counties) budget outturn data be developed as a separate project
4. Child-oriented budgeting of municipalities and well-being services counties be carried out making use of networking once the health and social services reform has entered into force
The preparation of the pilot is currently under way as part of the formulation of the 2022 budget proposal. The Ministry of Finance has submitted guidelines on the preparation of the budget to the ministries. The guidelines include a description of child-oriented budgeting.
Child budgeting has the potential to demonstrate anticipatory governance if futures knowledge can be incorporated into allocations and appropriations, as well as the impact analysis. Currently it is not clear whether such anticipatory activities are envisaged in any of the processes.
Itla
The Itla Children’s Foundation is a Finnish parliamentary foundation created in 1987 to guarantee children a socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable future and an equal starting point in life, regardless of background. Embedded in this mandate around children is a multi-stakeholder and future-oriented approach. This institutional investment in the future of Finnish society aims to create legitimacy around exploration of uncertainty and alternatives exploration. The topic also forces cross-sector collaboration among traditionally siloed and expert-driven domains, such as education and healthcare. Crucially, beyond a focus on evidence and knowledge creation, Itla prioritises anticipatory innovation as the means to explore and learn from regional innovations in order to advance reforms. Each year, Itla holds a challenge-oriented innovation competition to fund innovative projects.
The cities of Oulu and Vantaa received awards in 2019. Oulu, a city in the far north of Finland, is testing and redesigning alternative service models for families and children with a focus not only on early-intervention but also on anticipation through the detection of weak signals around at-risk youth. Vantaa, a suburb of Helsinki, has experienced large waves of immigration, especially since 2014, and consequently is the most multicultural municipality in Finland. This also poses integration challenges for children and families. Vantaa is exploring alternatives for promoting integration via experimental and unconventional services.
The lessons learned through Itla’s work in exploring creates a pool of knowledge about alternatives, which can be drawn from future national reforms and policy, such as the National Child Strategy.
Finland’s national foresight system
Under the co‑ordination of the Prime Minister’s Office and Sitra (the Finnish Innovation Fund), Finland’s National Foresight Network acts as a forum for discussion and co‑ordination among the country’s key strategic foresight players. By bringing together ministries, government agencies, regional councils, private sector actors, academia, and NGOs, the Network aims to promote the use of future perspectives and foresight data in the country’s decision-making process at various governance levels. It is an open network holding monthly “Foresight Fridays” meetings that involve participants in trainings, presentations and networking events.
In the lead up to parliamentary elections, the Network produced future scenarios envisioning Finland’s future up to 2025, focusing on digitisation, the needs of an ageing population, and the labour market reform. The scenarios were made widely available online and were successful at bringing discussions of the future into the electoral debate.
Already as far back as 2013, public sector foresight work in Finland had identified sustainable well-being in general and child well-being in particular as a key issue of future relevance, including in the flagship Government Report on the Future (Vapaavuori, Lindroos and Hjelt, 2013, p. 86[26]). That report further made a suggestion that foreshadows the findings of the present report by almost a decade: “services for families with children must be formed into a whole, each element of which seamlessly supports the others” (Vapaavuori, Lindroos and Hjelt, 2013, p. 48[26]).
Report to Parliament by the Ombudsman for Children 2022
The Finnish Ombudsman for Children presents the Finnish Parliament with a report on the position of children and the realisation of their rights every four years. The 2022 Report assessed how social policy reforms and education policy affected child policy, compared national legislation against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and commented on the development of the Finnish National Child Strategy. It pointed out emerging issues related to children’s rights and gathered insights received from conversations with young people. The report made three key observations. It noted that children’s rights suffered because of the coronavirus pandemic and considerations of children’s rights were not consistently taken into account in launching education and social reforms. In addition, options for young people to participate in decisions impacting their lives were limited. Recommendations to Parliament included a reform of Finland’s Child Welfare Act, and higher levels of funding for the Finnish education system (Ombudsman for Children in Finland, 2022[27]).
The Report offers a holistic look at child well-being, but the anticipatory dimension is not clear. The Report takes stock of the “position of children and the realisation of their rights” in Finland, taking into consideration broad perspectives (from education, to social reforms, to the impact of coronavirus). The report also includes assessments about future developments in child well-being, however these are founded on traditional expert opinion (academic subject matter expert), and lack explicit processes such as scanning, trends analysis, or scenario-building that would be characteristic of a more deliberately anticipatory approach. Similarly, the report seems to take stock of past changes (e.g. past social reforms), and does not look ahead at upcoming developments.
Nevertheless, there is scope and potential for the Ombudsman to play a role in anticipatory innovation. The systemic assessment of children’s rights enables the assessment of impacts across policy programmes, across agencies and multi-level service provision. This means it can spot gaps or blindspots that may not be visible from the point of view of any single actor in the fragmented system. Furthermore, the report indicates areas where anticipation can be of importance: “from the perspective of children and young people, anticipatory legal protection – preventing rights violation from happening in the first place – is of utmost importance” (Ombudsman for Children in Finland, 2022, p. 120[27]). The importance of anticipation is understood at a personal level (e.g. within a child’s development), but not explicitly at a systems level (e.g. piloting legislation against the impact of the metaverse on children’s well-being).
The report also considers participation of children in discussions about their own future, but is unclear with respect to long-term visions or impact on decision-making. An example is the Young Advisers model. Young advisers are seen as “producers of information”, but these inputs do not always have a long-term focus: “Young Advisers meetings are typically meetings with a group of children built around a specific theme, where children have the opportunity to discuss important topics and have their views made known to decision-makers. […] The topics of the meetings are primarily related to the annual strategic focus area of the Ombudsman for Children. For example, the focus of 2020 was the future of our planet, in 2021 the focus is equality and in 2022 it will be safety and security.” (Ombudsman for Children in Finland, 2022, p. 133[27]). Another example is the Child Barometer for young children (aged 6). “The Child Barometer is a study on the everyday lives of 6-year old children carried out by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children every other year […] The Child Barometer is a pioneer in investigating the views and experiential knowledge of young children […] not previously collected anywhere in the world.” (Ombudsman for Children in Finland, 2022, p. 137[27]). Hence, the data collected was extensive, but the impact on policy priorities is unclear.
National Social and Healthcare Innovation and Strategy Network
The North Ostrobothnia well-being services county and Innokylä service (provided by the Finnish institute for health and welfare) have designed and launched in 2021 The National Social and Healthcare Innovation and Strategy Network. The aim of the network is to share good practices and solve common development challenges through interregional co‑operation, improve social and health care capacity for innovation and prevent duplication of development. In addition, it provides networking, developing new practices, and getting to know new development methods, while events organised by Innokylä provide information on health and social care practices developed throughout Finland. Innokylä helps municipalities and welfare counties to strengthen well-being by reforming welfare services—its main goal is to improve the quality and availability of services.
One of the network’s goals is to identify changes in the operating environment at an early stage. They continually collect signals and development needs from customers and professionals as well as from stakeholders. This information is collected on a common electronic co-creation platform within North Ostrobothnia. This platform supports activities such as facilitating development processes and assessing the impact of solutions under developments. Work is underway to make it possible to use the information gathered to identify broader themes and topics for development, and to manage operational risks.
Since its launch, the network has generated widespread interest: hundreds of experts have signed up to its activities. In the future, the main goal of the network is to create a common co-creation model for regions through national co‑operation.
Family Centres and One-Stop Guidance Centres
An important part of the national infrastructure for child well-being are the Family Centres (Perhekeskus) and One-Stop Guidance Centres (Ohjaamo). In many cases these are still under development and the integrated concept is not yet deployed in all welfare counties.
The concept of Family Centres (see Figure 11.2) is to offer basic services for families with children, as well as early support and special support services. Extended services are planned include maternity and child health clinics, home services, speech therapy, the Family Counselling Office, physiotherapy and Child Welfare Services.
The concept of One-Stop Guidance Centres is to bring together information and services from multiple agencies for young people under 30. This requires collaboration between the local agencies, state and non-state actors who provide the services, as well as the national and regional layers necessary for their delivery. The Centres cover areas such as young people’s well-being, transition to work or training, skills development, and housing. The provision of multi-agency youth services addresses an important challenge in the fragmented landscape of child services in Finland, which often results in ineffective and slow processes. All activities of the One-Stop-Guidance Centres are monitored at local, regional, and national level.
Both kinds of centres are a model for collaboration and cover all aspects of children and young people’s lives that are crucial for their future. Well-executed services and efficient use of the networks of actors is essential to the development of new functions. The aim is to build effective networks that genuinely cross sector boundaries and share internal knowledge, and thereby support children and young people’s well-being (Määttä, 2018[28]).
However, there are currently no discernible mechanisms for anticipatory innovation built into the Family Centre or One-Stop Guidance Centre Models. It is not clear how they would respond to rapid changes in their ability to provide services due to external factors (for example a pandemic), or services changing (such as new forms of childcare), or unexpected disruptions affecting partners such as NGOs. Furthermore, the Centres are designed to “integrate existing networks and structures” (Määttä, 2018[28]) rather than challenge or overcome their shortcomings.
Figure 11.2. Perhekeskus (family centre) services
International cases
Comparative research for the purpose of peer learning and exploring best practices is a common tool for policy design. To the extent that a successful model or approach transcends context-specific factors and challenges, it can be analysed to determine whether its positive results can be replicated in another country in its entirety or an adapted form. Peer learning enables countries to adopt practices that are proven successful in a similar context, thereby enhancing internal policies, and contributing to common goals. For example, the European Union (EU) introduced a Mutual Learning Programme (MLP) in the context of the EU Employment Strategy, which supports exchange between countries to identify transferable aspects, learn from good practice examples, and/or support the implementation of emerging policies or practices.
Given that the AIG model is a new approach to policy making and planning, in general and in the field of child well-being, peer learning and exchange of practices offers both a challenge and an opportunity. While it enables countries to exchange about their experiences with the AIG model and work together towards its implementation, there are no examples available of how the AIG model was successfully implemented to improve policy making and planning for child well-being.
This study aims to bypass this challenge, by looking into the core elements of the AIG model in the context of child well-being and identifying countries or regions that already implemented one or multiple elements successfully (or addressed challenges successfully). The chapter subsequently draws lessons from each practice to provide recommendations towards the AIG approach for child well-being.
The following sections present international examples of AIG-elements in the context of child well-being. The examples can be divided roughly into three groups, along with the reason for their inclusion, namely:
Foresight and anticipatory structures: reflecting on the main purpose of this analysis to contribute to the development of a model of anticipatory innovation governance.
Whole government approaches: reflecting on the emphasis on coherent and collaborative anticipatory work identified in the intermediate report.
Multilevel governance (local – regional – national): reflecting on the actors in the governance architecture and the prominence of the SOTE reform as part of the context in which anticipatory innovation is to be deployed.
Each example includes a factual description of the practice and an analysis of its relevance for Finland and of any challenges that were (not yet) overcome to the implementation of the practice.
Foresight and anticipatory approaches to well-being
This section presents examples from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom on how foresight studies are used for policy making in the domain of child well-being.
The Netherlands
The Dutch Ministries of Justice and of Health, together with the Dutch Association of Municipalities (VNG) published in 2021 their joint Future Scenario for child and family protection. The “scenario” is intentionally normative and therefore not comparable to scenarios produced in OPSI projects. It is the result of widescale consultations on the current gaps and challenges in child protection and describes what the ideal future of child and family protection should look like (Helmich, 2021[30]).
The scenario did not aim to set the detailed structures of how the ideal future should be achieved. In fact, there are many hurdles to overcome in heading towards this future. Instead, the scenario provides the setting for key stakeholders to come together and design such structures collaboratively (e.g. joint governance, joint financing). This requires the main child protection stakeholders to continue exchanging on a regular basis to fill in the details of the scenario.1
In fact, the multi-stakeholder approach was a crucial element of the scenario design. Dutch child protection is characterised by a large number of organisations that play a role in protection procedures and case management and enhance the complexity of child protection. However, each actor (ministry, municipality, NGO, social worker, family) perceives the challenges and possible solutions differently. The Ministries and VNG, supported by an independent consultant, worked extensively on ensuring that all perceptions were analysed before designing a possible scenario that brings all stakeholders together on one line. To build a foundation for the scenario, the team identified four common principles that all stakeholders committed to, namely: family-oriented, simple, transparent, and learning. Box 11.1 describes these principles in greater detail.
Box 11.1. Main principles underlining the Future Scenario of child and family protection in the Netherlands
Family-oriented: Prior child protection frameworks focused on the immediate short-term protection of the child, for example by intervening and removing the child from the harmful situation. However, long-term situations require interventions and breaking of patterns within the family as a whole. Family-oriented means in this regard that social services need to intervene on every person in family to change these situations. Each family-member needs to be involved and targeted.
Simple: The consultations demonstrated that the current child protection system involves a large number of organisations that become involved at different stages of case management (e.g. social workers, municipalities, national authorities, judges, external reviewers). As a result, a family may have to tell their story to four or five different institutions. This system has to become simpler for the family.
Transparent: Similar to the principle “simple”, transparency was also brought forth mainly by consulted families. They often felt unsure about which organisations possessed which information about them and who has access to that information. While the Netherlands has procedures for data protection and requesting information, this had to become more transparent and simpler for the families.
Learning: In the past, the aspect of learning from each other and from experience was not always sufficiently integrated in child protection. A system was designed and implemented, a conclusion was made that it did not work, and subsequently a new system was designed. The current scenario foresees continuous learning and exchange about what works, and improving the system along the way.
Having established the principles, the team and the stakeholders started building the scenario by identifying what each of the principles means to each of the main involved child protection actors. The family is always placed at the centre, ensuring that support networks and communities of child and family protection actors are built around the needs of the family.
“Involving diverse stakeholders in scenario-building also creates challenges. The principles served as our “common framework” that everyone committed to. Only then, we started building the scenario, always referring back to the principles.”
Upon completion of the scenario in 2021, the next stage commenced, namely the translation of the scenario to concrete programmes and actions. As mentioned above, many questions regarding management and governance have arisen from the scenario for which stakeholders need to design common solutions. At this stage, the diversity of stakeholders can also create tensions, since the approach of each stakeholder to change management is different. Additionally, conflicting paradigms at the political level also hinder a uniform approach. For this reason, the scenario also includes models for learning and developing together.
An element of the scenario with particular parallels to Finland is the introduction of the “regional security teams”, introduced through new public-law regional organisation. These regional teams will take over most of the tasks currently held by national-level institutions. While the scenario is focused on building communities and networks of support around the family (on the municipal level), regional security teams will provide specific expertise in the field of developmental threats and security, and execute child protection measures. Local child protection teams can request the support of the regional team. However, as the scenario describes, the set-up of the regional teams will require suitable governance and financing models and clear delineation of the relationship between regional teams and other child protection organisations (Helmich, 2021[30]).
An important lesson learned from the Netherlands is the explicit identification of common goals and principles of child well-being that unified all stakeholders. The inclusion of a wide range of organisations can create friction in terms of objectives and perspectives. However, interviewees stated that the foundational principles ensured that debates can always be redirected towards the universally agreed goals. Given the new multi-level approach to child well-being in Finland, it is of crucial importance that there are universal principles and concepts that all actors and stakeholders align their work with.
Whole government approach
Examples here focus on how different government entities can collaborate on AIG in the field of well-being, focusing on general co‑operation structures (e.g. task forces, committees) as well as on joint strategies, indicators, and budgeting.
Scotland
One of the main challenges towards a whole government approach to child well-being, also highlighted by the Dutch stakeholders, is the development of a holistic governance and financing model that ensures that the right professional can do their work at the right time and the highest quality. For this reason, Scotland has developed a National Performance Framework (launched in 2007, put into law in 2015), which provides a set of objectives, and accompanying indicators, around which all departments and agencies, at central government and the local level, aim to align (Scottish National Performance Unit, 2022b). ox 11.2outlines the government's responsibility towards the NPF.
The introduction of the NPF is required in the Community Engagement Act, and designed to bring together national and local governments, businesses, voluntary organisations, and the population in general. NPF staff confirm that the NPF was designed to break through governmental “silos” and ensure that various ministries and departments collaborate more effectively.2 However, interviewed NPF staff underlined that this is a lengthy process that takes multiple years, with lessons learned and adjustments, to implement:
“You cannot rush the implementation of an outcomes-based policy framework. Sometimes it is expected that when you introduce a framework and tell people about it, things will happen. In reality, it takes many years, and even after more than 15 years, our system is not perfect”.3
Box 11.2. Responsibilities towards the NPF
Within the government, the responsibility for the implementation of the NPF lies with the Cabinet Secretary’s office. A new directorate was established that focuses on government performance and the NPF, but also includes other topics such as constitutional issues and government resilience. The NPF team comprises about 10 staff members whose responsibilities can be grouped in three categories :
1. Stewardship of the NPF, namely the review and realisation of the NPF outcomes and creation of resources for its implementation.
2. Leadership of the NPF, which involves encouraging all government actors to contribute to its implementation.
3. Delivery of the NPF, ensuring that outcomes are being achieved.
The implementation of the NPF is the responsibility of the cabinet and ministers, who adopt decisions towards the NPF outcomes. However, there is no requirement or set schedule how often and in what format the NPF outcomes should be discusses. Therefore, the inclusion of the NPF in government discussions depends on the ministers themselves and their interests.
The Community Engagement Act states that all public authorities have a role in the delivery of the NPF outcomes, including also local authorities. The Convention of Local Authorities is in fact a signatory to the NPF. However, NPF staff note budgetary constraints to the full and effective participation of local authorities in realizing NPF outcomes.
While the NPF comprises well-being across all ages, one of the outcomes revolves around children and young people: “We grow up loved, safe and respected so that we realise our full potential” (Scottish National Performance Unit, 2022[33]). Progress towards this outcome is measured through seven specific indicators (Scottish National Performance Unit, 2022[34]).
Child social and physical development
Child well-being and happiness
Children's voices
Healthy start
Quality of children's services
Children have positive relationships
Child material deprivation
The website of the National Performance Framework allows monitoring of the progress made against each indicator, and provides detailed information what the indicator is based on and where data was collected. For example, Figure 11.3 shows progress against the indicator on quality of children's services.
Figure 11.3. Example of progress against the indicator on quality of children's services
Source: Scottish National Performance Unit
According to the Scottish Government in 2014, “Each government portfolio is required to set out how its spending plans support the delivery of the national outcome and this is set out in the form of a strategic overview in each portfolio chapter of the budget document. The budget also gives financial effect to the layers of policy development, consultation, and decision making with delivery partners about the direction of the Government’s policies and programmes.” (Scottish Government, 2014[35])
In this regard, the Budget Process Review Group strongly recommended in 2017 that “the shift towards a much more outcomes-based approach to the scrutiny of public expenditure should be accelerated. Such an approach will provide the means for evaluating the environmental, economic, and social outcomes that are achieved by public spending” (Scottish Parliament, 2017[36]). The NPF stakeholders indicate that the introduction of outcomes-based budgeting in line with the NPF is an important priority for them, and a ”manifesto” describing Scotland’s commitment to introduce such a budget was adopted. However, so far this has not been implemented (Scottish Parliament, 2017[36]).
The example of Scotland teaches that a key element bringing together all governmental actors is the introduction of an outcomes-based performance framework. It sets common goals and principles across the government and requires government actors to describe how they plan to achieve these goals. However, an important lesson is that such an outcomes-based framework alone does not guarantee its implementation. Sufficient resources need to be allocated to specific departments who carry the responsibility for monitoring achievements towards the outcomes and constantly push government actors to consider these outcomes in their planning. Similarly, Finland should ensure that there is a department or working group that has clear mandate to monitor achievements towards the Child Strategy and to bring together all departments and agencies involved.
Ireland
From 2014-2020, Irish policies regarding child well-being were guided by the Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: the national policy framework for children and young people 2014 – 2020. It is the first national framework in Ireland that adopts an overarching, whole-of-government approach to well-being of children and young people between the ages of 0 and 24. As such, 163 commitments to the framework have been drawn from across 11 government departments and agencies. For each commitment, specific annual actions were prepared (Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2018[37])
Similar to the Scottish framework, the Irish framework is underpinned by the principle of outcome-focused working. The Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures Indicator Set helps stakeholders to track achievements made towards the main outcomes foreseen in the framework. 70 indicator areas were identified with between one to four indicators per area (established through a “Delphi” consultation among experts). Data against the indicators is collected through administrative surveys and census data (Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2022[38]); see Figure 11.4.
Figure 11.4. Example of the structure of indicators for one of the five Framework outcomes, and presented achievements as of 2022
While the Framework targets all government and non-governmental stakeholders involved in child well-being, specific committees and teams were established to oversee its implementation. The WGA and stakeholder approach in the framework’s implementation was built on ensuring both horizontal and vertical co‑ordination: horizontally across people, infrastructure, evidence and data analysis, and funding and finance, and vertically from national to local level. In this regard, it is important to mention that the framework, shown in Figure 11.5, did not intent to spark significant new workflows, but rather to better co‑ordinate across ministries and agencies existing efforts (Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2018[37]).
Figure 11.5. Implementation structure of the Better Outcomes Better Futures framework
The main responsible actor is the Children and Young People’s Policy Consortium, which comprises high-level representation from Government Departments and Agencies, and key experts and representatives from a range of sectors and settings working with children and young people. The consortium ensures that the different elements of the Framework are implemented and co‑ordinated across all responsible government departments and agencies (Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2018[37])
In the annual implementation report of 2020, several good practices and lessons learned were identified. Those with relevance for Finland are included below:
Council structure, to ensure greater coherence in unifying the policy domains of early years, children and youth and reflecting a lifecycle approach to addressing issues facing children and young people.
Ensuring that the constituent groups in the BOBF infrastructure had the opportunity to inform the identification of annual priorities and the development of the outcome indicators, and to comment on progress via the Annual Report.
Introducing the concept of annual cross-sectoral priorities such as child poverty, prevention, and early intervention, etc. to ensure responsiveness to emerging themes.
Government departments have co‑operated with and embraced the Framework to varying degrees. Some have used the framework successfully to advance policy goals that chime with the frameworks. Therefore the ‘the bar’ for engagement is higher. In any event, addressing this issue in the next framework is essential.
The framework as an instrument of policy delivery has been challenged by lack of focus and, in particular, the mixing of a long and undifferentiated list of micro and more macro actions. This can weaken the overall focus on effective implementation.
A message from the Irish experience (Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2018[37]) includes that:
The work of co‑ordination and influencing needs full time resourcing. This is different to the work needed to drive implementation of specific more micro actions, and relies on skillful influencing allied to a strongly supported mandate from the top.
And additionally:
Government departments and agencies need to be held equally accountable for their own commitments and their level of engagement particularly at the consortium meetings.
Many lessons learned from Ireland are similar to those of Scotland, namely that outcomes-based planning has the potential to unite government actors towards common objectives for child well-being, but that this requires sufficient resources for appointed departments to monitor and encourage implementation of well-being policies. The adoption of an outcomes framework alone is not sufficient to achieve the goals, but requires constant follow-up, communication, and improvements.
New Zealand
New Zealand has a unique approach to long-term planning and strategic thinking. Namely, it relies not only on contemporary forecasting techniques, but combines such approaches with practices of indigenous cultures. This includes the integration of indigenous philosophies into social norms. For example, the countries aim to learn lessons from the Maori on how to bring together various views and manage complexity (School of International Futures, 2021[39]).
In their 2018 report, supporting the reform of the 1988 State Sector Act, the Minister of State Services and the State Services Commission identified several concerns regarding the work of the New Zealand government, in particular “the narrowing of each department’s focus to its own particular outputs and a short-term horizon (silo-effect)”. It furthermore concluded that “It is hard for government to address complex social issues that span agency boundaries such as climate change, mental health and family violence. These require agencies to work together in a co‑ordinated manner” (New Zealand State Services Commission, 2018[40]).
Since 2019, New Zealand has introduced an annual well-being budget, aligned with the two well-being Frameworks which dominate New Zealand’s approach to well-being; see Table 11.1.
The Living Standards Framework is a “living” framework informing the Treasury on the main developments impacting well-being. Research on the Living Standards framework, together with data from the Treasury’s Living Standards Indicators dashboard are used to identify the main well-being areas where improvement or policy making is needed (Government of New Zealand, 2019[42]).
The well-being budget was praised for shifting the government priority and gravity of thinking away from traditional economic indicators, and for allowing the measurement of not only financial achievements, but also achievements towards well-being (McClure, 2021[43]). Importantly, the well-being Budget approach encourages different government departments and agencies to co‑ordinate efforts towards the well-being frameworks (McKinlay, 2022[44]).
The purpose of government spending is to ensure citizens’ health and life satisfaction, and that — not wealth or economic growth — is the metric by which a country’s progress should be measured. GDP alone does not guarantee improvement to our living standards and does not take into account who benefits and who is left out. – Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand
The well-being budget was designed in accordance with three key principles:
1. Focusing on outcomes that meet the needs of present generations at the same time as thinking about the long-term impacts for future generations.
2. Breaking down agency silos and working across government to assess, develop, and implement policies that improve well-being.
3. Tracking progress with broader measures of success, including the health of people, communities, the environment, and public finances.
However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of the new well-being budget towards the intended outcomes is still a topic of discussion.
One of the five priority areas of the well-being Budget is “Improving Child well-being”, and each well-being Budget is required to include a section on the country’s process towards achieving its child poverty-related targets. The revision of the Living Standards Framework in 2021 also included enhanced attention to children’s well-being and culture, in alignment with the Children’s Commissioner’s well-being Wheel for a perspective on children’s well-being. It is important to note that the Living Standards Framework facilitates interaction and co‑ordination between its own priorities and additional frameworks like the well-being Wheel, to avoid overcomplicating the Living Standards Framework (The New Zealand Treasury, 2021[41]).
The introduction of a well-being budget that accompanies an outcomes-based framework is an important facilitator for government departments to ensure their spending aligns with the common objectives (see Figure 11.6). In New Zealand, the well-being budget brought government departments out of their “silos” and collaborate for the achievement of more than just traditional economic goals. Introducing a well-being budget in Finland can support co‑ordination and collaboration between departments and agencies as a well-being budget obliges all actors to contribute to well-being. However, combined with the examples of Ireland and Scotland, it is important to realise that the creation of such a budget scheme takes time and the first attempt may not create a perfect solution immediately.
Figure 11.6. Traditional budget process in New Zealand
National-local co‑ordination
This section will provide insights into good practices of countries who implement multi-level co‑ordination for child well-being policies.
Australia
The country of Australia is governed through a three-level government system, which includes the national/federal level in Canberra, the 6 state and 2 territory parliaments, and the 500 local councils or shires (Parliamentary Education Office, n.d.[46]); see Figure 11.7.
Figure 11.7. Government structure of Australia
Recently, in 2021, Australia adopted the “Safe and Supported: The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021-2031”, developed by the Australian Government, state and territory governments, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives and the non-government sector. Contributions were also made by Families Australia, and members of the National Coalition on Child Safety and well-being, a group comprised of non-government organisations and researchers (Australia Department of Social Services, 2021[47]). The Framework was adopted through a unanimous decision of all governments.
The framework is meant to be implemented through two 5-year Action Plans. It is an innovative step in inclusive policy making by Australia, since for the first time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will have their own Action Plan developed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan will be developed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and communities (Australia Department of Social Services, 2021[47]).
The three-level structure, shown in Table 11.2, means that each government level has different responsibilities in relation to child well-being and protection, as outlined in the Framework:
Table 11.2. Three-level governance for child well-being in Australia
In preparation of the Framework, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission acknowledged the “need identified in the Discussion Paper for better collaboration between Federal and State/ Territory Government services” (Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2008[48]). The Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia (CAFWAA) similarly warned during the consultation stage of the Framework that:
The Commonwealth Government invests in children and young people across multiple federal portfolio’s including health, education, childcare, housing, domestic and family violence and families and communities. All of these areas correlate to state portfolios. There is significant need to ensure connection between interdepartmental policy positions such that there are coordinated to ensure the best use of resources. This should incorporate breaking down competition between departments to provide a system that benefits children and their families. (CAFWAA, 2008[49])
The National Coalition on Child Safety and well-being warmly welcomed the Framework and applauded in particular the following elements (The National Coalition on Child Safety and Wellbeing, 2021[50]):
The stated commitments of all governments to continue to work in close partnership with the non-government and research sectors, to ensure that the expert advice of those working on the ground in the communities shapes policy and the design of services.
The governance arrangements that reflect the responsibilities of all parties in supporting children to thrive – the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leadership Group, the National Coalition, State and Territory Governments and the Commonwealth.
While Australian governments enjoy significant autonomy, the introduction of the national framework set common goals and objectives for the five governments to adhere to. The approach ensures that governments and local authorities can adapt to the needs and circumstances in their areas while working towards the achievements of the framework (i.e. a combination of universal goals and principles, with flexibility to reality and needs on the ground). While a universal strategy and common principles and goals are important to unify the welfare counties in Finland, it is important that a certain flexibility and autonomy is granted to each region to deal with most pressing issues.
Norway
Similar to Australia, the child protection and well-being system is divided into a three-level governance system (see Table 11.3) with different agencies acting out their responsibilities at national, regional, and local level.
Table 11.3. Three-level child protection in Norway
Source: Bufdir
The introduction of another level of governance between municipalities and the government relieves pressure on the national government while maintaining close oversight over municipal practices and ensuring allocation of sufficient resources.
Overall findings from international cases
The examples of the countries included in the report show that there are diverse approaches to governing child well-being, although there are certain lessons learned and good practices that are visible across the group.
The introduction of an outcomes-based strategic framework can be of great use to introduce government actors to the multiple dimensions affecting child well-being and the importance of involvement of a wide range of actors. It can also facilitate the co‑ordination of multiple actors to avoid overlaps and duplication.
However, introducing a common framework across the government is not a solution by itself. It requires significant resources to ensure departments do not continue working in silos, attribute budgetary lines to achieving specific outcomes, and introduce co‑ordination structures, such as a steering group. In particular, outcome-based policy making can benefit from outcome-based budgeting, ensuring that each government actor plans their budget lines in relation to the outcomes.
The topic of child well-being can be approached from multiple perspectives, using diverse terminology and priorities. Additionally, different stakeholders advocate for different approaches. The creation of a whole government approach and effective involvement of stakeholders requires the identification of common ground and common priorities that can function as foundation for dialogue and joint interventions.
Gap analysis
Through analysis of the international cases as well as desk research and consultation with stakeholders on the current characteristics of the Finnish system, a number of areas were identified as gaps in the ability to develop and carry out anticipatory innovation in the governance of child well-being. These areas fall into four broad categories:
1. Lack of concerted ways of working, or unified core concept of the child
2. Implementation difficulties, in particular of the National Child Strategy due to a legalistic focus and lack of well-being analysis
3. Silos, fragmented knowledge and “institutional amnesia”
4. Insufficient connection with actors on the ground and inability to detect where problems are coming from now and in the future
Lack of systematic ways of working
A characteristic feature of Finland’s national anticipatory system is that complex issues are mainly tackled through network approaches (e.g. via ministerial working groups); yet, when dealing with new, unique challenges the process of assigning responsibility and a response is often based on had hoc methodology. Foresight often happens in narrow circles and problems have been identified with transparency and timely sharing of results. R&D (and to an extent, experimentation) is often outsourced through waterfall processes with little iterative learning (Tõnurist, 2021[51]).
This state of affairs is reflected to an extent in the articulation of the National Child Strategy. Participants in workshops noted that different actors within the system (welfare counties, municipalities, service providers, etc.) often set and pursuing objectives without adequate co‑ordination and coherence among each other—sometimes to the point of undermining each other’s work. Compulsory annual meetings between municipalities and national government take place as required, but task force members agreed that these meetings are not generally considered consequential. These problems mean that Finland falls short of the outcomes-based strategic framework common to many of the international cases analysed above.
Another lacking element identified through the international case studies was a unified core concept of the child. As noted above, there is no universally agreed upon definition of child well-being, and no evidence that the various relevant stakeholders in Finland share any particular definition. Previous initiatives that have sought to unify actors to work in concert have included visioning processes, including during the development of the National Child Strategy. Task force members in this project noted that is unclear whether these processes achieved such coherence, and may have even been counterproductive as they failed to achieve the buy-in of necessary actors, leaving them dissatisfied with the outcome. This past experience presents challenges for the legitimacy of anticipatory processes of a similar nature, especially if such an initiative would be considered a retrograde step.
If we say that we want to increase continuity in the field, we should not take a step backwards and have another vision project—this has been done and is a huge job in itself—more important is to turn this into shared action; a shared mission where the different broad areas are brought together, using for example collective impact framework.
As a result of these difficulties, the idea of child well-being may not be addressed in an adequately proactive way to be considered anticipatory. Indeed, participants in workshops and dialogues between civil servants and policy makers expressed concern that public services primarily react to problems rather than promoting virtues.
This is of concern in the development of an anticipatory innovation governance model because futures dialogue and action invariably transcend domains of study and administration, therefore learning loops and anticipatory action are hard to achieve if concerned parties are not co‑ordinated. The lack of clear definitions and concepts related to child well-being is also an impediment to being able to anticipate emerging issues affecting child well-being, since their existence or relevance may be missed until it is too late. For example, an emerging health crisis might not be identified as a potential issue for children’s mental well-being until long after primary measures have been taken and the damage is already done.
Implementation difficulties
The National Child Strategy elaborates a vision for the overall well-being of children in Finland, touching on multiple dimensions of what it means to create a child- and family-friendly Finland where the rights of the child are respected. These dimensions include combating discrimination and inequality, education, and democratic participation (Government of Finland, 2022[52]). However task force members and welfare county representatives highlighted an implementation process that could be characterised as overly legalistic and focused on the rights aspect.
The rights-of-the-child approach should be a strong purpose, but as a matter of fact it has developed towards such a legalistic approach that the purpose—well-being of children—has been thrown out and instead we are having all kinds of processes where we talk about rights of the child.
Indeed, in the original strategy document, as well as the implementation plan and the report of the parliamentary Committee on the National Child Strategy, references to rights of children lead most sections and gain a good deal of the focus (Government of Finland, 2021[53]; 2022[52]; The parliamentary National Child Strategy Committee, 2022[23]).
Furthermore, representatives of welfare counties reported being familiar with the National Child Strategy but having difficulty transposing its provisions into the planning and day-to-day running of services at the local level. They also perceived inadequate communication in the other direction, with findings of local activities not readily reflected in the work and policy at national level.
An additional doubt was raised with respect to the vertical collaboration, with at least one workshop participant questioning the extent to which national government is aware of or taking into consideration the developments and insights generated at the level of municipalities and welfare counties.
The State administration is far from children and young people. Municipalities have the best track [record]
This situation needs to be addressed in the context of developing an AIG system because collective sense making and good judgement require a disciplined understanding of how situational awareness, organisational capacity, and policy objectives (needs) relate at various levels (Ramírez and Wilkinson, 2016[54]).
Silos and fragmented knowledge
Another key challenge towards the implementation of the Child Strategy is the current siloed nature of Finnish child well-being governance and service provision. This problem also applies to the availability and use of knowledge such as statistical indicators. In dialogue between civil service and policy makers, participants noted that disciplinary specialisation within ministries can impede awareness and connections with knowledge outside experts’ own field. A similar issue exists with the creation and use of statistical data.
We have good data collection in Finland, and information is available. But there is no consensus on what the indicators measure
To provide holistic support to children with diverse needs for support, service provision needs to be co‑ordinated. Such co‑ordination implies exchange between service providers, but also policies, laws, budgets, and infrastructures at the national level that facilitate holistic support (a “whole government approach”, WGA). This is in contrast to a "whole school approach" outlined in Box 11.3
Box 11.3. The whole school approach as example of the need for co‑ordinated services
The “whole school approach” considers that the role of the school is not only to enhance knowledge, but also to improve children’s learning, behaviour, and well-being. As schools do not possess all necessary services and competences, collaboration is required with a wide range of stakeholders (social services, youth services, outreach care workers, psychologists, nurses, speech and language therapists, guidance specialists, local authorities, NGOs, business, unions, volunteers, etc.) and the community at large.
The school is at the centre of this stakeholder network. Based on their daily interactions with a child and observations of their needs, they can connect the child and their family to suitable support services. However, to facilitate this, schools need to receive sufficient resources (staff, budgets, knowledge) to facilitate such networks. This requires similar co‑ordination between the Ministry of Education and the other ministries. For example, in Wales, the Ministers for Education and Health jointly established a Task and Finish Group on a Whole School Approach to Emotional and Mental Health. Additional national stakeholders can include Ministries of Labour, Social Security, poverty, and especially finance.
Source: OECD
The current Finnish system hinders such a WGA as each actor has its own targets and budget lines that do not facilitate co‑operation across actors and sectors. This means that the outcome-based budgeting indicated in the previous chapter is largely absent. International cases that can provide insights towards the AIG model for child well-being, considering these challenges, include examples of:
WGA for child well-being, for example by using task forces or cross-sectoral committees.
Monitoring and assessment (e.g. through targets and indicators) that apply to, and involve, all involved ministries, departments, and agencies, as well as local authorities.
Holistic budgeting tools for child well-being that align around a variety of ministries, departments, and agencies, as well as local authorities.
In dialogue between civil servants and policy makers, participants noted that child budgeting alone is a useful tool, but not transformative for anticipatory purposes if co‑operation and appropriate processes are not established. Funds may be allocated to various projects, but these are often not integrated into ongoing activities, instead standing as isolated activities. Participants called into question the effectiveness of this mode of working.
Another issue of silos exists in the form of fragmented timelines. Workshop participants raised an issue of perceived “institutional amnesia” whereby incoming administrations tend to develop policies and programmes with little reference to the initiatives or achievements of prior administrations. An example given was the implementation of the National Child Strategy, whose implementation became more “legalistic” at the expense of a focus on well-being from one cabinet to the next.
Likewise, budgeting windows may mean that performance on objectives is monitored and measured on timescales that do not correspond to the problems addressed. For example, workshop participants noted that young people with problems of substance abuse or mental health difficulties require long-term support, but this support may not extend past the institutional cycle of the service providers.
“How to measure achievements in a long-term perspective and not only consider annual costs?”— participant at a dialogue between civil service and policy makers
This set of issues at the national level, combined with the potentially entrenched ways of working at the local level in spite of the SOTE reform, would appear as a paradox: discontinuity and path dependency at the same time. In fact they may be interrelated: reform takes sustained effort to diffuse throughout a public service, which may be interpreted by national government as a need for further reform, but each new initiative adds to the backlog of implementation. Thus a cycle ensues where reforms deliver suboptimal results. One workshop participant noted that the SOTE reform has been a long process, proposed by at least three different governments in different forms with different purposes. They asserted that the time and co‑ordination, along with several failed initiatives, have meant that “Finland has lost about 10 years of systematic improvement work”.
This difficulty of time silos surrounding reforms is a hindrance to AIG because new institutional setups may lack futures knowledge to anticipate emerging needs for child well-being; and reforms underway may encounter challenges which they are unable to report back. Furthermore, innovations developed in the process are often intended to be trialled quickly and results and feedback reported in time to be iterated upon. The current silos and related inertia run counter to the organisational capacity needed for such an approach.
Connection with actors and users
A further set of communication challenges with respect to anticipation is the connection between policy makers (on the one hand) and service users and other individuals targeted by policy (on the other hand). The National Child Strategy makes extensive reference to the importance of including children's views in decisions that affect their lives, declaring that “children's participation, right to be heard and access to information will be addressed systematically in decision-making and activities that affect them directly or indirectly. The content and significance of children's views will be detailed in the justifications of decisions.” (Government of Finland, 2022, p. 76[52]). However it is not clear how children will be able to participate in dialogue to challenge or propose alternatives to the envisioned models for the welfare and education systems and what values are made priorities in the new systems.
This communication difficulty is further reflected in the Ombudsman’s report, whose analysis found that children felt that they could advise but not influence decision makers: “A strong message conveyed to decision-makers from the meetings is that children and young people must be provided with functional channels for influencing matters, and their strive to make an impact must be taken seriously while simultaneously making sustainable decisions and taking responsibility now instead of pushing problems into the future.” (Ombudsman for Children in Finland, 2022, p. 134[27]). The report goes on to propose changes to legal processes, but these are not clearly linked to changes on the ground.
Regarding anticipation, it is unclear how sources of futures knowledge are used in child-oriented policy making and service delivery, if at all. One workshop participant noted “child well-being does not interact very well with the strategic foresight system”, referring to the network of actors and activities involved in perceiving, sense-making, and innovating based on emerging future developments in Finland. Organisations such as the National Strategic Foresight Network, the parliamentary Committee of the Future, Sitra the National Innovation Fund, and the Public Sector Innovation Network are not known to have a systematic or sustained contribution to work on child well-being in Finland. Indeed, the suggestion of the Government Report on the Future (Vapaavuori, Lindroos and Hjelt, 2013, p. 86[26]) to create a holistic and integrated system of child well-being will seem strikingly familiar to the reader of the present report almost a decade later.
These disconnections in communication cast doubt on how far Finland is taking the opportunities available to detect issues arising of significance for child well-being in the future. Doing so would be an important aspect of an AIG system, since the capacity to detect signals of emerging change is fundamental to alternatives exploration and experimentation: being able to envisage innovations that take them into account sufficiently far in advance to be considered anticipatory—and not just reactive.
Opportunities for action
Building on the gap analysis, the difficulties identified can be met with corresponding objectives to improve the capacity of Finland to develop AIG in child well-being. With those objectives in mind, the mechanisms of the AIG model provide the foundations for identifying options for action. At the end of this chapter, three options are identified, and elaborated with activities and actors to carry them out.
AIG is not intended to address all of these problems and cannot on its own solve any of them. Rather, by implementing some of the mechanisms of AIG, it is possible for Finland to make progress on improving the situation, while also better preparing to better meet the needs to future generations. Constraints on budget, time, and focus make it necessary to make a selection from the mechanisms of AIG on which to work—although there is always room for improvement in them all.
The “strategic landscape” analogy illustrated in Figure 11.8 (Tibbs, 2021[55]) served as inspiration for this model. With the “star” representing the enduring and guiding social role of better well-being for children now and the future, it is possible to work backwards to the “mountain”—a set of objectives to support anticipatory efforts. Further down is a consideration of the “chessboard” in terms of the institutional setup and challenges which must be dealt with, and the “self” as the individuals and organisations in a position to take action and contribute to the overall ambition.
Figure 11.8. The strategic landscapes
Source: (Tibbs, 2021[55])
This chapter begins by setting out four objectives identified to respond to the gap analysis:
1. Stronger sense of common purpose
2. Systematic and concerted action
3. Purpose-driven anticipation with a well-being focus
4. Better situation awareness and context
It then makes a selection of two main mechanisms and two complementary mechanisms of AIG which seemed to correspond most closely with those objectives; and offer the greatest potential for progress on them:
Public interest and participation
Sense-making
Networks and partnerships
Tools and methods
From those mechanisms, the following three options from action are identified:
1. Child well-being missions
2. Ecosystem building
3. Signal exchanges
Throughout the analysis, three main principles occur repeatedly: companionship, purpose, and simplicity. The concept of companionship refers to the nature of collaboration among peers, various levels of government, and different sectors, which seeks common ground and non-hierarchical pursuit of high standards. Purpose points to the central importance of children’s well-being at the heart of the system. Simplicity means embedding anticipatory innovation into existing structures, organisations, and processes of governance—since building parallel or competing structures would be impractical and counterproductive.
We have a tendency to be quite complex. Simple and bare essential ways are sorely needed in the complex reform—also to encourage people to get involved, not make them afraid!
The model elaborated in the chapter is summarised in Table 11.4 below.
Table 11.4. Model elaboration for child-wellbeing
Source: OECD
Objectives
The four objectives articulated below respond in turn to each of the areas identified in the gap analysis.
Stronger sense of companionship
Fostering a stronger sense of common purpose is important for creating systematic anticipation and co‑ordinated action, making the work more than a series of ad hoc efforts. Initiatives in this area would also reflect the requirement (legally binding in the case of municipalities and welfare counties) to collaborate with each other. There is an opportunity to bring together individuals and organisations who do not normally collaborate with each other.
It is also important to situate child well-being in its broader context by recruiting the attention of actors throughout the system to see it as their concern too. It may not be possible to completely overcome the complexity of different budgets using AIG alone, but this work could be used to facilitate work on child-oriented budget that may be planned alongside.
Coherent and concerted action
Overcoming silos, amnesia, and fragmented action is necessary to address the implementation difficulties in anticipatory action. Creating new groups, organisations, or networks may generate momentum but it also risks adding to the complexity and fragmentation. Therefore a more pragmatic focus would be to focus on consolidating and building purpose in the area of child well-being for the groups and networks that already exist, such as the National Foresight Network and Innokylä—or at least by emulating their model.
Purpose-driven anticipation with a well-being focus
An AIG model for child well-being should also attempt to overcome the perception of a narrow legalistic focus on rights in the National Child Strategy. It should be seen as purpose-driven and justify sustained interest and investment by delivering visible outcomes early on. In this sense, identifying clearly defined and achievable well-being goals that can only be reached through collaboration will be important to set up the AIG model for success.
Better situation awareness and context
A further objective concerns better connecting the system with those it serves, identifying problems and emerging issues on the ground. Those actors and organisations closest to emerging issues are in a strong position to identify and report them for use as anticipatory knowledge. Such knowledge can be used to future-proof policies and the system more generally through stress-testing and early-warning practices; as well as by inspiring innovative alternative approaches to address issues.
Mechanisms
The objectives above resonate with several of the mechanisms of AIG, and particularly strongly with those elaborated below.
Figure 11.9 shows how the gap analysis (top), mechanisms (centre), and objectives (bottom) roughly align.
Figure 11.9. Gap analysis, mechanisms, objectives
Source: OECD
Public interest and participation with sense-making
Participation and dialogue are essential mechanisms for anticipatory innovation in that they are a starting point for the exploration, contextual understanding, and creation of narratives about the future that help to define areas where governments need to invest more and test out different possibilities for innovation (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[56]). In the prior phases of OPSI research in Finland, experts noted a dearth of citizen participation methods for considering policy alternatives, as well as underdeveloped use of deliberative processes (Tõnurist, 2021[51]).
Yet there are also positive indications of public participation as a form of anticipatory awareness-gathering. For example, the Tax Administration used to be a very process-driven organisation, but now has changed the whole structure to be user-oriented with a customer unit, operational and process units and dedicated signal-reading activities to be sure that the organisation picks up quickly what is going on with their users. The change was associated with the change of leadership in the organisation, influx of digital skill-sets and resulting organisational changes (Tõnurist, 2021[51]).
It would be good to define how children can be part of the whole consultation process in a balanced way
Connected to the mode of public interest and participation are the ways in which their feedback and contributions are analysed and translated into an effective anticipatory system that leads to action. An inherently complex and wicked set of problems such as child well-being is not appropriately treated as a bounded task, solvable given enough time, resources, and expert advice—an approach sometimes referred to as ‘predict, plan, pray’. Instead, an approach of ‘navigate and adapt’ can be effective: through the mechanism of sense-making, organisations can identify emerging patterns while they are still forming and even shape them before they stabilise (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[56]).
In this sense, there is a potential opportunity for One-Stop Guidance Centres and Family Centres to share experience and knowledge of the issues emerging on the ground (in an aggregated and anonymised way to protect privacy) to inform initiatives at the county and national level, and give feedback on processes underway. This form of public participation would work within the existing structures to add anticipatory capacity.
Another opportunity could be to include actors at multiple levels and of different kinds to support a common goal that does not constitute a heavy reform but which invites collaboration in a way that is compatible with actors’ existing roles.
Networks and partnerships with tools and methods
Networked or collaborative governance models are relevant to anticipatory innovation, especially those involving engagement with those with access to weak signals and early insights about forthcoming transformative changes (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[56]).
Both formal and formal networks and mechanisms of governance can build capacity for anticipation. Formal mechanisms of governance are organisational and legal features such as corporate ownership, structural design, and legally binding contracts (e.g. strategic alliances and joint ventures) while relational mechanisms are forms of governance that rely upon the social ties created by actions and trust from prior experiences between partners, constituting de facto governance practices (Croxatto, Hogendoorn and Petersen, 2020[57]). The latter is of particular importance for anticipatory innovation. These informal alliances over time allow actors to target strategic directions designed to maintain and sustain frequent interactions, generating governance effects on the way in which expert knowledge is built and gains authority. This trusted relationship, while still subject to the same normative biases of any group, can open up situations for exploring uncertainty (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[56]).
Developing anticipatory capacity is dependent on the skills and organisation habits that sustain their effective and impactful use. Using moments within processes such as the annual meetings between welfare counties and national government may provide another opportunity to build the use of anticipatory tools into existing processes, using a networking approach.
Another opportunity could be to develop the hitherto fragmented network of actors in child well-being using tools such as system mapping and concepts such as collective impact (Kania and Kramer, 2011[58]) whereby efforts to act in concert are make consciously and explicitly. “Successful examples of collective impact are addressing social issues that, like education, require many different players to change their behaviour in order to solve a complex problem.” Collective impact is in its essence about changing incentives and governance systems in order to set aside objectives for individual organisations and instead promote behavioural change to address a complex problem. research shows that successful collective impact initiatives typically have five conditions that together produce true alignment and lead to powerful results: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organisations (Kania and Kramer, 2011[58]). Some initiatives based on collective impact have previously been attempted in specific areas such as preventive approaches to referrals to child protection services, with promising results (Niemelä et al., 2019[59]).
Options for action
Concrete initiatives that can take steps towards developing an AIG model in Finland involve actions for numerous partners within the system. Three main options for action arise from the objectives above; see Figure 11.10.
Figure 11.10. Options for action in context
Source: OECD
Child well-being missions
Mission-oriented innovation provides a policy framework for tackling the grand challenges facing governments today. Mission-oriented innovation involves setting measurable, ambitious and time-bound goals, and is often supported by three interlinked policy structures: institutional entrepreneurship and mission governance that enable collaboration and experimentation, available funding for a portfolio of missions, and the adoption of outcome-based procurement. Mission-oriented innovation thereby supports inclusive governance, progressive politics, generative environments and systemic impact (OECD, 2021[60]).
A child well-being mission would avoid the perceived issues with visioning approaches in Finland (that they have already been tried and lack immediate and concrete actionability). Workshop participants suggested that the legislative process could be leveraged to provide strong incentives for actors to collaborate, although others preferred a more voluntary approach. In any event, a child well-being mission would likely be an initiative emanating from national government, but like all missions, its success would depend on successful buy-in and legitimacy (networks and partnerships) from actors at multiple levels, most notably the welfare counties. Ensuring a balance of autonomy and accountability could be used to support a cycle of experimentation towards achieving the mission through diverse forms of implementation (Sabel and Zeitlin, 2010[61]). Welfare counties could use their existing reporting processes as an opportunity to report on mission progress, while the child well-being task force could provide oversight.
A mission-oriented approach is also a clear expression of the collective impact framework cited above. Main actions to take would be:
Defining a common agenda: it would not be necessary for every participant to agree with every other participant on all dimensions of child well-being, but selecting the primary goals of the collective impact as a whole would be settled in advance.
Identifying and agreeing on common measurement systems for all actors would ensure comparability of progress and ease of communication.
Identifying mutually reinforcing activities would also be a necessary point of agreement upfront.
Sustaining the momentum through continuous communication could take place through the existing meetings of welfare counties with national government, with additional lighter check-in points throughout the year with the AIG task force.
Appointing a backbone support organisation. The backbone support organisation would have to be clearly identified—most likely a unit within the national government—to ensure the overall effort would be co‑ordinated and monitored.
Ecosystem building
An innovation ecosystem is “the evolving set of actors, activities, and artefacts, and the institutions and relations, including complementary and substitute relations, that are important for the innovative performance of an actor or a population of actors.” (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020[62]). The concept arose from discussions with the task force about mapping the actors and actions involved in child well-being in Finland now and in the future.
Building, consolidating, and leveraging an ecosystem around child well-being involves multiple actions for various participants in the system. One first step could involve a system-mapping exercise in which a think tank or other member of the child well-being community is commissioned to produce an inventory of all stakeholders and their contribution to child well-being. This could then be used to review and develop the interactions between different elements of the system and identify points for strengthening collaboration or initiating it where it does not yet exist. It would also help actors to navigate the complex space of child well-being in Finland in order to facilitate ad hoc collaborations. A system map could also serve as the basis for developing a collective impact framework as a channel for anticipatory innovations to be envisaged and implemented.
Another potential way forward in ecosystem building could be to emulate or extend the model of North Ostrobothnia’s innovation and co-creation network and the OuluHealth ecosystem on a broader scale. This model brings together the know-how of multiple stakeholders to develop new solutions. Through the National Innovation and Strategy Network, actors supporting child well-being could be invited to exchange and build communities of practice. This could have the advantage of propagating existing effective solutions, while also using a model that has proven its legitimacy in the areas in which it has already worked.
With an ecosystem in place, there is greater scope to envisage and undertake multi-actor policy prototyping as the effects of experiments could be simulated in advance. Prototyping is of particular currency in AIG: emanating from the increasing interest in design thinking and practice in policy is the possibility to link anticipation to innovation through processes of prototyping (Bason, 2016[63]). In public policy, a prototype is a small-scale concept of how to advance a particular objective in a way that can be quickly implemented, tested, and learned from. Prototypes enable a policy to be viewed and experienced as material reality (Howard, Senova and Melles, 2015[64]; Ollenburg, 2019[65]). Within anticipatory innovation, prototypes have a particular advantage since they can be implemented well in advance of when they might be needed (Buchanan, 2018[66]).
Concretely this means the following actions:
Commissioning a research organisation to undertake the ecosystem-mapping exercise.
Convening scoping meetings with (potential) ecosystem partners to identify current activities, contribution to the system, and potential synergies, trade-offs, reinforcing and counteracting activities, stocks, flows, and feedback loops.
Conducting analysis using the resulting system map to identify where positive processes can be promoted and negative ones disincentivised.
Carrying out anticipatory prototyping sessions with ecosystem partners to identify potential experiments.
Simulating or even provisionally implementing prototypes with ecosystem partners.
Measuring and documenting outcomes.
Feeding back findings into the analytical process to improve and renew the experimentation where necessary; or extend the experiments into wider policy initiatives.
Signal exchanges
Numerous actors within the current Finnish system are gathering and producing knowledge, some of which has anticipatory value, and could therefore be described as “futures signals”. As this knowledge is not systematically shared or leveraged for anticipatory innovation purposes, it is not serving its full potential in the Finnish child well-being system. Some of the data available, such as that produced by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, is necessarily retrospective but could be used for trend analysis. Other work such as the Child Barometer could be updated to include questions of a more anticipatory nature.
One way to address this could be to promote exchanges of futures knowledge through periodic exchange sessions between actors that do not usually share information. These exchanges could draw inspiration from the Future Friday’s sessions organised with the National Foresight Network or the numerous communities of foresight practitioners in national and international organisations, such as the OECD Government Foresight Community. The exchange of futures signals could also leverage existing engagements such as the annual meetings between the national government and welfare counties.
Signal exchanges should also seek to gather information directly from the public in the interest of greater participation and legitimacy, as well as early warning on issues emerging on the ground. In this sense, the opportunity mentioned above to include Itla, One-Stop Guidance Centres, and Family Centres as a source of anticipatory knowledge is of potential value.
Steps to take to set up signal exchanges include:
Studying existing examples of signal exchanges in Finland and elsewhere, such as sessions of the National Foresight Network and the horizon scanning work of Policy Horizons Canada (Policy Horizons Canada, 2021[67]) and the UK Horizon Scanning Programme (Government of the UK, 2017[68]).
Setting up a co‑ordination team and process to define objectives.
Consulting potential participants in the signal exchanges to understand their connection with emerging issues, as well as their incentives and motivations to potentially participate and contribute.
Convening regular meetings to gather signals.
Facilitating dialogue and policy-relevant analysis.
Documenting results of meetings and disseminating among participants.
Reviewing progress, gathering feedback, and adjusting the approach as necessary to pursue the predefined objectives.
Next steps and roadmap
Echoing the findings of the Government Report on the Future (2013[69]) and the theme of collaboration and co‑ordination that runs through the analysis of this report, each of the options for action requires the buy-in, participation, and resources of multiple actors. Given the importance of budget and time in collective impact (Kania and Kramer, 2011[58]) but also buy-in and legitimacy (Wolff, 2016[70]), the Finnish government should expect to devote reasonable resources to achieve the objectives it seeks—and to do so over a sufficient period for the efforts to bear fruit. In Table 11.5 , each of the actors identified in the analysis is listed, along with suggested roles they could play in each of the three options for action. The shade of grey corresponds with the intensity of their involvement, with darker shades indicating a more prominent role and/or greater responsibilities.
Table 11.5. Possible roles in a child well-being anticipatory innovation governance model in Finland
Note: Darker shades indicate more extensive or comprehensive work and commitment.
Source: OECD.
Regarding timelines, a number of key upcoming dates provide opportunities to connect activities with times when they would be most impactful, as well as challenges in terms of competition for attention and resources. In addition, a comprehensive roadmap for the SOTE reform is already in use and undergoing further development (Government of Finland, 2022[24]). This roadmap contains five main categories with accompanying task sets, missions, and subtasks for implementation by national government and welfare counties by January 2023. Structuring the options for action around these dates and tasks will be an important factor in their potential success. Table 11.6 outlines some of the ways in which this might be achieved.
Table 11.6. Key dates and tasks in setting up AIG for child well-being
Source: OECD.
Risks
Risks implied in these activities are many of the same gaps they attempt to address. There is a possibility that the time and attention required to complete the SOTE reform (and potentially correct unexpected difficulties that arise) will be so substantial that the additional resources necessary for the above options will be unavailable. This risk can be mitigated by setting realistic expectations early on about the resources required, and obtaining authorisation for their use at a suitable point in the timeline.
Related to this is the potential for collaborative and holistic initiatives to lose momentum and interest as silos, individual objectives of organisations, and future reforms refocus minds. Setting up regular engagements and appointing individuals and teams as backbone support can help to reduce this risk.
It is also important for the initiatives, and indeed the whole governance system, not to become so focused on the meta-governance of anticipation that it becomes introspective and loses sight of the connection with actors and individuals it is intended to serve. This risk is specifically guarded against by the explicit involvement of service providers such as Perhekeskus and Ohjaamo in the signal exchanges; and by civil society organisations in the missions and ecosystem exercises.
Reflections for AIG as a model
The child well-being case study took place against the backdrop of a planned child budgeting pilot and a substantial public sector reform in Finland. These institutional mechanisms live and die by the actions undertaken to implement them; and the consequences of those actions—this is clear from the activities envisaged for child budgeting and the roadmap in place for the SOTE reform. Likewise, the gaps identified in Finland’s capacity for AIG in child well-being all relate to processes, relationships, knowledge, skills, and resources pertaining to authorising environment and agency.
The lesson to draw from this is that a system of AIG cannot simply be made of static components such as a task force or a report in isolation. Authorising environment and agency are emergent properties, resulting from the causal relationships, stocks (like futures knowledge), flows (like information), feedback, and time delays that make up a system (Forrester, 1971[71]). These system dynamics are reflected in the options for action presented above (well-being missions, ecosystem building, and signal exchanges). Table 11.7 provides some examples of what they could mean in practice.
Table 11.7. System dynamics of an AIG child well-being model
Source: OECD.
How these things fit together and interact is primordial to identifying the activities needed to initiate, motivate, and sustain a dynamic AIG system that exceeds institutions, and delivers true collaboration and concrete benefits. Hence, a system dynamics analysis would be a valuable next step in developing the AIG blueprint for governments.
Pilot case findings and key considerations
References
[47] Australia Department of Social Services (2021), Safe and Supported: The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031 (the National Framework), https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/12_2021/dess5016-national-framework-protecting-childrenaccessible.pdf.
[48] Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2008), “Discussion Paper ’Australia’s Children: Safe and Well - A National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children’”, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/discussion-paper-australias-children-safe-and-well-national-framework-protecting (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[63] Bason, C. (2016), Design for Policy, Routledge.
[66] Buchanan, C. (2018), “Prototyping for policy”, Policy Lab, https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/27/prototyping-for-policy/ (accessed on 13 July 2021).
[5] Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (eds.) (2019), Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-being in the Digital Age, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7f33425-en.
[49] CAFWAA (2008), Australia’s Children: Safe and Well - A National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, Discussion Paper - Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia (CAFWAA) response.
[18] Camillus, J. (2008), “Strategy as a Wicked Problem”, Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2008/05/strategy-as-a-wicked-problem (accessed on 21 June 2021).
[14] Clark, H. et al. (2020), “A future for the world’s children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission”, The Lancet, Vol. 395/10224, pp. 605-658, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32540-1.
[57] Croxatto, L., D. Hogendoorn and A. Petersen (2020), “How networked organisations build capacity for anticipatory governance in South East Asian deltas”, Futures, Vol. 116, pp. 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102512.
[19] Devaney, J. and T. Spratt (2009), “Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 31/6, pp. 635-641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.12.003.
[29] Eura Municipality, Finland (2022), Services for children, young people and families. Tasks of the Family Center, https://www.eura.fi/sosiaali-ja-terveyspalvelut/lasten-nuorten-ja-perheiden-palvelut/perhekeskus/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[71] Forrester, J. (1971), “Counterintuitive behavior of social systems”, Theory and Decision, Vol. 2/2, pp. 109-140, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00148991.
[52] Government of Finland (2022), Child Strategy, https://www.lapsenoikeudet.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/child-strategy-ENG.pdf.
[24] Government of Finland (2022), Tiekartat, Soteuudistus, https://soteuudistus.fi/tiekartat (accessed on 4 May 2022).
[25] Government of Finland (2021), Child-oriented budgeting to be piloted in the 2022 Budget, Valtioneuvosto, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/10623/child-oriented-budgeting-to-be-piloted-in-the-2022-budget (accessed on 12 April 2022).
[53] Government of Finland (2021), Implementation plan for the National Child Strategy: Cabinet agreement in principle, Government of Finland,Helsinki, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163542/VN_2021_82.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.
[21] Government of Finland (2021), Sote-uudistus (health and social services reform), Sote-uudistus, https://soteuudistus.fi/en/frontpage?p_p_id=fi_yja_language_version_tool_web_portlet_LanguageVersionToolMissingNotificationPortlet&_fi_yja_language_version_tool_web_portlet_LanguageVersionToolMissingNotificationPortlet_missingLanguageVersion=1 (accessed on 28 April 2022).
[42] Government of New Zealand (2019), The Wellbeing Budget, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-05/b19-wellbeing-budget.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[68] Government of the UK (2017), Horizon Scanning Programme team, GOV.UK., https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/horizon-scanning-programme-team (accessed on 4 May 2022).
[17] Government of Wales (2015), Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015: The Essentials, WG 25447, Department for Natural Resources of the Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://www.futuregenerations.wales/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/150623-guide-to-the-fg-act-en.pdf.
[69] Government Report on the Future (2013), Government Report on the Future: well-being through sustainable growth, https://vnk.fi/documents/10616/1093242/J2013_Government+Report+on+the+Future.pdf/7311d729-3a25-44a3-b2af-1223ed14ead4/J2013_Government+Report+on+the+Future.pdf.
[62] Granstrand, O. and M. Holgersson (2020), “Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition”, Technovation, Vol. 90-91, p. 102098, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098.
[30] Helmich, W. (2021), Toekomstscenario kind- en gezinsbescherming, Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, The Hague, https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2021D11341&did=2021D11341.
[7] Hooft Graafland, J. (2018), “New technologies and 21st century children: Recent trends and outcomes”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e071a505-en.
[64] Howard, Z., M. Senova and G. Melles (2015), “Exploring the role of mindset in design thinking: Implications for capability development and practice”, Journal of Design, Business & Society, Vol. 1/2, pp. 183-202, https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs.1.2.183_1.
[38] Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (2022), Better Outcomes Brighter Future Indicator Set Report 2022, Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c9ad0-better-outcomes-brighter-future-indicator-set-report-2022/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[37] Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (2018), Mid-term Review of Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The national policy framework for children and young people 2014 – 2020, Ireland Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c79614-mid-term-review-of-better-outcomes-brighter-futures/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[58] Kania, J. and M. Kramer (2011), “Collective Impact”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 9/1, pp. 36–41.
[20] Livingstone, S., M. Stoilova and R. Nandagiri (2018), Conceptualising privacy online: what do, and what should, children understand?, Parenting for a Digital Future, London School of Economics and Political Science, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/ (accessed on 9 March 2022).
[28] Määttä, M. (ed.) (2018), One-Stop Guidance Center (Ohjaamo) – Ready to offer multi-agency services for the young, Kohtaamo (ESF), ELY-Centre Central Finland, Jyväskylä, https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162148/OneStopGuidance.pdf.
[13] Marguerit, D., G. Cohen and C. Exton (2018), “Child well-being and the Sustainable Development Goals: How far are OECD countries from reaching the targets for children and young people?”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2018/05, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5e53b12f-en.
[43] McClure, T. (2021), “New Zealand’s “wellbeing budget” made headlines, but what really changed?”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/10/new-zealands-wellbeing-budget-made-headlines-but-what-really-changed (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[44] McKinlay, P. (2022), New Zealand’s wellbeing budget: a good PR story or a contributor to improved wellbeing?, Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), https://lgiu.org/publication/new-zealands-wellbeing-budget-a-good-pr-story-or-a-contributor-to-improved-wellbeing/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[22] Ministry of Education and Culture Finland and Ministry of Social Affaires and Health Finland (2019), Child’s Time: Towards the National Strategy for Children 2040, Child Strategy 2040, https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/12685437/Summary+Child%E2%80%99s+Time+-+Towards+a+National+Strategy+for+Children+2040/ed4e7691-0ba5-f390-01ff-1c77a2db08e4/Summary+Child%E2%80%99s+Time+-+Towards+a+National+Strategy+for+Children+2040.pdf?t=1552636061000 (accessed on 27 April 2022).
[40] New Zealand State Services Commission (2018), Impact Statement: State Sector Act Reform, https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/Legacy/resources/Impact-Statement-State-Sector-Act-Reform.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[59] Niemelä, M. et al. (2019), “Collective Impact on Prevention: Let’s Talk About Children Service Model and Decrease in Referrals to Child Protection Services”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00064.
[1] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-being and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en.
[60] OECD (2021), Mission-Oriented Innovation, Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/OECD-Innovation-Facets-Brief-Mission-Oriented-Innovation-2021.pdf.
[8] OECD (2021), “Supporting young people’s mental health through the COVID-19 crisis”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/84e143e5-en.
[15] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.
[11] OECD (2020), How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en.
[6] OECD (2019), “Play!”, Trends Shaping Education Spotlights, No. 18, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a4115284-en.
[4] OECD (2019), Trends Shaping Education 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2019-en.
[3] OECD (2016), Trends Shaping Education 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2016-en.
[10] OECD (2015), How’s Life? 2015: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2015-en.
[9] OECD (2011), How’s Life?: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en.
[65] Ollenburg, S. (2019), “A Futures-Design-Process Model for Participatory Futures”, Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 23/4, pp. 51-62, https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201906_23(4).0006.
[27] Ombudsman for Children in Finland (2022), “Report to Parliament by the Ombudsman for Children 2022”, No. 2022/3, Government of Finland, Helsinki, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/163790.
[46] Parliamentary Education Office (n.d.), The roles and responsibilities of the three levels of government, https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/three-levels-of-government/the-roles-and-responsibilities-of-the-three-levels-of-government/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[2] Polchar, J. (2020), “Unboxing the Future: Finding the futures hidden in plain sight”, European Union Institute for Security Studies, Vol. Brief 19, p. 8, https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Brief%2019%20Foresight.pdf.
[67] Policy Horizons Canada (2021), Weak Signals, Government of Canada, https://horizons.gc.ca/en/category/products/weak-signals/ (accessed on 4 May 2022).
[54] Ramírez, R. and A. Wilkinson (2016), Strategic Reframing: The Oxford Scenario Planning Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
[61] Sabel, C. and J. Zeitlin (2010), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture, Oxford University Press.
[16] School of International Futures (2021), Fair public policies for all generations: An assessment framework, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, https://gulbenkian.pt/de-hoje-para-amanha/en/publication/fair-public-policies-for-all-generations/ (accessed on 10 March 2022).
[39] School of International Futures (2021), Features of Effective Systemic Foresight in Governments Globally, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/features-of-effective-systemic-foresight-in-governments-globally (accessed on 20 June 2022).
[35] Scottish Government (2014), Scottish Government’s written response to the Finance Committee’s report on the 2014-15 Draft Budget, http://archive2021.parliament.scot/S4_FinanceCommittee/Draft_Budget_2014_response.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[32] Scottish National Performance Unit (2022), National Performance Framework. How it works, https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/how-it-works (accessed on 4 May 2022).
[34] Scottish National Performance Unit (2022), National Performance Framework. Measuring progress, National Indicator Performance, https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/measuring-progress/national-indicator-performance (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[33] Scottish National Performance Unit (2022), National Performance Framework. National Outcomes, Children and Young People, https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/national-outcomes/children-and-young-people (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[36] Scottish Parliament (2017), Budget Process Review Group 2017, Final Report, https://archive2021.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11514&i=104482 (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[31] The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (2022), “About the VNG”, https://vng.nl/artikelen/about-the-vng.
[50] The National Coalition on Child Safety and Wellbeing (2021), Media Release: Children thrive when their families are supported by strong services and co-ordinated systems, https://familiesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/National-Coalition-statement-8-Dec-2021-F.pdf.
[41] The New Zealand Treasury (2021), The Living Standards Framework 2021, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/tp-living-standards-framework-2021.pdf.
[45] The New Zealand Treasury (2019), The well-being Budget 2019, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/wellbeing-budget/wellbeing-budget-2019.
[23] The parliamentary National Child Strategy Committee (2022), “National Child Strategy Committee report”, No. 2022/16, Government of Finland, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163977/VN_2022_16.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[55] Tibbs, H. (2021), “Making the Future Visible: Psychology, Scenarios, and Strategy”, World Futures Review, Vol. 13/1, pp. 8-13, https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567211014557.
[51] Tõnurist, P. (2021), Towards an anticipatory innovation governance model in Finland. Intermediate Report, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Anticipatory-Innovation-Governance-in-Finland.pdf.
[56] Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), “Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en.
[12] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021), The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021, United Nations, https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210056083.
[26] Vapaavuori, J., P. Lindroos and M. Hjelt (2013), “Government Report on the Future: Well-being through sustainable growth”, No. 20/2013, Prime Minister’s Office, https://vm.fi/documents/10616/1093242/J2013_Government+Report+on+the+Future.pdf/7311d729-3a25-44a3-b2af-1223ed14ead4/J2013_Government+Report+on+the+Future.pdf?version=1.0&t=1421654618000.
[70] Wolff, T. (2016), “Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong”, Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, Vol. 7/1, https://www.gjcpp.org/en/resource.php?issue=21&resource=200.