1. What Went Well?
I began my Leadership-in-Action placement with The School & Family Works (SFW) in London, a non-profit social enterprise that addresses a deeply embedded coordination failure within the UK school system. Many children who struggle academically or behaviorally are not simply “falling behind” in isolation; rather, their difficulties often reflect instability or distress in their home environments. In schools serving socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, these challenges can be particularly acute. Without early intervention, children facing these circumstances are at greater risk of long-term disengagement from education, and in some cases, pathways into social exclusion, unemployment, or crime.
SFW’s model directly targets this systemic issue. By running multi-family therapy groups within schools, the organization creates structured, consistent environments where children, parents, and educators can rebuild trust, improve communication, and address the relational foundations that underlie educational outcomes. Rather than treating academic underperformance as an isolated issue, SFW focuses on intergenerational trauma and relational breakdown as root causes.
This week, I spent time at the organization’s office in Richmond, London, which is located within a shared community space hosting multiple social enterprises. Being physically present in that environment was unexpectedly meaningful. The space itself felt like a working model of community solidarity—people from different organizations collaborating under one roof, sharing resources and purpose. One particularly striking example was the centre’s café, run largely by volunteers—many of them retirees—which operates on a pay-as-you-wish model for anyone in the local community. It was a small but powerful illustration of how community infrastructure can be built around trust, dignity, and inclusion, rather than transactional exchange.
Alongside this immersion, I spent the week meeting the team, learning about the organisation’s history, and beginning the process of reviewing and organzsing a large body of existing evaluation material. Through extended conversations with Mark Griffiths, the founder and CEO, I gained a much clearer understanding of both the severity of the cases SFW works with and the evolution of the organization itself. Mark’s own journey into this work was particularly illuminating. He began his career as a school teacher, moving across schools with very different educational models. While teaching in Wales at a school for children with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, he began to see more clearly the systemic roots of the issues these children faced. Many of the students’ behavioral challenges were not simply disciplinary problems, but reflections of instability, neglect, or trauma at home. This experience led him to pursue formal training in clinical psychotherapy, and eventually to work within government on similar issues before founding SFW. His trajectory reinforced for me that this work sits at the intersection of education, mental health and social policy—and cannot be meaningfully addressed through any one system alone.
I also developed a much stronger understanding of the financial and structural challenges facing organizations like SFW. Over the past decade, government funding for therapeutic and relational interventions in schools has declined by approximately 40 percent. When SFW first began, around 80 percent of its funding came directly from schools. Today, that figure has fallen to less than 20 percent, with the organization now relying primarily on private donors and grant funding. This shift has created a new challenge: not only delivering impactful programs, but also communicating that impact effectively to external stakeholders who may not have direct experience of the work.
This is where my role becomes particularly relevant. The organisztion has accumulated a significant body of evidence—case studies, evaluations, and participant feedback—but much of it remains fragmented and underutilized. My work in trawling, organizing, and synthesizing this material is directly tied to helping SFW tell a clearer and more compelling story about the long-term value of its work.
In terms of progress, I was able to begin structuring the existing material into thematic categories and identifying early patterns in how impact has been described historically. I also developed a clearer understanding of how the organisation currently communicates its impact and where gaps remain—particularly around long-term outcomes. I am most proud of how quickly I was able to engage with the organization’s work at a deeper level, moving beyond surface understanding to thinking critically about how evidence is generated, interpreted, and communicated.
What contributed most to success this week was a combination of curiosity and openness—approaching the organization not as a problem to be solved, but as a system to be understood.
2. What Could Have Been Done Differently?
The most significant challenge this week arose from the organization’s Clinical Governance review process, which introduced important ethical concerns about the original project design. While Mark was enthusiastic about developing a project involving direct engagement with Family Group graduates, members of the Clinical Governance group raised valid concerns about the risks associated with contacting former participants. Even carefully structured questions could potentially reopen difficult memories, and there are complex power dynamics involved when an organization re-engages with families who have previously received therapeutic support.
As a result, parts of the project stalled and required redesign. Rather than conducting direct interviews with graduates about past participation in therapy sessions as initially planned, we began shifting toward a framework development approach, focusing on how the organization might ethically and effectively capture long-term impact in the future. This will still involve input from graduates of Family Group and direct interaction by me, but the content of the conversations will be quite different.
Reflecting on this, I recognize that I underestimated the importance of understanding the full organizational structure—particularly governance and oversight mechanisms—before beginning to design a project. My initial conversations were primarily with leadership, and I did not fully anticipate how different stakeholders within the organization might have different priorities and constraints.
In hindsight, earlier engagement with the Clinical Governance perspective would have helped surface these issues sooner and allowed for a more aligned initial proposal. I also realized that my planning was somewhat front-loaded; while I had a clear sense of early tasks, I had not yet fully mapped out how the project would evolve week by week in response to institutional constraints.
This experience reinforced the importance of iterative planning in complex organizational environments. Next time, I would approach project design with a more explicit recognition that initial ideas are provisional and must be stress-tested across different parts of the organisation before implementation.
3. Leadership Reflection
Values
The value that was most visible in my leadership this week was Curiosity. Entering a new organizational environment, I prioritized understanding over action—asking questions, listening to different perspectives, and engaging deeply with the context. I also had to draw on Determination, particularly when the project encountered setbacks. Rather than viewing the governance concerns as a barrier, I reframed them as an opportunity to improve the project’s design.
There was some tension between Ambition and Good. While I was eager to develop a meaningful and impactful project, I also had to recognize that ethical considerations must take precedence over speed or scope. This required adjusting my expectations and being comfortable with a slower, more careful approach.
Character
This week tested my ability to demonstrate humility and adaptability. It required acknowledging that my initial approach needed to be revised and being open to feedback from individuals with more experience in clinical and safeguarding contexts.
Judgment was particularly important in how I responded to the project’s initial setbacks. Rather than pushing forward with the original plan, I chose to step back and engage constructively with the concerns raised. This allowed me to maintain trust with the organization while repositioning the project in a way that is more sustainable and ethically grounded.
Capacities
I relied most heavily on people and process capacities this week. Building relationships with the team, understanding different stakeholder perspectives, and navigating internal communication dynamics were central to making progress.
I felt most stretched in process design, particularly in adapting to an evolving project structure. Moving from a more defined project idea to a fluid, developmental approach required me to think more flexibly about timelines, deliverables, and success metrics.
4. Ethical Engagement
This week fundamentally reshaped my understanding of ethical engagement in practice. The initial proposal, while well-intentioned, highlighted how easily a project can introduce unintended risks when working with vulnerable populations—even when those individuals are no longer actively receiving services.
One key insight was the importance of role clarity. As a student and volunteer, I am not a therapist, and it is essential that my work does not blur the boundary between therapeutic support and evaluation or data collection. The Clinical Governance discussion made clear that even seemingly benign interactions can carry weight in this context.
My role this week shifted from “project implementer” to learner and facilitator, helping to co-develop an approach that respects the organisation’s ethical obligations. This shift also made me more aware of the long-term implications of the work: demonstrating impact is important, but not at the expense of participant wellbeing or trust.
Overall, this experience reinforced that ethical engagement is not just about following guidelines—it is about continuously reflecting on how actions may affect others, particularly in contexts involving vulnerability and past trauma.
5. Adjustment & Development for Next Week
One key behavioral adjustment I will make is to engage earlier and more proactively with all relevant stakeholders, particularly those responsible for oversight and governance. This will help ensure that project design is aligned from the outset and reduce the need for later revisions.
Next week, I want to intentionally develop my capacity for adaptive leadership—remaining flexible in the face of changing constraints while still maintaining clarity of purpose.
A concrete action I will take is to work with Mark and the team to translate the revised project direction into a clear, structured framework, with defined deliverables and timelines. This will help bring greater clarity to the project and ensure that progress remains steady despite the initial redesign.