Results and Performance Accountabilty, Decision-making and Budgeting

1
Keeping Children Safe - An Outcomes Approach -
LSCB Development Day
Rob Hutchinson, CBE 4th 19th November 2010
2
Childrens Trusts involve
Inter-Agency Governance strategic direction,
partnership and accountability
Integrated Strategy planning, commissioning,
pooled resources
Integrated Processes information sharing, common
assessment
Integrated People common core,
multi- disciplinary teams co-location
Children Young People
Families Community
Leadership at every level
Involvement of children young people
Shared Vision
Source DfES
3
Outcome Based Accountabilityis made up of two
parts
4
THE LANGUAGE TRAPToo many terms. Too few
definitions. Too little discipline
Benchmark
Result
Outcome
Modifiers Measurable Core
Urgent Qualitative Priority
Programmatic Targeted
Performance Incremental Strategic
Systemic
Goal
Indicator
Objective
Measure
Target
Measurable urgent systemic indicators
Lewis Carroll Center for Language Disorders
5
Definitions
Children born healthy, Children succeeding in
school, Safe communities, Clean Environment,
Prosperous Economy
Rate of low-birthweight babies, Percent 16 19
yr. olds with 5 A-C GCSEs, crime rate, air
quality index, unemployment rate
1. How much did we do? 2. How well did
we do it? 3. Is anyone better off?
Customer Outcome
6
Is it a Result, Indicator or Performance Measure?
1. Safe Community 2. Crime Rate 3. Average
Police response time 4. A community without
graffiti 5. of surveyed buildings without
graffiti 6. People have living wage jobs and
income 7. of people with living wage jobs and
income 8. of participants in job training who
get living wage jobs
RESULT
INDICATOR
PERF. MEASURE
RESULT
INDICATOR
RESULT
INDICATOR
PERF. MEASURE
7
POPULATIONACCOUNTABILITY

• For Whole Populationsin a Geographic Area

8
Every Child Matters Children ActOutcomes for
Children and Young People
Being Healthy enjoying good physical and mental
health and living a healthy lifestyle. Staying
Safe being protected from harm and neglect and
growing up able to look after themselves. Enjoying
and Achieving getting the most out of life and
developing broad skills for adulthood. Making a
Positive Contribution to the community and to
society and not engaging in anti-social or
offending behaviour. Economic Well-being
overcoming socio-economic disadvantages to
achieve their full potential in life.
9
Our Health, Our Care, Our Say White
PaperOutcomes for Adults

• 1. Health Emotional Well-being
• 2. Quality of life
• 3. Making a positive contribution
• 4. Exercising choice control
• 5. Freedom from discrimination harassment
• 6. Economic well being
• 7. Personal dignity respect
• (8. Effective leadership)
• (9. Effective commissioning)

Source A New Outcomes Framework for Performance
Assessment of Adult Social Care 2006 - 07
10
Outcomes The Portsmouth 8

• Children and Young People should grow up -
• Having an active say in any development
• Healthy
• Emotionally secure and confident
• Having succeeded as far as they can at
  school
• Having facilities and opportunities to play
  safely
• Having stayed out of trouble
• Living in a safe place
• Having the opportunity to succeed in their
  dreams

11
Neighbourhood
Country

Kruidenbuurt Tilburg, Netherlands
New Zealand
12
Coventry Data Book
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Performance Measures Against the Portsmouth 8
Baseline
16
Healthy Eating and Exercise Project in Portsmouth

• Project Driven by LSP and a local Community Board
• Focused on one community
• Many 1's .
• Secondary School
• Primary Schools
• Surestart
• Faith Community
• Playgroups and Child Minders
• Dieticians
• "Trained" parents
• Childrens Video
• Schools Meal Service
• Co-op
• University
• Portsmouth Football Club
• Health Visitors
• Public Health Consultant
• PCT Chief Executive .etc

17
Performance Accountability

• For Services, Agencies
• and Service Systems

18
Programme Performance Measures
Quantity
Quality
How much did we do?
How welldid we do it?
Effect Effort
Is anyonebetter off?


19
Quadrant
How well did we do it?
How much did we do?
How many nurses appointed since 1997?
Reduction in Waiting Times
Is anyone better off?

Percentage of patients saying their health has
improved as a result of the hospital
intervention Number of fatalities within 2 months
of operation
20
Proposed National Indicator Set
How well did we do it?
How much did we do?
of initial assessments carried out within 10
working days of core assessments completed
within 35 working days of child protection
plans lasting 2 years or more of child
protection cases which were reviewed within
required timescale of referrals to childrens
social care going on to initial assessment of
applications for care proceedings which have been
assessed as incomplete Childrens social worker
vacancy rate Childrens social worker turnover
rate
Did it make a difference?
Did it make a difference?
Population increase of children and young
people who have suffered unintentional/deliberate
injuries or preventable deaths children who
report they feel safer Performance children
becoming the subject of child protection plan for
a second or subsequent time
21
Possible local additions to the NIS
How well did we do it?
How much did we do?
of initial assessments within 10 working days
of core assessments for childrens social care
carried out within 35 working days of
commencement of child protection plans lasting
2 years or more of child protection plans
reviewed within time scales of applications for
care proceedings deemed as incomplete by the
courts service social worker vacancy
rate social worker turnover rate complaints
surveyed families saying service was delivered in
a respectful and timely manner
Number of children with protection plans
Did it make a difference?
Did it make a difference?
Numbers of children who report that they feel
safer Numbers of parents who report that their
parenting has improved as a result of
intervention
Population reduction in children referred for
physical, emotional and sexual abuse and
neglect increase of children who have suffered
unintentional/deliberate injuries or preventable
deaths Performance of children subject to CP
Plan for a second or subsequent time of
childrens plans whose recommendations have been
successfully implemented reduction of children
with CP Plans of children whose risks are
reduced as a result of intervention and are
removed from protection plans within 6 months
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Swale Kids Performance Measures
How much did we do? (Quantity) How well did we do it? (Quality)
Types of activity Number of Children seen by Team - parenting groups - one to one with children - group work with parents staff turnover of children per staff member of staff trained of children completing activity of parent/carer completing activity
Is anyone better off? Is anyone better off?
No. of pupils with improved results No. of permanent exclusions Number of fixed term exclusions No. teachers who say the intervention a difference No. parents/carers who say the intervention made a difference No. children who say the intervention made a difference of pupils with improved attainment of permanent exclusions of fixed term exclusions teachers who say the intervention made a difference parents/carers who say the intervention made a difference children who say the intervention made a difference
28
Mentoring Scheme
No. attended No. mentors recruited Training for mentors No. of referrals made No. of 11s Distribution of referral by agency Mentors staying 1 year or more YP staying 1 year or more YP / mentors treated well Referrals accepted Partner agencies who attend meeting about CYP Recruited who serve for more than 1 year Unit cost per mentor YP matched within 30 days Rate of attendance at 11s
YP reporting programme has helped improved relationships with parents / carers YP say prog help in probs at exit, 3, 6 months YP say improved relationships YP showing improved attendance YP showing reduced exclusions (days) Average length of exclusions Attainment levels (mentor exceed set targets)
29
LSCB effectiveness
How much did we do?
How well did we do it?
of Members attending regularly of Members
presenting items of Members stating their
satisfaction with meetings serious case reviews
considered recommendations in training plan
implemented recommendations in Reports
agreed Identifiable progress achieved on business
plan agreed recommendations reviewed on a
regular basis
Number of meetings Numbers of agencies attending
LSCB meetings Frequency of meetings Progress on
business plan Financial management Numbers of
member annual appraisals carried out
Did it make a difference?
Did it make a difference?
Population of children who report that they
feel safer reduction in children referred for
physical, emotional and sexual abuse and
neglect hospital admissions caused by
unintentional or deliberate injuries Performance
of children whose risks have been reduced and
whose protection plans are ended within 6 month
reduction of children with child protection
plans protection plans which have been
successfully implemented of parents who report
that services have improved the parenting of
their children children becoming the subject
of Child Protection Plans for second or
subsequent time
30
(No Transcript)
31
Strengthening Families Framework
How much did we do?
How well did we do it?
of consultations leading to ICPCs reduction
in time subject to PP ICPCs held in 15wdays
professionals who feel meetings are run
well/timely profs who deliver actions in
timescales parents/CYP who report feeling
listened to parents/CYP who understand/agree
with the aim of the plan at the end of the meeting

of children subject to S47 of consultations
carried out using SFF of consultations which
dont lead to CP intervention of children
subject to SFF ICPCs/RCPC of children with PPs
Did it make a difference?
Did it make a difference?
Population Children are safer Performance
Children subject to SFF less likely to exp repeat
PP reduction in time subject to PP per
category/need reduction in children
experiencing further episodes of harm (S47s?)
increase in of children who stayed at home
safely children who report they feel safer
parents who report that intervention helped them
to make children safer agencies who report that
intervention made children safer
32
Success Measures for Childrens Trusts
How well did we do it?
How much did we do?
Joint Commissioning Strat. which identifies
both population and performance priorities
Joint Commissioning Strat/ plan implemented
within defined timescales Joint Commissioning
Strat. Delivered within budget of trust members
attending meetings of reports with agreed
implementation plans of items actioned from
meeting of priorities reviewed on regular
basis of plans consulted on/approved by
children yng people of children, y. people
families who say services are delivered in timely
and respectful manner of staff and public who
understand CT priorities
Establishment of Joint Commissioning Strategy and
Plan No.of attendees at Trust meetings No.of
items considered No. of agencies represented No.
of children and young people attending No. of
events/learning opportunities undertaken No. of
staff whose awareness is realised on CT priorities
Did it make a difference?
POPULATION of children, young people families
who say services made difference to 1 or more of
5 outcomes (Tell Us survey) PERFORMANCE of
professionals who say CT priorities contributed
to an improvement of 5 outcomes for children,
young people families BOTH Depending on
priorities, theres evidence that the curve had
turned on Top 2 priorities at both populations
and performance level, eg teenage pregnancy
obesity for population levels eg A to Cs in
school x for performance level
33
Safeguarding young people at risk of self harm or
suicide
How much did we do?
How well did we do it?
mental health assessments which led to
signposting to other agencies 10 16 year
olds and their families receiving attachment
intervention of families that are responded to
as per the Rapid Response Protocol childrens
workforce trained in brief interventions young
person satisfaction with post return home
services placements receiving additional
support for young people increase in school
attendance increase in targeted CAMHS
provision for young people with emerging mental
health difficulties
Number of young people offered services through
CAHMS Number of mental health assessments
carried out Number of universal services being
used by young people feeling excluded Amount of
attachment support for young people and their
families Numbers of follow up missing
interviews
Did it make a difference?
Did it make a difference?
Population reduction in young people that self
harm or attempt suicide reduction in the number
of attendance at AE due to drug or alcohol
misuse young people that report feeling
safe Performance reduction in young people that
repeatedly self harm reduction in young people
committing suicide reduction of young people
experiencing long term rejection reduction in
placement breakdowns reduction in repeat
missing persons increase in children returning
home in a planned way in repeat attendances in
AE of young people that say they have been
properly consulted on their plans and the
development of services people