Integrated Children’s Services - First Steps -
description
Transcript of Integrated Children’s Services - First Steps -
Integrated Children’s Services
- First Steps -
Rod Matthews27 July 2005
Page 2
First Steps – a Framework for Integrated Children’s Services
Agenda 13:00 – 16:30
13:00 Introduction RM 13:10 National Projects in context RM 13:15 First Steps – a combined perspective RM 13:45 Key Issues from the Social Exclusion Unit RT 14:15 Break-out session
15:00 Break
15:20 Key Issues from the ISA Programme MS 15:40 Key Issues from the IDeA RM 15:50 Break-out session feedback RM 16:00 Question time & next stepsPanel
16:30 Close
Page 3
National and Regional Projects in Context
2002-2005
22 National Projects& £80m spent, 9 Regional Partnerships, c40 Sub regions, plus the thematic Partnerships with a wide range of ODPM and locally funded programmes.
The outcomes is a wealth of products, a small number of which are software (16), a bout 200 are about methodology and around 850 are knowledge products. These are available via ‘PROP’ & the NWeGG products catalogue, and there is a drive to combine product databases
There is an issue that the products tend to be individual and need to be accessible to practitioners and those that can affect change, they need to be seen in context.
The future of National Projects – Local Authority led following the ROADS “Safe homes” programme.
Page 4
First Steps – a Framework for Integrated Children’s Services
A combined perspective
• National Projects, Regional & sub-regional Partnerships, thematic• Identification Referral and Tracking • Information Sharing And Assessment Programme• RYOGENS• FAME• Common Assessment Framework• Children Act 2004• Integrated Children's Service• Single Assessment Process• Single Assessment Record• Single Child Index• Electronic Social Care Record• Personalised Learning Environment• NHS National Programme for IT• Government Connects (Gateway)• Priority Service Outcomes
Page 5
Knowsley’s approach to the ROADS Programme
• We recognised that the ‘interested parties’ were finding e-government and National Projects too nebulous and too techy in their language.
• We also were confused by overlaps and competing initiatives, We too had problems in translating the individual and sometime competing products into a meaningful business case, relevant to Knowsley’s circumstances.
• We were particularly concerned at the lack of cross-agency understanding, and specifically the funding / cost of such programmes.
• I was concerned that Children’s Agenda was in the “too-hard box”, and that against the size of the task, that developments were slow to initialise
• But at the same time we were hearing about lots of really good work happening – perhaps too much!, and some anxieties reached as far as Hansard!.
So I volunteered to try and bring together, rationalise the respective strands, products and discussion on Children’s Services, to write them up and make the findings available with some of the how-to products included
Page 6
First Steps – Introducing Gaps, overlaps, thoughts and hints
First Steps - Structure of the document;
Section 1 - Policies Stakeholders and Initiatives
Section 2 - Agencies, teams and business processes involved
Section 3 - Cost, Affordability, redistribution – impact and effect
Section 4 - Structured methods, governance, change and communication
Section 5 – Technologies and information management
Page 7
The real aim
2
1
3
4
Page 8
First Steps Section 1 – Central Government Scope
Department forEducation and
Skills
Office of DeputyPrime Minister
Home OfficeDepartment of
Health
LOCAL AUTHORITY AND PARTNERSR
ed
ucin
g C
rim
e
Page 9
First Steps Section 1 – Local Authority Scope
Crime and Disorder
Health & Social Care
Education
Single Child Index RYOGENS
Regional SchoolsAdmissions Portal
ISAP
Next Agenda Item – 13:45 (Social Exclusion Unit)
Page 10
First Steps Section 2 – Stakeholders and Processes
ROADS National Project
Practitioners
Sponsors
Client groups
Children
Young People
CYPSP
ODPM
Leisure & Community
Parents
Carers
DFESDOH
eGov Leads
IT managers
Directors of Children’s Services
ISA Programme Managers
ICS Programme Managers
Acute Trusts
Primary Care Trusts
Connexions
Housing Services
Social Services
Education Services
Schools
CAMHS
Youth Offending Teams
Youth Inclusions Support Panels
Police
Probation
Non-practitioners
Voluntary Sector
External
Technology Partners
Page 11
First Steps Section 2 – Stakeholders and Processes
Self Referral
Process Start
1 Part of the eligibility assessment should include a initial provision of service received by other agencies.2 Consent from either or both the child and parent / carer.3 Request support using individual agency referral forms to contact appropriate agency
Contact leadpractitioner and
share information innext meeting
Close Referral / Request forsupport
Are child’s needsbeing met?
Call a Multi-AgencySupport Meeting
Review supportplan / CAF
Actions and Decisions Process End
Deliver Service andplan ongoing review
meetings
Contact practitionerby phone. Co-
ordinate intervention.Share information
verbally
Has consent beengranted?
Request for support from ownagency / other agency
Assess eligibility ofeligibility for
services from thisagency1
Will this referral beaccepted?
Should a referral bemade to another
agency?3No
Close Referral / Request forsupport
No
Seek Appropriate2
Consent for serviceintervention.
Refer to Level 3 Services (seelevel 3 flowchart)
!!! IF at any stage in the process the child is at risk of significant harm, child should be referred to Social Services immediately !!!
KEY
Process start
Process step
Decision
Process end
Child Index
Area ofresponsibility
Refer to alternative Level 2Service.
Is refusal to grantconsent a child
welfare concern?
Yes
How many otherpractitioners are
working with child?
Yes
2 13 or more
Identify leadpractitioner.
Develop MultiAgency CAF
Select Date forreview meeting
Multi-Agency Planning Meeting
Planning
ServiceProvision
Continue existingsupport?
Are additionalservices required?
No
Yes (level 2)
Close Referral. Return toLevel 1 Provision.
No
Yes
No
Review
Yes No
No
Yes
none
Yes (level 3)
Multi-Agency Review Meeting
Agency checks ifchild known and if
assessments / CAFalready exist
Create/UpdateCAF
Record involvementin Child Index
Referral triggered bycharacteristic,
e.g. poor school attendance
Page 12
First Steps Section 3 Identifying Affordability
4
3
2
1
Immediate< 1 year
Short Term1-2 years
Medium Term2-5 years
Long Term> 5 years
Costs (£) Over 6 Years
Low Estimate High Estimate
People (240,000) (240,000)
Technology (675,000) (840,000)
Project/Programme management
(100,000) (200,000)
Total (1,015,000) (1,280,000)
*See section 3.2 for a more detailed explanation of financial costs.
Benefits (£) Over 6 Years
Low Estimate High Estimate
Efficiency 500,000 3,500,000
Preventative 600,000 3,000,000
Total 1,100,000 6,500,000
Long Term Economic Benefits
The long term economic benefits have been estimated in section
2.1.3, but are not included in this table. They relate to a 45 year period and are not comparable
with the other figures in this table.
Page 13
First Steps Section 4 Change Management
• Readiness Assessment Checklist
• Model Project Approach
• Model Communication Plan
• Model Change Plan
• Template Risk Analysis
Cen
tra
l
Man
ag
em
en
t
Ch
an
ge
an
d
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
ns
Bu
sin
ess
Desig
nT
ech
no
log
yVision and Strategy Initialisation Design and Build Deploy and Implement
Vision and Scope Statements
Stakeholder Analysis Change Planning
As-Is Analysis
To-Be Design
Technology As-Is
Practitioner buy-in
Team structure and mobilisation
Internal and external communications
Adapt information sharing protocols
User Training
Info
rmati
on
Man
ag
em
en
t
Leadership Champions
Post Implementation
Monitor and Evaluate
Training Strategy
Local Training plans
Evaluation Report Process and information maps
Information Requirements
Change Plan
Implementation Plan and To-Be Design
Job Descriptions
Information Sharing Protocols
Local Communications Plans
National Communications Plan
Vision and Scope Statements
Stakeholder Analysis
Training Strategy
Local Training plans
Evaluation Report Process and information maps
Information Requirements
Change Plan
Implementation Plan and To-Be Design
Job Descriptions
Information Sharing Protocols
Local Communications Plans
National Communications Plan
Vision and Scope Statements
Stakeholder Analysis
Technology To Be ICT Implementation
ICT Test
Benefits Realisation
Page 14
First Steps Section 5 Technology and Information
Education Health Social Care
Crime & Disorder
Single Child Index
• CRM or not to CRM
• Wait ?
• Develop interfaces model in LGOL-Net
• Data matching
• Access control
• IOUM / IONM
Next Agenda Item – 13:45 (Social Exclusion Unit)
Page 15
First Steps Section 5 – Information sharing protocols
Knowsley
Information Sharing & Assessment
The IS Toolkit Model
Tier 1:IS Framework
(Strategic Level)
Tier 2:IS Arrangement
Operational Instruction(Practitioner Level)
Tier 4:
(Operational Level)
PrivacyConfidentiality & Consent
(Service User Level)
Raising Educational Achievement for All
Tier 3:
IS Checklist&
Self-Assessment
Next Agenda Item – 13:45 (Social Exclusion Unit)
ODPM Social Exclusion Unit
Richard Turl
27 July 2005
Breakout Session 14:15 – 15:00
Group 1 - Policies Stakeholders, Initiatives and Agencies
Group 2 - Cost, Affordability, Performance and Change Management
Group 3 - Technologies and information management
Group 1 - Policies Stakeholders and Agencies • Who appears to be engaged / or not
• What are the key dates – events
• What is agency / practitioner restricted and unrestricted data
• What are the key issues with the role of the lead practitioner
• Is notification (IONM) as far as we will ever get based on current organisations
Breakout Session 14:15 – 15:00Group 1 Facilitator TBA
Page 19
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 1
Group 1 - Policies Stakeholders, Initiatives and Agencies
Most of the discussion centred on the role of the Lead Practitioner, as the leading edge of the stakeholder groups concerned.
Some organisations use the term Lead Practitioner and Some Lead Professional, and it was felt useful to standardise.
Should the lead practitioner be defined by the stakeholders, or by the family / child as their chosen, most trusted or most available contact. Given the potential range of contact/scenarios for the lead, they need to be CRB checked, this would have to include third sector (voluntary organisations).
Group 2 - Cost, Affordability, Performance & Change Management
• Who is paying for the integration
• Should there be a redistribution of costs
• What is the term – is short term 1 year or 5 years
• What is the balance of performance indicators from BV to QoL
• Is there a single ICS programme in your Authority
• What Communication is taking place
Breakout Session 14:15 – 15:00Group 2 Facilitator Rod Matthews
Page 21
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 2 (1 of 2)
Group 2 - Cost, Affordability, Performance and Change Management
There are potentially different approaches to defining the scope of Children’s Services, and how to address the CSD Portfolio, with moveable Boundaries between Adult and Children’s services. So far there may have been an apportioning existing resources and some pressure on accommodation budgets, but this seems to be shuffling the resources and there seems to be much less clarity over capital for systems and change.
There was a feeling that there was an emerging link to the efficiency agenda, but that due to the reapportionment of people, their net capacity being focused on children’s services, perhaps meant that (without additional resources) that their efforts towards the efficiency agenda might be of a lower priority.
It was felt that the source of new capital was unclear and that it might be attached to bidding, with potentially annual cycles if missed. But it was also strongly felt that whilst there is an IT element that the programme is very much more about the softer issues in transformation change, partnership and culture development.
When considering that the programme may cause a net efficiency, there were some question as to whether all of these can all be claimed from the implementation of integrated services, or whether some of these were about changed business practice (ie implementing EDM) that may have occurred separately, or as part of this programme. Some questions over what might be expressed in the Annual Efficiency Statement.
Page 22
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 2 (1 of 2)
Group 2 - Cost, Affordability, Performance and Change Management
In terms of savings, it was recognised that the LA was bearing the brunt of the costs and therefore the % of savings was small in comparison to the spend on services (sub 1%). It was questioned as to whether the saving should be passed back up the line from NHS / Police and over what period the changes should be monitored / analysed.
It was further questioned as to what period of time the results were expected in – would politicians commit to a cause and effect that was greater than 4 years
There were some concerns over KPI(s) and a fairly universal view that the organisations were very much defined by the impact in PIs, but also some great ideas about impact assessment, reduced waiting lists. It was also recognised that savings and PIs may be affected by latent demand.
Finally it was considered essential to get the attention of the Chief Execs and Finance Directors to lead this agenda as their appeared to be Weak Strategic (from the centre) Leadership which was leaving too many unknowns
Group 3 – Technologies and Information Management
• CRM or not to CRM
• Data Matching
• Will the culture accept automated referrals based on flags of concern
• Is the NHS Code of Connection a necessity -
Breakout Session 14:15 – 15:00Group 3 Facilitator Joe Daniels
Page 24
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 3 (1 of 6)
Group 3 - Technologies and information management A popular group, but recognising that this is a business led issue and that technologies need to create the capacity;
Must have cross silo input and direction
Requirement Base Infrastructure
InformationManagement
DataSharing
FormFollowsFunction
More than ‘just’ IT
IT pushing forwards, but who should be leading ?
Especially with regard to data leadership
But, we don’t know what tools there are - yet
Page 25
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 3 (2 of 6)
Group 3 - Technologies and information management
CRM
Council could hold an index, but CRM but not necessarily as a core ICS delivery System
There are many other systems
Data matching is really the issue, esp for the children most at risk
Lot of local (people) knowledge used now,.
A resource not to be ignored
Page 26
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 3 (3 of 6)
Group 3 - Technologies and information management
Joined up working
Working, multi-agency, mixing cultures
Needs top down – driving from Central Gov
National Agreement to govern index being mooted
Local eGov Standards Body – moving Slowly
DfES
Becomes v hard with the large no of agencies
People happy to share data if the benefits are clear (SEU) Point
Who’s data is it ?
Info Sharing Toolkit exists, but no standard
Page 27
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 3 (4 of 6)
Group 3 - Technologies and information management
Single Child Index
Need to address suspicions over why data is being held and what the benefit is
Should there be an opt-out?
Raises question over who chooses to
Legal , National Act?
More likely to be local than national
But more about info sharing
Page 28
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 3 (5 of 6)
Group 3 - Technologies and information management
NHSCode of
Connection
Use ?
Very hard to meet requirements, and is expensive
Its going to get harder and more complex as more people become involved in delivering children’s service
Tracing service
Access to local patient record ?
Difficult to balance with access to social care record Use ?
Page 29
First Steps: Break-out Feedback – Group 3 (6 of 6)
Group 3 - Technologies and information management
Suppliers
Anite
Building Offering
Capita EMS
£120k for Children’s System Middleware
Do you split adult and children’s systems
Need to get away from paper based filing
If it is one system then this helps the family view
But if one, this needs to manage any internal conflicts between CSD / Education and Social Services
BREAK
15:00 – 15:2027 July 2005
DfeS Information Sharing and Assessment Programme
Mark Simmonds
27 July 2005
Improvement and Development Agency
27 July 2005
Page 33
I&DeA and Integrated Children’s Services
Related activities in the North West
• Extended Schools http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=1721743
• Role of District Councils http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=1715891
• Stocktake http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=611896
Contacts http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=877209
Events
NWest events are being held in Nov and March http://www.idea.gov.uk/children
Page 34
First Steps – Question time and ‘next steps’
• National Projects in context & is Aligned with IDeA / DfES / ODPM
• Considers the objectives, converges and creates a logical sequence
• Takes product from across NPs and applies them in a defined objective
• Tells a story for Practitioners, Chief Executives & Finance Directors
• Discusses the policies and targets
• Builds upon the ROI methodology, Sprint4, and Prince2
• Commences a cross-agency business case discussion
• Aims to help get people mobilised
• Full document is available at;
http://development.knowsley.gov.uk/downloads/firststeps.html
Integrated Children’s Services
- Close -
Rod Matthews27 July 2005