1 / 11

Comprehensive Area Assessment Suffolk Performance Management Group

Comprehensive Area Assessment Suffolk Performance Management Group. Edwina Child Area Assessment Lead (for Suffolk) 9 th July 2009. Originally identified 54 risks in Suffolk after desktop analysis – first round of presentations and these were the basis of LSP self assessment diagnostic;

majed
Download Presentation

Comprehensive Area Assessment Suffolk Performance Management Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comprehensive Area AssessmentSuffolk Performance Management Group Edwina Child Area Assessment Lead (for Suffolk) 9th July 2009

  2. Originally identified 54 risks in Suffolk after desktop analysis – first round of presentations and these were the basis of LSP self assessment diagnostic; Report to PMG 19th March – PMG requested further engagement with partners, particularly councillors - done (except for Babergh DC and One Ipswich); Extensive analysis of information and interviews held with key partners – this is on-going (September cut off); Progress

  3. Dialogue started with all Partners – ‘Early and Often’ – challenge coming back on emerging issues – good level of engagement and feedback e.g. Ipswich/ Forest Heath/ Waveney (see new issues); Inspectorates now contributing - OfSTED and CQC attended meeting on 16th June – agreed areas of interest/ concern; Over 700 judgements in evidence file to date – regular QA (every three weeks) with core team of experts and evidence sharing with other CAALs; Progress

  4. Rural transport - particular problems for young people’s mobility and access (marginalising); ‘Not enough stuff in the right place’ – older people and young families (disproportionate access e.g. Ipswich v Waveney); Impact of government policy and funding: Planning restrictions Lack of infrastructure monies to improve roads EEDA funding decisions Coastal protection funding limits Impact of USAFE personnel in Forest Heath New issues of concern raised:

  5. Support for people with mild learning disabilities to access volunteering and jobs; Getting maximum value out of the Third Sector; Some ‘gaps’ and concerns in health provision e.g: - No Admiral Nurses to support growing numbers of Alzheimer’s sufferers; - Crossroads Care not available in rural areas because of transport costs; - Future of cardiac care; - Children’s Community Nursing Team – smaller in West than Ipswich area; New issues of concern raised:

  6. Housing (16,000 people registered for social housing ): Skewed private sector housing availability in Forest Heath because of USAFE needs; Affordable housing increasingly becoming a rural issue (e.g. shared ownership properties difficult to sell in Ipswich); High number of empty properties (3,664) highest in Waveney, Suffolk Coastal and Babergh – lowest in Forest Heath (just 12); 500 social units empty (148 in Ipswich); Poor condition of private housing stock; Lack of supported accommodation for YP in Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury.; Gap in provision of housing support for victims of domestic violence in Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal New issues of concern raised – AC report available

  7. ‘Tags’:

  8. Thank You! Lots of information; Better in some places than others – good analysis of economic development challenges (match with our emerging judgements as follows); No coherent approach to economic development with overlaps and gaps. There is a disjointed approach with a funding split across a number of agencies and this jeopardises future funding opportunities; ‘White space’ in the middle of the county because of funding divide between sub-regional partnerships; Transport infrastructure problems in the north Self Assessment for Suffolk

  9. Some good analysis of education attainment and improving skills’ challenges (match with our judgments as follows): A key challenge is that current school and skills attainment levels are not keeping pace with national averages; NEET figures are higher than average although improving (but not catching up as fast as partners would like despite good focus and activity); Suffolk starting from a low skills base. Self Assessment for Suffolk

  10. Some good examples of what partners are trying to achieve within the Greenest County Delivery Partnership but no analysis of how this compares with other counties and more links with outcomes would be good (sort of a match with Green Tag on Saving Energy/Alternative forms of Energy); However, some of the text lost focus and was less an analysis and more a ‘scatter gun’ approach without a clear story although a clear match with Street Prostitution Green Tag; It is helpful to have the separate LSP analysis because these are rich in good information about targeted work to address key priorities (WSLSP and One Ipswich were very good at capturing all of their initiatives and Waveney has an ongoing dialogue updating information with good regular engagement with GY & Waveney NHS) Self Assessment for Suffolk

  11. Evidence continues to build and challenge from core experts of our analysis; Use of Resources Assessments/ Managing Performance Assessments/ Organisational Assessments (for councils) add to the picture; On going sharing of analysis with other inspectorates; Report gets written over the summer – to be shared with LSPs in the early autumn; Public reporting now on 10th December. What happens next?

More Related