slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Keeping Children Safe - An Outcomes Approach - LSCB Development Day PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Keeping Children Safe - An Outcomes Approach - LSCB Development Day

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Keeping Children Safe - An Outcomes Approach - LSCB Development Day - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 77 Views
  • Uploaded on

Keeping Children Safe - An Outcomes Approach - LSCB Development Day . Rob Hutchinson, CBE 4 th & 19 th November 2010. Children’s Trusts involve…. Inter-Agency Governance: strategic direction, partnership and accountability.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Keeping Children Safe - An Outcomes Approach - LSCB Development Day' - keith


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Keeping Children Safe

- An Outcomes Approach -

LSCB Development Day

Rob Hutchinson, CBE

4th & 19th November 2010

slide2

Children’s 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

outcome based accountability is made up of two parts

Population Accountabilityabout the well-being ofWHOLE POPULATIONS

For Communities – Cities – Counties – States - Nations

Performance Accountabilityabout the well-being ofCUSTOMER POPULATIONS

For Programmes – Agencies – and Service Systems

Outcome Based Accountabilityis made up of two parts:
slide4

THE LANGUAGE TRAPToo many terms. Too few definitions. Too little discipline

Benchmark

Outcome

Result

Modifiers

Measurable Core

Urgent Qualitative

Priority Programmatic

Targeted Performance

Incremental Strategic

Systemic

Goal

Indicator

Measure

Objective

Target

Measurable urgent systemic indicators

Lewis Carroll Center for Language Disorders

slide5

OUTCOME or RESULT

A condition of well-being for children, adults, families or communities.

Population

INDICATOR or BENCHMARK

A measure which helps quantify the achievement of an outcome.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE

A measure of how well a service, agency or service system is working.Three types:

Performance

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 GCSE’s, 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

slide6

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

population accountability
POPULATIONACCOUNTABILITY

For Whole Populationsin a Geographic Area

slide8

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.

slide9

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

outcomes the portsmouth 8
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

slide11

Neighbourhood

Country

Kruidenbuurt Tilburg, Netherlands

New Zealand

healthy eating and exercise project in portsmouth
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
    • Children’s Video
    • Schools Meal Service
    • Co-op
    • University
    • Portsmouth Football Club
    • Health Visitors
    • Public Health Consultant
    • PCT Chief Executive ……….etc
performance accountability
Performance Accountability

For Services, Agencies

and Service Systems

slide18

Programme Performance Measures

Quality

Quantity

How welldid we do it?

How much did we do?

Effect Effort

Is anyonebetter off?

#

%

slide19

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

slide20

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 children’s social care going on to initial assessment

% of applications for care proceedings which have been assessed as incomplete

Children’s social worker vacancy rate

Children’s 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

slide21

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 children’s 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 children’s 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

slide29

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

slide30

LR

UR

slide31

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 don’t 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

slide32

Success Measures for Children’s 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, there’s 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

slide33

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

% children’s 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 A&E 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 A&E

% of young people that say they have been properly consulted on their plans and the development of services people