Corporate Assessment and Joint Area Review briefing Thurrock Council 2 November 2006

1. Corporate Assessment and Joint Area Review briefing Thurrock Council 2 November 2006 Gary Hammersley and Meena Randhawa

2. Agenda • Overview of CA and JAR • How they link together and key differences • The teams and who is in them • What are we looking for • Timeline • Self assessments • More about the weeks we are here • Practical matters • AOB

3. Direction of travel Improving strongly Improving well Improving adequately Not improving adequately OR Not improving • Corporate • Assessment • Ambition • Prioritisation • Capacity • Performance • Management • Achievement • Use of Resources • Financial reporting • Financial management • Financial standing • Internal control • Value for money CPA Category 4 Stars 3 Stars 2 Stars 1 Star 0 Stars Children & young people Social care (adults) Housing Environment Culture Benefits Fire* Level 1 services Level 2 services * Fire service assessment – applicable to those 16 councils with responsibility for fire and rescue

4. Corporate Assessment themes What is the Council and its partners trying to achieve? • Ambition • Prioritisation What is the capacity of the Council, including its work with partners, to deliver what it is trying to achieve? • Capacity • Performance Management What has been achieved? • Achievement • Sustainable communities, including transport • Safer & stronger communities • Healthier communities • Older people • Children and young people (JAR)

5. Joint Area Review themes Every child matters outcomes: • Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a positive contribution • Achieving economic wellbeing Plus: • Service management

6. Service management Four themes same as corporate assessment: • Ambition • Prioritisation • Capacity • Performance management Which must include judgements about: • Management of resources • Value for money • Capacity to improve • Council • Area

7. Our aims • To make it one process as much as possible • Reduce duplication and repetition where we can • If we work together we can jointly manage the process to make it easier and reduce the burden

8. Joint Area Review Being healthy (1.1 – 1.6) Being healthy (1.1 – 1.6) CYP are provided with a safe environment (2.2) Can access a range of recreational facilities (3.6) Participate in decisions and support the community (4.3) Reducing anti-social behaviour by CYP (4.4) Corporate assessment Promoting healthier communities (5.4) Drugs and alcohol (5.3) Accident reduction and making people feel safer (5.3) Ambitions for the local environment (5.2) Building stronger communities (5.3) Reducing anti-social behaviour (5.3) Connections between the JAR and the CA (1)

9. Joint Area Review Families helped to maximise economic well-being (5.1) YP 11-19 helped to prepare for working life (5.2) Regeneration addresses needs of CYP (5.4) YP have decent housing (5.5) Corporate assessment Sustainable economy and labour market (5.2) Sustainable economy and labour market (5.2) Sustainable economy and labour market (5.2) Ambitions for local housing market (5.2) Connections between the JAR and the CA (2)

10. Joint Area Review Service management: Ambition Prioritisation Capacity Performance management For example: Partner organisations know how well they and each other are performing against planned outcomes (6.4.B) Corporate assessment CA Themes: Ambition Prioritisation Capacity Performance management Do the council and partner organisations know how well they and each other are performing against planned outcomes? (4.2) Connections between the JAR and the CA (3)

11. Joint Area Review Inspection of AREA Service type inspection – similar to old LEA inspection Bottom up – case tracking, neighbourhood study, analysis of documents and wide variety of outcome measures Interviews with senior staff towards end of process Corporate Assessment Inspection of COUNCIL High level – how whole council is doing Top down – corporate documents, wider range of councillors and senior officers; service info needed and used as examples Briefing from senior staff at beginning of process Differences between JAR and CA

12. Composition of CA team • Team leader (AC) – Gary Hammersley • Team member (AC) – Sarah Stevens • Peer member – Cllr Gareth Barnard (Bracknell Forest) • Peer officer – Trevor Pugh – LB of Richmond • Joint inspector (0.5) (AC)- Barbara Deacon-Hedges • Project Support Officer – David Tilley

13. Composition of JAR team (variable) • Lead Inspector (CSCI) - Meena Randhawa • Deputy Lead Inspector (Ofsted)- Kathryn Burdis • Team Inspector (Ofsted)- Nick Henwood • Team Inspector x 2 (CSCI)- Anna Lis, Helen Nys • Team Inspector (ALI)- Nick Gadfield • Team Inspector (HC)- Sue Fraser Betts • Joint Inspector (0.5) (AC) – Barbara Deacon-Hedges • Enhanced Youth Inspector (Ofsted) -Tony Noonan

14. Role of Joint Inspector • Member of both teams • Take lead on one area of CA (e.g. older people and healthy communities) • Take lead on service management in JAR • Ensure relevant evidence from either team is passed over to the other team • Facilitate communication and shared/joint working between members from the two teams • Participate in both teams’ meetings • Contribute to consistency of evidence and judgements across teams

15. What are we looking for? • Guided by KLOEs: CA and JAR • CPA – The Harder Test • How things are now rather than plans for the future • Work with partners • User focus • Needs of all the community • Outcomes for users and citizens, do they recognise the difference? • Consistency vs. good isolated examples

16. Timeline November 2 set up meeting November 28 CA self assessment to be returned with docs December 4 JAR self assessment to be returned December 18 analysis week – split over 2 weeks due to Xmas Jan 10 initial progress update from analysis week Jan 22 – 2 Feb onsite field work weeks (weekly progress update) Feb 5- 16 report writing Feb 27 consistency panels March 7 draft reports to council March 21 re-draft after comments from council April 18 final reports with council April 23 feedback meetings – CA and JAR May 14 publication of reports

17. Self assessments • First indication of what area/council is like • Use the KLOEs and guidance provided • JAR self assessment covers Thurrock and the neighbourhood area so need to think about how it will be compiled • ‘Tell the story’ around service delivery • Outcome focussed, evidence based • User focus • Self score • Be candid

18. Analysis week – split over 2 weeks • Tour for CA and some JAR members – 8th Jan • Neighbourhood study for JAR – field work week 1 • Contextual briefing for CA (some JAR members may attend)18th Dec pm: • Evidence provided by council/area • Evidence from other sources (reviews/inspections/PIs/PAF/surveys) • JAR case file review • Opportunities for observation? • Progress update at end of second part of analysis week setting out: • Initial views from JAR and CA

19. On-site weeks • Informal morning meetings with CEO and Dir Children's Services • Neighbourhood tour for JAR - first day of week 1 • Further analysis of documents • Interviews • Focus groups • End of day team meetings to review evidence gathered and test emerging views • May cancel some interviews as line of enquiry closed down • May ask for others to explore further • Progress report at end of each week (interim and final)

20. Quality Assurance / if there are problems? • Both the CA and JAR will be Quality Assured during the inspection • Quality Assurance visits will be arranged to meet the Council while we are on site • If you have any concerns or queries at any stage please liaise with the team leaders through your managers • The Quality Assurance leads are also available if required

21. Questions?