190 likes | 283 Views
Explore the demographic, educational, and economic landscape of Northamptonshire and Rutland. Understand the challenges and opportunities faced by these regions and the importance of effective partnerships. Dive into the self-assessment process, neighbor studies, and lessons learned for successful inspection outcomes.
E N D
Does the JAR need to scar? Phil Mason (Principal Adviser, Northamptonshire). Kate McKenna (Head of Policy & Performance, Rutland)
Overview and Context Setting the scene Northamptonshire Rutland
Context - Northamptonshire • 171,000 Children and young people (0-19yrs) • 8.1% ethnic minority pupils (14.9% nationally) • 0.3% asylum seekers/refugees (0.8% nationally) • 3.1% SEN (nationally 2.9%) A county of contrasts • 44 areas in highest 20% of most deprived nationally (10 areas in highest 10%) • But, many areas of high prosperity • Planned rapid growth (Milton Keynes/South Midlands Growth Area)
Context - Northamptonshire (cont) • 7 Borough and District Councils • 3 Main PCTs • 1 Police Authority • 1 LSC and 1 Connexions Service • 3 FE Colleges (2 multi-sited) • Children and Young People’s Partnership Board formed in March 2005 (our Children’s Trust)
Context - Rutland • Rutland is the smallest county in the country and considered totally rural. • Unitary authority status in 1997. • Population 35,600 and 13,457 households (Census 2001). • Two market towns, Oakham and Uppingham, and 58 parishes. • Under 2% black and ethnic minority population (Census 2001). • 0.5% unemployment (Job Centre Plus 2005). • Average household income is £34,000 pa, but 34.7% of household incomes below £20,000 (ONS). • Average house price at December 2004 was £237,480 making it one of the least affordable areas in England outside the SE (ONS). • 17 primary schools, three community colleges, one special nursery, one FE college (satellite). • Total statutory school age (5-16) population 5,696 (Census 2001) against a number on roll of 4,801. • An average of 120 children and young people with needs are identified at any one time - this is a transient number.
Rutland - A County of Partnerships • Lincolnshire and Rutland Connexions and LSC • Leicestershire and Rutland Police and YOT • Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Strategic Health Authority • Melton, Rutland and Harborough PCT • Peterborough Diocese • MOD (RAF, Army)
Fail to Prepare and be Prepared to Fail • Partner engagement • Briefings, briefings and more briefings verbal, written, meetings, presentations • Challenge everyone to think ‘outcomes’ • Engagement of children and young people
Self Assessment • An enhanced version of APA • Partner engagement essential • Honest assessment (feeds into evaluation of management) • Evidence based (outcomes and impact) • JAR Toolkit • Case studies
Self-Assessment (cont) • New template - more open, more concise • 3 sections: - Context and joint working - Analysis, involvement and impact (5 Outcomes) - Service management • Criteria for judgements published (1-4 scale)
Analysis Week • Documentation • Partner held information • Accommodation • Managing expectations
Neighbourhood Study - JAR Requirements • Selection - one from three • Criteria - - A well defined area - Proportion of C&YP in line with LA average - Outcomes significantly below LA average • About three days of concentrated fieldwork • Expectation - evidence of partnership working
Neighbourhood Study - Preparation • General Publicity (Pamphlet) • Sub-team to organise • Meeting of all services providing inputs into the neighbourhood • Asking them – ‘What should JAR inspectors see?’ • Proposed 3 day timetable to JAR team • Local base room for team
Neighbourhood Study - Preparation (cont) • Confirming visit/meetings arrangements following Analysis Week • Briefing staff - Key points - Line/performance management - Communications - Partnership working - Projects in neighbourhood • Feedback system following meetings
Neighbourhood Study - In Reality • Lead inspector requirements different from JAR guidance • No visits to schools • No separate meetings with C&YP • Neighbourhood study runs in parallel with case tracking • Project focus
Case Files • Whose files • Consent • Partner engagement
Timetabling and Logistics • Interviews - frontline staff→area managers→team leaders→senior managers→corporate managers→ politicians • Focus groups - Neighbourhood groups→county groups • Visits - Little time after the neighbourhood study (highly selective)
Timetabling and Logistics (cont) • Meetings - 53 • Visits - 21 • Focus Groups - 32 • Case Tracking events - 18 • Telephone ‘meetings’ - 3 • Duty Room observations - 2 • Scrutiny Committee observation - 1
Reporting Process • Informal reporting • Negotiation stage • Formal publication • Action planning
Lessons Learned • Make your lead inspector your best friend • Partnerships are crucial • Communications, tune up your skills • Inspectors don’t chat! • Needs analysis, outcomes, Needs analysis, outcomes • You can’t predict what you will be asked you can decide what you want them to know about • It ain't over till its over • Streamlined processes! Ba Humbug - Cancel life!!