1 / 19

Does the JAR need to scar?

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)

pandora-page
Télécharger la présentation

Does the JAR need to scar?

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. Does the JAR need to scar? Phil Mason (Principal Adviser, Northamptonshire). Kate McKenna (Head of Policy & Performance, Rutland)

  2. Overview and Context Setting the scene Northamptonshire Rutland

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. 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.

  6. 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)

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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)

  10. Analysis Week • Documentation • Partner held information • Accommodation • Managing expectations

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Case Files • Whose files • Consent • Partner engagement

  16. 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)

  17. 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

  18. Reporting Process • Informal reporting • Negotiation stage • Formal publication • Action planning

  19. 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!!

More Related