JOINT REVIEW OF SALFORD COUNCIL

1. JOINT REVIEW OF SALFORD COUNCIL 17th June 2003

2. Joint Reviews To improve services for individuals n To enable authorities to shape n better services To promote better standards and n improve the management of practice To secure better value for money n Joint Reviews of Local Authority Social Services

3. Evidence to support Joint Reviews Validated external Policy Meetings evidence documents Meetings with Meetings with front corporate e.g. , ACPIs Meetings with user/ line staff User/ people KIGs , with Authority’s carer groups carer inspections external own data survey by SSI Meetings partners District Individual Meetings with leading Audit with meetings politicians Case managers with users recording Reports Authorities own data Joint Reviews of Local Authority Social Services

4. How well are people served?  • Adults with disability • Child and adolescent mental health services • Support for high need families • Children with disabilities •  • Sound professional practice • User involvement • Balanced budget • Business planning • Stress on promoting independence • Services from partnerships • Good communication

5. What are the prospects? •  • Councillor and corporate support • Track record of positive changes • Excellent partnership working • Benefits from Community developments  • Slow progress on integration • Embed project management systems • Develop a quality framework • Develop a workforce strategy • Complete roll out of IT • Better use of complaints

6. Ex 1.1 Excellent prospects Salford Promising prospects Not serving people well Serving some people well Serving most people well Overall Serving People well Uncertain prospects Poor prospects

7. Index of Deprivation 2000 (DETR): extent score Source: Department of Health Performance Indicators, 2000/1

8. Meeting individual need Overall strengths • Developing community strength • Promoting independence • Providing quality services Overall areas for more work • Improving recording and file management • Focussing on outcomes for users in care plans • Making it easier to find the right service

9. Meeting individual need Child care - • Good quality, sound work, but • Unco-ordinated services for children with disability and their families • Continuing pressure from numbers of children looked after through lack of care managed prevention services • Greater role for corporate parent

10. Lack of children in need assessments Lack of early intervention Pressure on caseloads and budget Families reach collapse or crisis High numbers of LAC Although services are good, too late for the family to respond Package collapses

11. Child care in Salford Children looked after 31 March per 10,000 population aged under 18 Number of children looked after in placements outside the council area Registrations per 10,000 population aged under 18 Source: Department of Health Performance Indicators, 2001/2 Source: Quality Protects Data, 2001 Source: Department of Health Performance Indicators, 2001/2

12. ADD Centre C A B Homestart C A M H S Psychologist Family Centre Health Visitor Social Worker Finding the right door

13. Meeting individual need Adult services • Good services promoting independence, but • Resolve delays and eligibility • Some services need more user focussed development • Home care • Services for people with physical disability and sensory impairment • Greater integration for mental health, and more inclusion

14. Devolution - providing resources and people decide how to use them. Delegation - providing a framework and people are then left to decide for themselves Participation - discussing issues that need to be tackled and working on the solution together. Usually ongoing Consultation - stopping and asking people for their views before the final decision in made. Usually one off Providing information - letting people know about services or plans for the future Stages of user involvement

15. Shaping services • Scale of change achieved, with support from members, users, staff and Trades Unions • Good processes developing • Commissioning • Business planning • Partnerships for developing and delivering services

16. Shaping Services But • City Council pledges not easy fit for planning in CSSD • Some work with partners not delivering for users • Mental health • Home care • CAMHS • Housing strategy • Education for children looked after • Access for families with children with a disability

17. Managing performance • Use of Best Value principles • A range of mechanisms to monitor quality, but • No explicit framework for quality • Some inconsistencies in standards • Lack of appraisal • Better use of complaints • Greater use of target setting

18. Training integral to business planning Quality framework Overview needed Contract monitoring Team level performance indicators Project management Full use of complaints Appraisal Managing performance Areas for development

19. Managing resources Strengths • Communication at all levels • Pride and commitment from staff • Family friendly recruitment • Positive TU relationships • Robust acceptance of IT • Good attendance management • Balanced budget for 3 years • Electronic financial accounting

20. Managing resources Areas for development • Disability access for buildings • Capital investment for IT in a shorter timescale • Invest to save to fund reduction of children looked after • Full workforce strategy • Home care transaction costs

21. Resourcing service development

22. Priorities for action • Users central to the whole service • Family support to prevent care • Improved corporate support • Full and explicit framework for quality • Complete business planning process • Improve staff support - IT, appraisal and workforce strategy

23. Service develop ment Projects Workforce Performance framework IT infra-structure Service integration Organising the blooms! A thousand flowers??????

24. Reviewing Social Services in Salford Thank you