www.vanguard-method.com who are our customers? children the family

www.Vanguard-Method.com

Who are our Customers?

• Children• The Family


Purpose of Children Services:

To listen to the voices of Children , Young

People and their Families to

understand their needs and work

together to agree how the needs will be met

with the right help/support


Where did we go, what did we do…

Demand Analysis

Collected demand/ information from :

Customer Services, Advice & Access, Business Support, Locality Teams, Safeguarding, CLA, LACES, SENS, Educational Psychology, Specialist Advisory Teaching, Hospital and Home Tuition Service, Parent Partnership, EBDST, LDD, Pathways


DemandVALUE

• “I need help for the first time…”

• “This is the head teacher at X school, can I speak to the duty social worker regarding a child whose parents were on the front of the local paper”

• 1 yr old in drink/drug abusing household”

• “Advice to ensure academic progress is made across the curriculum”

• “I need additional help….” (change in circumstances)

FAILURE• Can you give me the telephone number for…..?

• This is the teacher at X school, can you check if Y child is an open case and put me through to the social worker?

• “Request for payment of rent for homeless payment of young person”

• “Can I have the master copy of the changes to transport form?”

• “Can you tell me if my daughter is eligible for free school meals?”

• “Letter stating response has not been received regarding a complaint”

• “I need additional help…” (original need not met)


Demand

Value demand = 43%

Failure Demand = 57%


What matters to the Customer ............• Shared understanding of need• Ownership from beginning to end• Continuity – speak to 1 person who will understand my need• Meet my need in the shortest possible time - right first time• No judgement / stigma• To be listened to• To be informed and have support and advice• No paperwork• To tell the story only once• Honest and up front• To be shown empathy• To have trust and truth


Measures

The measures are:– Number right first time– End-to-end time– Number of contacts– Number of handoffs– Number of touches

Right First Time = Did we get it right from the customers perspective (child/family) we mean the whole system. (95% system 5% people)Handoffs = passed from one person or part of the system to another.Touches = number times someone has “touched”on the case


Understanding capability

How: Analysed cases from the point of “I need help…” to “Child/family need met with the right service”. The cases were taken at random over 2 years from ICS, ONE ( ICS and ONE are the IT systems for recording all cases) records and paper files.

We looked at the capability of the current systems to enable us to do what matters to the customer (Meet the purpose)


All Children Services Cases end to end time


Education Welfare Support –from “I need help” to some help being given


EWO(education welfare)Capability• Capability period was relevant as we did not

look at more longer term cases (2 yr window).• Real need not easily evident from the original

request • The system takes all demands, logs and

works with them to then NFA.• Aware of un-referred work but not recorded

(ABAR)• Not clear as to more long term demand cases• Passing/co –working of cases• Variation in practice


EBPS /Ed Psychologists• No significant changes in end to end

capability (no change in the system)• Children can be in this system for a long time

(entire schooling)• Ongoing process to fit in with the wider

statementing process.• Shorter end to end times relating to behaviour

short term intervention work. • Some Cases kept open but not actively being

worked


Anonymous5% CAFCASS

1%CADAS

0%

d/k3%

family20%

Family centre0%

School10%

Health7%Housing

1%

Police36%

Probation5%

Another part of Social Care7%

Solicitor1%

Unknown0%

Other agency2%

All ICS Cases : Source of Work

Demands in to Service and recorded on IT system


Not sure11%

Assessments/Core As-sessment/Parent assess-

ment13%

Adoption0%

Advice/Info8%

CAMHS1%

SafeguardingCP referral8%

Foster care1%

Financial support1%Home visit

2%Other6%LDD

0%Letter sent to parent/org

2%

NFA17%

No record10%

Pass to other agency2%

Signposted4%

Speech therapy0%

Strategy meeting2%

Support for parents5%

Welfare visit1%

Young carers0%

Service declined1%

Respite1%

Short term work2%

All ICS Case Interventions


Number Right First Time based upon evidence in the file and case notes

Y RFT 62

N RFT 130

Unknown 16Total No of ContactsAve =11 contacts (Total contacts = 1107 in 100 recorded cases of contact)

18 cases had multiple touches not noted 9cases with 0 contacts81 cases with no case notes

Number of Contacts with the Child

Ave =4 contacts (447/102 cases)27 cases no contact with Child19cases multiple contacts22 cases no record

All ICS Cases data summary

Handoffs

Ave of 6 handoffs (131 cases total of726 handoffs)

50 cases 0 handoffs

9 cases multiple handoffs

18 cases no record

Number of agencies involved

Ave of agencies = 5 (1063/200 cases)

Repeat demands

132 out of 208 cases into ICS are repeat demands = 63%

65 out of 208 cases not repeat demands = 28%

reminder unknown

Ongoing Cases

72 cases out of 104 ongoing =28%

124 cases not ongoing = 63%

remainder not known


CAHMS1%

Schoo

l83%

EWO

3%

Family

8%

Hospital1%

SW3%

Central CME1% Police

1%

All EWO /PSA Source of referral

CLA2%

ED Psyc1%

EWO input38%

Initial asses

1%

PSA input41%

Transport request

1%

SERIS1%

No Record14%

Monitoring1%

All EWO/PSA Service Provided

Education Welfare/ Parent Support


RFT

y=36

n= 71

Ongoing = 4

Not known 21

Contacts with Child

None = 19 cases

Ave = 6 (476 contacts in 81)

Multiple =14 cases

Contacts with family

Ave 5 (488 contacts101 cases)

15 cases with multiple contacts

EWO/PSA Summary of Capability Data

Number of handoffs

56 cases with no handoffsAve 3 handoffs for 40 cases 8 cases multiple handoffs

Number of agencies involved2 cases with no agenciesAve of 4 agencies (128 cases 558 agencies)

Repeat demandYes= 65No= 48

OngoingYes = 58No= 61


EBD / Educational Psychologists

Health10%

School82%

Anothe LA1%

SENS4%

Blank3%

Source of Referrer

Further/ ongoing assess-ments37%

Action plan4%

Behaviour team support

4%Direct intervention/support

to family/child3%

None/no record33%

PSA15%

1 resourced IEP1%

SEN1%

CP plan (several)1%

EBPD Service Provided


RFTN =41Y = 27Not known =5

Total number of contacts with child

Ave 3 (of 29 cases total of 86 contacts)

1 case with 0 child contacts27 cases multiple contactsOther not identified/noted on file

Total number of contacts with familyAve 4(28 cases 101 contacts with family)

3 cases with no contact28 cases with multiple contacts

EBD / Educational Psychologists

Number of touches

Ave touches = 11 (28 cases 301 touches)

32 cases multiple touches

Number of Handoffs

Ave of 3 (34 cases 109 handoffs)

10 cases no handoffs

10 cases multiple handoffs

Agencies involved

Ave = 6.5 agencies (73 cases 477 agencies)

Repeat demand

36 =y

23 = n


Learning from Capability in Systems

• Little or no evidence of the child/family voice being captured

• Professionals working in silos• Systems limit continuity across practitioners• Limited evidence of integrated working across

social care and education services (fragmented)

• What do we do? – case manage? Monitor?• ICS often manipulated in order to move on• Services are not capturing the tasks

undertaken with child/family or their outcomes/success


Types of waste

Re-work (e.g. Repeated assessments)Inaccurate/ incomplete InformationCheckingLoggingAuthorisationsFilling in FormsAsking for the same information many timesHandoffsDuplicating InformationUpdating IT Systems


High Level Systems Picture-Social Care New Work

CUS

T

OME

R

CustomerServicesCheck/Log

Business Support. Check/Log/ make up and locate files

Duty SW Check, clean, log, record, decide/ recommendation on action

NFA/Advice/Info

Visit \ Initial Assessment A&A

S 47 Safeguarding team

Locality Team referral

Manager checks and allocates

NFA and provision of advice and Information

Provide service

Pass to other service provider :family centre

Legal Action

DEMAND: V= 43% F= 57%

PoliceHousingHealthSchools

CAPABILITYEnd to End Mean = 852 days

ICS

BUDGETS

Legal Requirements Trust/

Blame

Checking/AuthorisationLimited face to face contact with Customers

Fragmentation of work

Policy v Practice

Hand-off

Local Variation in practice

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.markleveridge.co.uk/shopbask/images/envelope.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.markleveridge.co.uk/shopbask/contact.html&h=158&w=236&sz=5&hl=en&start=14&tbnid=Z894XX9H16e0cM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=109&prev=/images?q=e-mail+symbol&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brightstarwebdesign.co.uk/Images/@symbol.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.brightstarwebdesign.co.uk/contact_details.htm&h=175&w=175&sz=5&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=eubjJLPulm6_QM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=100&prev=/images?q=e-mail+symbol&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=


CUS

T

OME

R

PoliceHousingHealthSchools 50-70% unreferred Work

CustomerServicesCheck/Log

Business Support. Check/Log/

Buss Support makes up a file/pass to allocated worker

PSA

EWO

VISIT/Assess need

Line Manager checks and allocates

Provide service

NFA/signpost

Case Work/legal route

Recording systems

Checking/authorisation

Fragmentation of work

Budget

ICS

Professional Identity /boundaries

One

High level Systems Picture : EWS/PSA New Work

CAPABILITYEnd to End Mean =874 days

Trust/lack of understanding

Legal Requirement –stat duty

School Expectations

Variation in local practiceUnreferred/whole school approach

Legal route




CUS

T

OME

R

Schools

LDD High Level Systems Picture

AAO for support Or SATSFor support

EPFor support

EBDFor support

Check /log

Check /log

Check /log

Check /log

ASSESS

INTERVENE

CROSSREFER

REPORT

TO

SCHOOL

Refer

LDDAAOLogsChecksCommission

Reports

SchoolRefersforResources

SATS

EP

EBD

PAED

LDDAAOReport & recommend

Stat Assess

CustomerServices Social CareCheck/Log

Advice and Access Check/log

Advice and Access Initial Assessment

LDD Social care

Social care led provision

Further assessment

Safeguarding Social Care CP Process

Stakeholder led provision of services

Local Variations

Social Care CWD




VALUE WORK ( why we are here)

Listen Understand Identify NeedProvide Service/

Support


Common themes• Thresholds/expectations of teams (both internal and

from stakeholders)• Inappropriate referrals/inaccurate information/ too

little information• Re-writing work so parents understand• Hand-offs due to agency worker/limited staff resource• Not enough face-to-face work with child/families• Delay in allocations• KPI’s – influence on decision made on how to meet a

child/family need• Money culture drives a referral/service• Manager decisions disconnected from customer

impacting upon lives.


System conditions• IT Systems• Thresholds• Gate keeping• Budgets• Functional Specialisation• Targets/National Indicators• Legislation• Fear/Accountability/Back Covering/Blame• A lack of qualified staff• Key partner agencies (Expectations/SLA’s & External

Factors/Funding Driven)• A lack of understanding of Children’s Services


The story so far…• Large amount of failure demand entering the

system• ICS is the driver rather than supporting

practice• Silo working• Difficult to identify the ‘need’ from

files/records. Limited evidence of plans & services. Do we know what works?

• Confusion about role/skill deficit/understanding the skills staff do have & utilising them effectively

www.vanguard-method.com who are our customers? children the family

Documents