New Planning and Accountability Arrangements

1. New Planning and Accountability Arrangements Children’s Trust 4 March 2009

2. Purpose of Presentation • Highlight proposed changes to planning and accountability mechanisms • Introduce model of Outcome Based Accountability; • Highlight business benefits of changes.

3. What is Outcome Based Accountability? • Model of evaluating performance against outcomes (ie ECM); • Developed by Mark Friedman – leading author; • How are our interventions making a difference? • Benchmark performance and “Turn the Curve” • Use Report Cards as tool to drive improved outcomes.

4. Why are we proposing changes? • Ensure greater levels of accountability; • JSNA and CYPP need to be main drivers; • Need to ensure such outcomes are owned; • Technology can help us to deliver improvements • DCSF favour OBA approach; • Developing expertise (ALS, OPM, Conferences, RIEP Project); • Other Children’s Trusts have successfully implemented this.

5. Proposed benefits of changes • Improved capacity – Report cards are quicker and easier to complete than existing action plans; • Improved Intelligence – reports from COVALENT at any time. Unannounced inspections; • Improved Accountability – officers will own outcomes and will be asked to account for progress; • Improved Co-ordination – links with PCT and Trust; • Improved Consistency – link Departmental, Corporate, CYPP, LAA; • Improved Commissioning – all of the above will mean we can target resources to where they are most needed.

6. Report Card - Example • Based on NEET reduction; • Cuts across many areas of the Department; • NI 117 and LAA target; • Improved performance linked to collaborative working.

7. NEET REDUCTION Indicators: NI 117 – 16 -18 Year olds who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) Achievements Re-prioritised and targeted resources Secured £600k ESF More Pro-active approach Greater collaborative working and shared intelligence with partners Barriers Lowest proportion of 16 year old and highest proportion of 18 yr olds; No one size fits all solution Drop-out rates Disaggregation had to be managed • Story behind the trend • In 2006 NEET figures were above the national average. Connexions work too broad; • Second smallest region in Tees Valley. Do not export many young people; • Average 16 -18 cohort is 3,900; • Re-focused work and resources to meet needs targeted at cohorts; • Current data 7.9% (November 2008) ahead of DCSF targets • Key Actions and Progress • 1. Re-prioritised service objectives. Primary focus on NEET • 2. Transition from careers services to Youth Support Service • 3. Re-allocated resources to concentrate on cohorts. Looked at specific needs of individual young people • 4. Pro-action based on shared intelligence with colleges • 5. Intensive support to more vulnerable young people • 6. Improved intelligence with post 16 providers • 7. Greater collaborative working Youth Service, YOS and Leaving Care Team • 8. Development of town wide NEET reduction strategy • 9. Disaggregation has been beneficial in improving partnership working. Increased identity. • Funding • ESF • Connexions Grant • Working Neighbourhood Fund • European Social Fund • Youth Offending Service (regionally) • 14 – 19 Agenda • Connexions ONS • Innovative Practice • Follow up interview on section 140 assessments (SEN) to ensure that post16 destination can meet individual needs

8. Any Questions? ?