London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Notice of Meeting the EXECUTIVE

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Notice of Meeting

THE EXECUTIVE

Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - Civic Centre, Dagenham, 7:00 pm

Members: Councillor C J Fairbrass (Chair); Councillor C Geddes (Deputy Chair); Councillor J L Alexander, Councillor S Kallar, Councillor M E McKenzie, Councillor B M Osborn, Councillor J W Porter and Councillor T G W Wade.

Declaration of Members Interest: In accordance with Article 1, Paragraph 12 of the Constitution, Members are asked to declare any direct/indirect financial or other interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting

17.01.03 Graham Farrant Chief Executive

Contact Officer Barry Ray Tel. 020 8227 2134 Fax: 020 8227 2171 Minicom: 020 8227 2685 e-mail: [email protected]

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes - To confirm as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2002 (circulated separately)

Business Items

Public Items 3 and 4 and Private Item 15 are business items. The Chair will move that these be agreed without discussion, unless any Member asks to raise a specific point.

Any discussion of a Private Business Item will take place after the exclusion of the public and press.

3. Executive Members - Job Profile (Pages 1 - 4)

4. National Service Framework for Older People - Local Implementation Plan (Pages 5 - 14)

BR/04/03/02 Discussion Items

5. Best Value Review of Customer First: A New Era in Access to Public Services (Pages 15 - 130)

6. Best Value Review of Special Educational Needs (Pages 131 - 202)

7. Disposal of Land (to follow)

8. Primary School Site Barking Reach (Pages 203 - 205)

9. Allocations Policy Review: Outstanding Matters for Decision, Consultation and Implementation (Pages 207 - 222)

10. A Charter for Children and Young People in Barking and Dagenham (Pages 223 - 227)

11. Any other public items which the Chair decides are urgent

12. To consider whether it would be appropriate to pass a resolution to exclude the public and press from the remainder of the meeting due to the nature of the business to be transacted.

Private Business

The public and press have a legal right to attend Council meetings such as the Executive, except where business is confidential or certain other sensitive information is to be discussed. The list below shows why items are in the private part of the agenda, with reference to the relevant legislation (the relevant paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Discussion Items

13. A Presentation on Police Operations on the Gascoigne Estate (Page 229)

Detective Chief Inspector O’Reilly and Detective Sergeant Warner will attend the meeting to give the presentation.

Concerns information in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of a crime (paragraph 14).

14. Award of Senior Officer Recruitment, Search and Selection Contract (Response to the referral from the Scrutiny Management Board) (Restricted Circulation; to follow)

Concerns a contractual matter (paragraphs 7, 8 and 9).

BR/04/03/02 Business Items

15. Land at Manor Road Sports Ground, Dagenham (Pages 231 - 252)

Concerns a contractual matter (paragraphs 7 and 9).

16. Any other confidential or exempt items which the Chair decides are urgent

BR/04/03/02 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 3

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE BOROUGH OFFICER FOR DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT AND LEGAL SERVICES

EXECUTIVE MEMBERS - JOB PROFILE FOR DECISION

This report is submitted to the Executive because it discusses the role expected of each Member of the Executive.

Summary

Following consultation with Executive Members, the Management Team and other key officers, a suggested job profile for Executive Members is attached for approval.

The external peer review of the Authority by the Improvement and Development Agency [IDeA] suggested that such a profile should be in place.

Members may also wish to consider the need for any other job profiles for Members.

Decision Required

To enable the Authority to respond to the IDeA comment, the Executive are asked to:

1. Approve the job profile for Executive Members; and

2. Comment on whether any other job profiles need to be developed.

Contact Officer: Head of Democratic Support Tel: 020-8227 2114 Nina Clark Fax: 020-8227 2171 Minicom: 020-8227 2685 e-mail: [email protected]

Background papers used in the preparation of this report: Association of London Government Profile for Special Responsibility Allowances (Band 3)

Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 2 LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM

EXECUTIVE MEMBERS

JOB PROFILE

• Participate effectively as a Member of the Executive - take joint responsibility with colleague Executive Members for all actions and be accountable collectively. Challenge issues prior to making decisions if felt appropriate to do so. Ensure appropriate regard to the community's interests and to any equalities and diversity issues. Encourage openness and honesty.

• Be clear about the powers delegated to the Executive, as set out in the Council Constitution, and act within them.

• Shape and develop the priorities and vision of the Council, participating in debates and discussion about policy issues across the range of services provided by the Authority.

• Act as the lead Member/spokesperson for a particular area or theme [portfolio], as may be determined by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, but in doing so, have regard to the overall collective responsibilities of the Executive and the Council's corporate policy objectives. Champion the portfolio concerned within that strategic context.

• In connection with the portfolio:

(a) build good relationships with appropriate senior officers and work with them in developing policy or strategic issues prior to formal reporting. Be supportive in dealing with any problems at a strategic level

(b) keep abreast of related developments and policies at national, regional and local level

(c) enhance the Council’s reputation through taking the national stage where possible and participating in regional and national networks.

(d) aim for Barking and Dagenham to be at the forefront of service development and provision where possible; take an active interest in related performance indicators and rankings, including visiting Beacon Councils and exemplars of good practice

(e) as appropriate, enlist the assistance of non Executive Members of your choice in the portfolio role, but strictly on the basis that colleague helpers take no responsibility for Executive matters

(f) represent the Executive at the Scrutiny Management Board (SMB) in connection with any related matter that may be Called In. Similarly, attend the SMB, Scrutiny Panels or Policy Commissions at their request in connection with any issues associated with your portfolio that are being scrutinised. In this connection, understand the role of scrutiny and help to foster a healthy relationship between the Executive and the SMB. Where appropriate, suggest areas for possible scrutiny to the SMB

Page 3 (g) be proactive in relation to media and publicity issues; act as spokesperson for related press enquiries

(h) be aware of issues of importance to the community and other stakeholders concerning your portfolio services (for example, through issues raised at Community Forums), and work in partnership towards implementing the Community Strategy

(i) take the lead, as required, on any cross cutting Best Value reviews associated with the portfolio

(j) take responsibility (with two Member colleagues of your choice), for the personal performance monitoring of JNC officers linked to your portfolio

(k) be aware of key budgetary opportunities and threats affecting your portfolio services.

• Represent the Council on external bodies, as appointed, and feedback to the Executive any issues of relevance/importance. Attend meetings with stakeholders and visit sites as appropriate.

• Facilitate a corporate leadership role where appropriate to do so, and foster links through partnerships such as the Barking and Dagenham Strategic Partnership.

• Be responsible for continuous personal development. Take advantage of learning opportunities to build on understanding and knowledge, and to develop relevant skills.

• Along with colleague Executive Members and The Management Team be available as appropriate for other Members to discuss any queries or matters of concern.

Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 4

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

NATIONAL SERVICE FRAMEWORK FOR OLDER FOR INFORMATION PEOPLE - LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

This report refers to The National Service Framework for Older People (NSF), which sets new national standards in health and social care for all older people whether they live at home, in residential care or are cared for in hospital. The NSF and its associated action plans have (with regard to older people’s services) taken forward previous Joint Investment and Community Care Plans. Reports taken to the Executive for Decision both recently and for some years to come are likely to concern actions that are influenced by the NSF standards.

Summary

The NSF for Older People is issued as guidance under Section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and is part of a national programme of NSFs designed to drive up standards and reduce unacceptable variation in health and social care. The NSF focuses on:

• Rooting out age discrimination (a key principle underlying the new Fair Access to Care policy).

• Providing person - centred care with older people treated as individuals with respect and dignity (an important aspect of the new Intermediate Care Strategy and all new service developments)

• Promoting older people’s health and independence (which links to the Council Priorities and the Older People’s Service Scorecard).

These principles underline eight major standards, each with action plans, milestones and targets.

Recommendations / Reasons

The Executive is asked to note that this report provides an overview of the NSF standards and local arrangements for managing their implementation, together with work in progress and planned. A more detailed overarching action plan is available on request.

Rob Tomlinson Development and Quality 020 8227 2489(telephone) Manager 020 8227 2423 (fax) 020 8592 5363 (minicom) e-mail: [email protected]

Page 5 1. Background

1.1 The NSF published in March 2001 has roots in Modernising Social Services and the NHS Plan. It is a ten-year plan, although the milestones and targets require a rapid pace of change. All new government guidance and priorities for older people’s services either flow from the NSF or are closely linked to one or more of the standards. The NSF is led by a National Director, Professor Ian Philp, and on a regional basis by the Social Services Inspectorate and NHS London Region. Progress is monitored through the Performance Assessment Frameworks, Position Statements, specific reports and visits. The NSF is therefore important in respect of the performance of the Older People’s Service, Social Services and the Council.

2. The NSF standards and local actions

2.1 This section sets out an overview of the standards and corresponding local actions. Each standard has named lead officers (see Appendix 1). In the section that follows the standard is printed in bold.

3. Standard One: Rooting out age discrimination

3.1 NHS services will be provided, regardless of age, on the basis of clinical need alone. Social care services will not use age in their eligibility criteria or policies, to restrict access to available services.

3.2 Early actions included an audit of policies with all agencies and the appointment of NSF leads and champions. No overt or explicit discrimination was identified within key documents. New NHS Continuing Care Criteria and Social Care Fair Access to Care policies have been agreed, by the Strategic Health Authority and by the Council and Primary Care Trust respectively.

3.3 The Department of Health has recently published health-benchmarking data, which will help local systems to analyse the local levels and patterns of service for older people. However a local partnership with Barts and the London University has already produced a wealth of information about demand for acute, primary care and social care services by older people.

3.4 Although no explicit discrimination was found in policy documents – the key aim of ensuring that older people are never unfairly discriminated against in accessing NHS or social care services as a result of their age – remains as a major driving principle and guide to practice for all agencies and staff. New relevant initiatives include the development of the NSF champion roles, the launch of the PCT Patient Advice and Liaison Service, and the inclusion of equalities and diversity objectives within the Council and Older People Service Balanced Scorecards.

4. Standard Two: Person Centred Care

4.1 NHS and social care services treat older people as individuals and enable them to make choices about their own care. This is achieved through the single assessment process, integrated commissioning arrangements and integrated provision of services, including community equipment and continence services.

Page 6 4.2 Locally the Single Assessment Process (SAP) is being implemented across the Barking & Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge health and social care community, with input from the Strategic Health Authority and other leading authorities. The SAP aims to ensure that older people are treated as individuals and that they receive appropriate and timely packages of care, which meet their needs as individuals, regardless of health and social services boundaries.

4.3 The SAP introduces four levels of assessment: contact, overview, comprehensive and specialist. An agreed assessment “tool” (set of questions) will be used. In practice the first two levels of assessment will often be combined. An important aspect of SAP is that the assessment starts with whichever professional or agency the older person or carer first approaches. SAP therefore requires all staff to work in a much more rounded, trusting and co-operative way. Agencies need to improve the quality of assessments and recording, and develop information sharing policies and IT systems that support SAP. The new Swift client record system is able to support both Fair Access to Care and the SAP.

4.4 In order to fully ensure an effective SAP it will be necessary to bring assessment and care management staff together in multi-agency teams similar to the Intermediate Care Assessment and Community Mental Health Team models. The Initial Contact Service (ICS) will also be modernised to take forward both the Best Value Customer Care Review and the integration of health and social care. Currently the ICS performs two main jobs; it provides information advice and simple services, and it acts as a route into more complex assessment and service provision. These two roles may need to be re-designated between generic help access points and multi – agency assessment teams.

4.5 The Department of Heath’s Public Service Agreement (the PSA) sets new and challenging targets for assessments and the provision of services (70% of assessments completed in 2 weeks and all community equipment delivered in 7 working days) to be achieved by December 2004.

4.6 A new local Integrated Equipment Service will be introduced from April 2004 as required by the NHS Plan and NSF. The service will (subject to Executive and PCT board agreement) be based on a partnership agreement, pooled budget and provided by a single supplier subject to a detailed contract and specification. The Service will contribute to the national 50% increase in the number of people benefiting from the provision of equipment.

5. Standard Three: Intermediate care

5.1 Older people will have access to a new range of intermediate care services at home or in designated care settings, to promote their independence by providing enhanced services from the NHS and councils to prevent unnecessary hospital admission and effective rehabilitation services to enable early discharge from hospital and to prevent premature or unnecessary admission to long-term residential care.

5.2 The Intermediate Care Strategy has recently been agreed by the Executive and by the PCT Board. The Intermediate Care Strategy includes:

Page 7 • The development of the Fanshawe and Galleon as I.C. Centers offering clinical and social care. • The transfer of resources from St Georges and Barking Hospitals into cost effective community services. • The provision of new I.C. nursing beds within the borough. • Implementation of the Performance Fund case finding and intermediate care project. • Bringing together services such as the Collaborative Care Team, Home Care I.C. Team and Lake Rise under one line of management, one access point and agreed shared care pathways.

5.3 Background information and further initiatives are set out in the Intermediate Care Strategy.

5.4 The Intermediate Care Strategy will link to the Council and NHS LIFT (Local Improvement Finance Trust) Plan and ultimately help change local care culture, making community based services more accessible, varied and effective, thereby reducing dependence on hospitals and long stay homes.

6. Standard Four: General hospital care

6.1 Older people’s care in hospital is delivered through appropriate specialist care and by hospital staff who have the right set of skills to meet their needs.

6.2 This standard aims to ensure that older people receive the specialist help they need in hospital and that they receive maximum benefit from their stay. Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust (BHRT) now has a new nursing structure in place, which includes modern matrons, discharge co-ordinators and A&E community liaison nurses.

6.3 A Better Hospital Care Project Group is working on a range of targets associated with this standard and Improving the Patient Experience, covering the five dimensions needed for a good experience:

• Improving access and waiting • More information and choice • Building closer relationships • Safe, High quality, co-ordinated care • A clean, comfortable, friendly environment

7. Standard Five: Stroke

7.1 The NHS will take action to prevent strokes, working in partnership with other agencies where appropriate. People who are thought to have had a stroke have access to diagnostic services, are treated appropriately by a specialist stroke service, and subsequently, with their carers, participate in a multidisciplinary programme of secondary prevention and rehabilitation.

7.2 A Stroke Plan has been developed which covers the need to have a specialised stroke service in each acute hospital, PCT procedures for general practice (to identify and treat people at high risk) and benchmarking and audit systems. The Stroke Plan is now being enhanced to cover Good Practice in Social Care produced

Page 8 by the Stroke Association. Services offered by Age Concern and the Council’s leisure service (including keep fit activities, guided walks, and Elderberries) all contribute towards reducing the incidence of stroke.

8. Standard Six: Falls

8.1 The NHS, working in partnership with councils, takes action to prevent falls and reduce resultant fractures or other injuries in their populations of older people. Older people who have fallen receive effective treatment and, with their carers, receive advice on prevention through a specialised falls service.

8.2 All local health and social care systems are required to have established an integrated falls service by April 2005. This work has started with the development of a Falls Strategy Group and an audit undertaken within BHRT. This audit noted that over a 32-week period and covering 368 beds at 3 local hospitals, 939 patients had been admitted following a fall. Implications for practice include risk assessment at home, care planning and equipment needs.

8.3 The aim to reduce the number of falls and ensure effective treatment for those who have fallen requires action on a number of fronts, including: prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, home and street safety, exercise, and (as falls are a common symptom of previously unidentified health problems) better access to local health care. The Falls Group includes the University of East London and Leisure Services.

9. Standard Seven: Mental health in older people

9.1 Older people who have mental health problems have access to integrated mental health services, provided by the NHS and councils to ensure effective diagnosis, treatment and support, for them and for their carers.

9.2 Steps taken so far include: the introduction of anti-dementia drugs, a new Memory Lane Café / Share the Care service (for older people and their carers), dementia care information, and the creation of the specialist dementia home care service. Further developments will include the Morland Road Day Centre (a LIFT site), new Housing with Extra Care for people with dementia to replace Saywood Lodge and more effective and co-ordinated use of the Rapid Assessment Unit at Barley Court (King George Hospital).

10. Standard Eight: The promotion of health and active life in older age

10.1 The health and well being of older people is promoted through a co-ordinated programme of action led by the NHS with support from councils.

10.2 This standard covers a wide range of activity, which extends the healthy life expectancy of older people. These activities include:

• Housing Shape Up ensuring that all council housing stock provides warm and dry homes.

Page 9 • The Community Strategy, which provides a range of key health, housing and social care targets and a focus on the wider determinants of health – environment, security, renewal, responsibilities, respect and social inclusion.

• Leisure programmes linked to CHD prevention

• Smoking cessation programme – 400 “quitters” the majority over 50. 3 clinics in the borough and 12 pharmacies offering free to user sessions (up to 5 per person|).

• Neighbourhood renewal strategy.

• Successful Winter Flu immunisation for staff and vulnerable people

• Prevention programme in Age Concern Active Ageing Centres

• Toenail cutting service planned and funding avenues explored.

• Cancer Information Officer appointed.

The Health Promotion Group helps to co-ordinate Council and NHS health improvement plans and link with the Local Strategic Partnership.

11. Local Arrangements

11.1 The NSF Local Implementation Team (LIT) is led by Cathy Mitchell, Director of Older People’s Services for the PCT and for Social Services. The new Member Champion is Councillor Val Rush. The Government champion toolkit describes the role of the Member Champion:

11.2 They will be responsible for ensuring that older people become and remain a priority within their organisation and for supporting implementation of the NSF specifically. They will present a progress report to their Board (NHS) or the scrutiny committee responsible for social services every 6 months. They will be a key player in the local programme to modernise health and social services.

11.3 In addition to the leads listed in appendix one an NSF co-ordinator funded through the regeneration grant is to be recruited.

11.4 The involvement of older people in implementing the NSF is key to its success. BHRT has older people representation on its scrutiny group. The PCT / Social Services, together with BHRT and Age Concern are establishing an Older Persons NSF consultation process; the first event was a well attended conference held at the Fanshawe Hall in October. A newsletter style report of this event was sent to participants and copies are available. Further events will take place in 2003 and the outcomes will feed into the work of the standard groups.

12. Conclusion

12.1 Implementation of the NSF is likely to be an important aspect of the SSI inspection of Older People’s Services due in August 2003. To date feed back from the SSI and NHS regarding local progress has been largely positive.

Page 10

12.2 The NSF for Older People is a comprehensive plan which will over the course of the next ten years transform health and social care services for older people.

Background Papers • National Service Framework for Older People. Department of Health. There is an Executive Summary of the full NSF, which contains convenient summaries, and lists of milestones and targets. • Improvement, Expansion and Reform: the next 3 years. Department of Health. • NSF Plan October Update. Local Plan and record of progress. • NSF October Conference newsletter.

Page 11 National Service Framework Leads Appendix 1

Standard BHRT B&D PCT LBB&D Vol Sec. Ley Street House The Clockhouse Civic Centre 497/499 Ley Street East Street Dagenham Ilford IG2 7QX Barking IG11 8EY RM10 7BN 020 8591 9595 020 8592 4500 1. Rooting Out Age Brian Devlin Steve Davison Rob Tomlinson Samantha Mauger Discrimination Intermediate Care Manager Interim Services Development Development & Quality Manager Chief Officer [email protected] Manager [email protected] samantha.mauger@ag Tele. No. 020 8924 6222 Older People’s Services Tele. No. 020 8227 2489 econcern.org.uk Steve.Davison@bhbchc- Tele. No. 020 8270 Dr. Mary Springham tr.nthames.nhs.uk 4946 Non Executive Director Tele. No. 020 8918 0517 Role to be agreed with Page 12 other VS leads

2. Person Centred Care Brian Devlin Steve Davison Alan Ayris Intermediate Care Manager Interim Services Manager – Initial Contact Service [email protected] Development Manager [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8924 6222 Older People’s Services Tele. No. 020 8227 2783 Steve.Davison@bhbchc- tr.nthames.nhs.uk Tele. No. 020 8918 0517 3. Intermediate Care Brian Devlin Steve Davison Joan Hutton Intermediate Care Manager Interim Services Development General Manager - Localities [email protected] Manager [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8924 6222 Older People’s Services Tele. No. 020 8227 5154 Steve.Davison@bhbchc- tr.nthames.nhs.uk Tele. No. 020 8918 0517

4. General Hospital Care Brian Devlin Mary Goward Belinda Bhatti Intermediate Care Manager Assistant Director – Older People’s Case Support Manager [email protected] Service Tele. No. 020 8924 6222 [email protected] belinda. Matrons Tele. No. 020 8532 6316 [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8924 6535

5. Falls Dr. J V Mannakkara Angie McGonnell Trudy Williams Medical Director for PCT Associate PCDM Locality Manager [email protected] lynn.olver@bhbchc- trudy. [email protected] Tele. 01708 465184 tr.nthames.nhs.uk Tele. No. 020 8227 5114 St. George’s Hospital Tele. No. 020 8276 7200 117 Suttons Lane Hornchurch RM12 6RS Dr. Robert Fowler

Page 13 (also based at Oldchurch Hospital) Consultant Physician & Geriatrician Robert.Fowler@haveringh- tr.nthames.nhs.uk Tele. No. 01708 807183 6. Mental Health Dr N A Ahmad Bernard Hannah Team Mgr’ CMHT Older People Consultant Geriatrician Mental Health Commissioning Joan Hutton [email protected] Manager [email protected] Tel. No. 020 8215 6740 Bernard. [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8227 5154 Barking Hospital Tele. No. 020 8276 7846 Carolyn Jupiter NELMHT Non Acute Services Manager [email protected] Tele. No. 01277 302848

7. Promotion of Health & Brian Devlin Mathew Cole Cathy Mitchell Active Life in Older Age Intermediate Care Manager Associate Director of Public Health Director of Older People's [email protected] Mathew. [email protected] Services Tele No. 020 8924 6222 Tele. No. 020 8532 6362 [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8227 2331

9. Medicines Management Brian Devlin Sharron Morrow Debbie Woodley Intermediate Care Manager Pharmaceutical Advisor Home Care Manager [email protected] Sharron [email protected] debbie. [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8924 6222 Tele. No. 020 8532 6370 Tele. No. 020 8227 2290

Elaine Mason Deputy Chief Pharmacist Page 14 [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8970 8010

NSF Champions Julie Lamb Cathy Mitchell Councillor Val Rush Associate Director of Intermediate Director of Older People's Services [email protected] Care & Rehabilitation [email protected] Tele No. 020 8591 1587 [email protected] Tele. No. 020 8227 2331 Tele. No. 01708 708307

Dr. Mary Springham Non Executive Director

AGENDA ITEM 5

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING OF HEALTH

BEST VALUE REVIEW - CUSTOMER FIRST: A NEW FOR DECISION ERA IN ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES

This report presents the results of a best value review which has major implications for th Councils services.

Summary

This report sets out the first steps towards a whole new way of delivering public services. It presents the findings of a best value review of Customer First which is a new approach to how all Council and other public services are made available The Best value review paves the way for improvements in handling enquiries from the public on the phone, in person, by e-mail or other electronic means.

Recommendation

Members are asked to agree the detailed recommendations set out in the report and in particular:

1. The new vision for Customer First. The vision is ‘An excellent initial contact service with high standards of quality and performance’; 2. That a Customer First Team should be established to operate as the intelligent client for the programme and ensure that improvements to service are based on the Community Priorities and are the product of wide ranging public and stakeholder consultation; 3. That new access arrangements be developed in conjunction with partners through the Barking and Dagenham Local Strategic Partnership; 4. That an outline business case be prepared showing the options for improving customer services; and 5. That an initial business case will review best practice in the light of local requirements and make recommendations about the type of services required and how to implement them.

Contact Officer: Lawrence Ashelford Head of Customer First 020 8227 5730 (Tel) 020 8227 5705 (Fax) 020 8227 5755 (Minicom) Email: [email protected]

1. Background to the Review

1.1 The Council has made significant improvements in the ways in which the public can access services .For example the initial contact service in Social Services, the housing repairs call centre and developments to the Councils web site all offer improved access and information to the public. However, the starting point for the

Page 15 review is an acknowledgement that access to many of the Council’s services can be streamlined and improved in order to compare with the Beacon Councils which are highlighted by the Improvement and Development Authority (IDEA). On this basis the review did not document in detail all the systems currently in operation across the Council.

1.2 It is widely acknowledged that at present the range of enquiries that are received cannot easily and quickly be resolved through a single point of contact, such as a telephone call or a visit. We know from the consultation carried out as part of the review that this is something the public would like improved . 1.3 The review report is presented in Appendix A.

1.4 The review is set in the context of the Councils Modernisation Programme including the new national strategy for e government - which was published in draft form while the review was in its final stages.

1.5 The review has been thoroughly revised since July 2002 to ensure that it reflects Members concerns and meets the standards required for such a wide ranging and cross cutting review .

1.6 During the course of the review Members, officers and the Trades Unions have developed a protocol on workforce matters in best value and contracting Consistent with this the Members on the review fully support opportunities to invest in staff development and training for existing staff and to maximise the benefit from existing systems wherever possible. This is set out clearly in the Option Appraisal and reflected in the Improvement Plan

2. Putting the customer at the heart of everything we do

2.1 The Customer First Best Value Review is a crosscutting review looking at all aspects of the Interface between the Council and the public .For the purposes of the review, ’the public’ includes local people, other agencies and businesses. Customer First is closely linked to the Council’s wider modernisation agenda and particularly to the development of e Government.

The outcome of the review is that we have developed a new vision for Customer First. Our vision is ‘An excellent initial contact service with high standards of quality and performance’. In terms of improved customer service this means that • Customers enquiries are answered quickly and they are not passed from one person to another • Customers do not have to repeat the same information to many different people • Customer enquiries are resolved quickly without the need to chase progress or demand further action • Customers receive services in a way and at a time that is convenient to them rather than to the organisation • Members find it easier to track enquiries from constituents and examine management information such as complaints within their wards. • Customers get excellent customer care every time based on the Councils nine corporate customer care principles - excellent customer care also means we are always looking for ways to improve the service.

Page 16

These are the criteria against which the quality of customer service should be judged. Taken together these criteria and the key issues for modernising customer will

• Ensure easy access to all public services • Mean that we can Identify, anticipate and satisfy customer requirements • Support the achievement of top quartile performance.

To create these changes we will consider the implications for staff who deal with initial contact with the public as well as all staff who are in contact with the public. The Council’s plan to introduce Investors in People will have an impact in improving customer service amongst this wider group of staff. We will also need to consider the systems and working arrangements needed to deliver this large scale complex programme.

2.2 The review recommends that we establish a Council wide programme to put the customer at the heart of everything the Council does. This is about improving the quality, choice, accessibility, and cost effectiveness of public services. It involves extending the ways in which the public can access services and the times at which they can be accessed. It includes reviewing how we should proceed to deal with the majority of public enquiries. Customer First is closely linked to e government. The national strategy for e government has now been published .The Customer First initiative will be closely involved in implementing this locally.

2.3 The review recommends some ways of improving customer access; It also recommends establishing a strategic plan (Balanced Scorecard) for Customer First and a strategy for e Government.

2.4 Detailed options showing how access to council services can be improved will be prepared as an outline business case by March 2003.

3. Improving access and improving services

3.1 Customer First involves changing the ways the Council makes services available to the public. This might include

• Improving customer relationship management • Researching the need to improve services for personal callers. • Improving local contact arrangements based initially on existing arrangements • Reviewing opportunities to use other local centres for improving access • Developing a marketing function across the council in order to improve our understanding of local peoples' needs-and to design and promote service changes on this basis. • Streamlining decision making so that front line staff can staff are clear when a professional decision is required but can otherwise take things forward for the customer • Reviewing and streamlining back office systems and processes reducing bureaucracy wherever possible. • Retraining all the staff who deal with the public when they first contact the Council.

Page 17

3.2 The review also recommends extending the use of the Council’s website and information services to meet the national e-government targets. To achieve these changes will require a considerable shift in the way we think about our customers – and changes in working practices and systems.

4. Electronic government (e government)

4.1 Customer First is closely linked to the E-Government Strategy and will be planned and developed alongside it. This is made clear in the Improvement Plan. While the E-Government Strategy proposes using new and emerging technology to improve access to existing services, it also provides the means to redesign some services to meet the current and future needs of customers.

4.2 The work already undertaken to upgrade the Council’s Financial and Human Resource Systems, the on-line centres, the availability of personal computers in schools and libraries, and personal computers for elected Members are also part of the e government agenda 4.3 The outline business case will show in detail what needs to be done to meet the requirements of the national e-government strategy .A draft strategy for e- government is presented elsewhere on this Agenda.

5. Findings from the best value review

5.1. From consultation with elected Members and with the public the challenge is to:

• Provide easy access to all services for all sectors of the community. • Provide flexible, extended opening hours. • Provide services in different ways that meet customers needs • Provide an extended service over the phone, which is most peoples preferred way of contacting the Council.

5.2 The review concluded that this will involve significant change across all Council departments. It is likely to involve a variety of new ways of working. It is also likely to involve a variety of partnering arrangements - both with the public service agencies and with private sector companies with expertise in the relevant new technologies.

5.3 The consultation undertaken for the review found that while there is a high degree of satisfaction with the Council, people want a quicker, more accurate service – and they want an answer from the person they speak to. They do not want to keep being passed on to someone else. People are interested in the idea of a call centre and one-stop shops – as long as the service is still provided by a human voice.

5.4 The Council has a better than average satisfaction rating for its general service provision compared to other Outer London Authorities. However this masks some serious concerns about performance. The majority of Councils visited as part of the review – or awarded Beacon Status for accessible services have adopted the call centre and one stop shop model.

Page 18

5.5 Customer First does not yet exist as a discrete service. It is clear that there is a market in all the areas of service development that would be involved in setting up and running a modernised customer access service. However, to create a Customer First service is a major Council wide initiative. It is therefore proposed that the first stage is to produce an initial business case, which examines the options in detail - including reviewing what the market has to offer.

5.6 An option appraisal has also been undertaken. It shows that Customer First is a complex strategic initiative covering all parts of the Council and its services. It encompasses a number of areas of service development.

• Systems design and procurement - for example introducing new software which allows staff to track all the dealings that someone has with the Council no matter which department is dealing with them. This is called customer relationship management • Systems implementation and development • Managing staff changes • Development of premises/ facilities management.

As part of the improvement plan opportunities to invest in staff development and training for existing staff and to maximise the benefit from existing systems will be reviewed and developed wherever possible.

5.7 The outline business case will provide detailed options in each of these areas for Members to consider.

5.8 However, because of the scale and nature of this development these decisions need to be carefully planned. The management arrangements to do this are set out in a separate report on this agenda.

5.9 The improvement plan sets out the type of changes required to make a difference for the customer it will be developed in more detail in the outline business case.

6. Recommendations of the best value review

6.1 The recommendations of the review are set out in the report which is at Appendix A. They are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity as they provide a detailed breakdown of all the things that need to be done to start this major programme of change. Members are asked to agree the recommendations of the review. The resource Implications are set out elsewhere on this agenda

Background Papers The Best Value Review Report on Customer First.

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 20 Appendix A

BEST VALUE REVIEW

CUSTOMER FIRST

FINAL REPORT OF BEST VALUE REVIEW OF CUSTOMER FIRST:

Page 21

Summary

1. Introduction 3

2. Context 3

3. Boundaries and scope of the review 4

4. Challenge 4

5. Consultation Phase 4

6. Compare Phase 5

7. Compete Phase 5

8. Option Appraisal 6

9. Recommendations 6

Final Report

1. Introduction 7

2. Context 12

3. . Boundaries and Scope 14

4. Challenge 15

5. Consultation 24

6. Compare 29

7. Compete 36

8. Option appraisal 38

9. Recommendations 42

10. Improvement Plan 45

Page 22 Summary

1. Introduction

The Customer First Best Value Review is a crosscutting review looking at all aspects of the interface between the Council and the public. For the purposes of the review, ’the public’ includes local people, other agencies and businesses. Customer First is closely linked to the Council’s wider modernisation agenda and particularly to the development of e-government.

The outcome of the review is that we have developed a new vision for Customer First. Our vision is ‘An excellent initial contact service with high standards of quality and performance’.

We want to • Ensure easy access to all public services • Identify, anticipate and satisfy customer requirements • Support the achievement of top quartile performance.

We will also need to consider the systems and working arrangements needed to deliver the vision.

2. Context

This review has been undertaken against a background of rapid change and recognised performance improvement for the council. At present access to Council services operates in different ways. Two key service areas are already run through call centres. These are the Initial Contact Service for Social Services, and the Repairs call centre for all housing repairs. A new model of integrated working is being developed between the Primary Care Trust and the Social Services Department. Plans are being developed to merge elements of the two management structures.

The major socio/economic characteristics of the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham are important features in the overall context in which this review has taken place.

Page 23 The review has taken account of the overall vision for the Borough – the 2020 Vision – which is within the Community Strategy, and the government’s agenda for e- government.

3. Boundaries and scope of the review

• The review includes all initial contacts initiated by the public. • These contacts could be by 'phone, minicom, letter, fax, in person, other electronic means • The contact could be for a service, as a complaint or for information

4 Challenge

The Council acknowledges that access arrangements need to be simplified and extended to better meet the needs of the community. It also acknowledges that it does not have experience in some of the new ways of making services available and will have to have regard to best practice elsewhere.

The Challenge phase was used to provide an honest assessment of current arrangements for customer interface, consider external and internal drivers for change and take account of the views of as wide a range of stakeholders as possible.

The outcomes show that delivering the required improvements will require changes to systems, organisation and culture and the options for achieving these are set out in the improvement plan.

The Members on the review are keen to learn from examples of best practice in both public and private sectors. During the course of the review Members, officers and the Trades Unions have developed a protocol on workforce matters in best value and contracting.

Consistent with this the Members on the review fully support opportunities to invest in staff development and training for existing staff and to maximise the benefit from existing systems wherever possible.

5. Consultation Phase

Local people, other stakeholder groups and staff were consulted to help decide what sort of service is needed and how we are doing now.

Key findings include: -

• 62% of residents are currently satisfied with the way that Barking & Dagenham is run. The Best Value Performance Indicators show that levels of satisfaction vary within different services

• More information is needed on what some ‘Hard to reach’ groups think about the Council and what they would like to see in the future

Page 24

• 67% of residents who took part in the questionnaire survey stated the preferred method of access to Council services is the telephone. Interest was shown in the development of a call centre to allow increased access to the Council.

• Participants of the various consultation processes also wished (given the opportunity) to access the council by visiting an office and having face to face contact. Residents are generally positive about the idea of one-stop shops.

• The findings show that there is some interest in extended opening hours. This would be more convenient for various stakeholder groups.

6. Compare Phase

This part of the review looks at best practice and performance data in the Local Authority sector in recognition of the wide range of services provided by Councils. The Council will continue to learn from best practice as part of the development of the Customer First Initiative.

• LBBD has a better than average satisfaction rating for its general service provision compared to other outer London Local Authorities.

• All Councils that were visited or contacted have either established a Call Centre for seamless service delivery or are in the process of doing so.

• Of the four Councils awarded Beacon Council Status under the Accessible Service theme, three have implemented a One Stop Shop and Call Centre model with the remaining Council looking to do so in the near future.

The approach to public access being adopted by many authorities is a One Stop Shop and Call Centre model for customer service.

7. Compete Phase

Customer First does not yet exist as a discrete service. The role of providing a first point of contact for the public sits in a variety of posts across the different departments of the Council. In some areas this role is already highly differentiated - for example the staff who work in the Initial Contact Service in Social Services, or the staff who work in the Housing Repair Service.

However, this review is not just about the existing service. It envisages a completely modernised approach to Customer First. This includes new systems to support staff in dealing with the public and new ways of offering access to services. These might be electronic (though the website, digital TV, smart cards); or in person on the telephone or over the counter.

Page 25 The current service is highly dispersed across different posts and roles across the different departments of the Council. It is therefore not feasible to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of the current service. It is recognised that this information must be available in future.

However, initially at least, creating a modernised service will involve new arrangements which will require additional financial investment as well as investment in training and developing existing staff.

8. Option appraisal

The seven options for procurement were reviewed. Customer First is a complex strategic initiative. It encompasses a number of areas of service development.

• Systems design and procurement • Systems implementation and development • Managing staff changes • Development of premises/ facilities management.

The Council will adopt an appropriate approach to each of these areas.

9/10 Recommendations/Improvement plan

These changes go to the heart of everything we do as a Council and the way we do them. The implementation plan recognises that such a major programme will require some expertise not currently available in the Council.

It is based on:-

• Establishing the Customer First Initiative including implementing the balanced scorecard and e government strategy • Setting up the Customer First Programme board to oversee the programme • Identifying the projects which will make up the overall programme • Doing a risk assessment to help us plan and prepare properly • Identifying public sector partners • Identifying the skills required to support the projects and programme co- ordination • Procuring relevant specialist expertise to plan and implement the programme • Implementing the projects

There are approximately 320 staff who currently deal with the public at the first point of contact. The changes proposed will involve significant retraining for these staff .In turn this will require investment and will also need ongoing discussion with relevant Trades Unions.

Page 26 FINAL REPORT OF BEST VALUE REVIEW OF CUSTOMER FIRST

1. Introduction

1.1 The Customer First Best Value Review is a crosscutting review looking at all aspects of the Interface between the Council and the public. For the purposes of the review, ’the public’ includes local people, other agencies and businesses. Customer First is closely linked to the Council’s wider modernisation agenda and particularly to the development of e-government.

1.2 The review took place between January 2001 and December 2002, and was partially supported by an external consultant, and critical friend. Details are provided in the evidence file.

1.3 The original title of the review was “Public Interface”. It soon became apparent that whilst this reflected the actual processes being reviewed, it did not reflect the aims and intention of the review and the desire of the Council to introduce changes in the way that people can access the Council and its services. The determination to create improvements in access arrangements is fully supported by the Council in keeping with the community priorities. The starting point for the review is therefore an acknowledgement that changes are required to improve access arrangements. With this in mind, the review has not dwelt upon how things are done at present.

1.4 The Council intends this review to bring about a step change in the way the public can access services. This is a long - term commitment, which involves improving the quality of services as well as the way in which they are accessed. It means creating new access services and reviewing, improving and simplifying back office systems. In turn this will also improve internal services for example communication between departments.

1.5 Improving services and improving access to services will support a number of the Councils long - term goals both in relation to service performance and in relation to improving governance. Excellent services delivered in a helpful and accessible way will help raise public pride and build confidence in the community – and also help to foster public participation and engagement.

1.6 The background to this review is the Councils 2020 vision and its overall modernisation programme, as set out below.

1.7 The key issues in providing a modern service are

• Determining which services should be accessible on a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week basis and making them available

Page 27 • Services should be available through a number of easy to use channels • Services should be available in appropriate languages and formats • Decision making should be streamlined and simplified wherever possible • New access arrangements and new ways of delivering services should be based on consultation with the public and with other stakeholders • Public services should be available on an integrated basis wherever possible

The outcome of the review is that we have developed a new vision for Customer First. Our vision is

An excellent initial contact service with high standards of quality and performance

In terms of improved customer service this means that • Customers’ enquiries are answered quickly and they are not passed from one person to another • Customers do not have to repeat the same information to many different people • Customers’ enquiries are resolved quickly without the need to chase progress or demand further action • Customers receive services in a way and at a time that is convenient to them rather than to the organisation • Members find it easier to track enquiries from constituents and examine management information such as complaints within their wards • Customers get excellent customer care every time based on the Councils nine corporate customer care principles –excellent customer care also means we are always looking for ways to improve the service

These are the criteria against which the quality of customer service should be judged.

Taken together these criteria and the key issues for modernising customer services will

• Ensure easy access to all public services • Mean that we can identify, anticipate and satisfy customer requirements

Page 28 • Support the achievement of top quartile performance.

1.8 The Council’s approach to best value is set out in the best value toolkit, which provides a framework for reviews. This review was undertaken by a team drawn from across the Council. Council managers have been trained in the techniques of best value to ensure a consistent approach to undertaking reviews.

1.9 The review draws upon the Council’s existing knowledge of what is important to local people. During 2000 the Council undertook, using MORI, wide ranging consultation with the community. The issues, which are important to the community, include policing and health. As a result, 7 Community Priorities have been developed which are: -

• Promoting equal opportunities and celebrating diversity • Better education and learning for all • Developing rights and responsibilities with the local community • Improving health, housing and social care • Making Barking & Dagenham cleaner, greener and safer • Raising general pride in the Borough • Regenerating the local economy

These priorities now determine the Council’s Balanced Scorecard, which is the Council’s overall planning and management system. The improvement plan for this review has been prepared as a Balanced Scorecard.

1.10 In May 2000 the Council moved away from the old Committee structure to a Cabinet structure with portfolio holders. This is a fundamental change in the way that Barking and Dagenham deals with its services, with the portfolio holders each holding one of the 7 Community Priorities, which in themselves are completely cross-cutting and not based on service departments. This has streamlined decision making, and put greater emphasis on policy and performance. It also provides a strong platform upon which to build new front door services where the majority of enquiries can be dealt with at the initial point of contact. The Council has been assessed as ‘Fair’ during the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process, and noted as one of the fastest improving authorities in the country by the Audit Commission. The Council knows that it can do better – including improving access, and this is acknowledged in the CPA report.

1.11 About the same time, the Council also relaunched its 9 principles of Customer Care and the customer care standards, recognising the need for change within delivery of services, not just of processes, but also of

Page 29 attitude and culture - including areas like plain English. Each department has a senior manager responsible for promoting Customer Care, and a small team has been set up within the Chief Executive’s department setting out the framework for Customer Care - including regular monitoring by the Chief Executive. These standards will be built upon for the Customer First Improvement Plan. A senior manager has been appointed to lead a Council wide initiative to promote e- government and to put the customer at the heart of everything the Council does. This will be known as the ‘Customer First Initiative’.

1.12 The Council wishes to take every opportunity to promote the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the area. This is reflected in the Community Priorities and vision for Barking & Dagenham for the next 20 years. (“B&D 2020 Vision”). The Community Strategy takes these as the basis upon which to build.

1.13 This review has also been able to take account of the publication from the Prime Minister entitled "Reforming our Public services - Principles into Practice". This states that services should be built around the needs of the customer, improving choice, responsiveness, accessibility and flexibility. This will involve meeting national standards, for example the e-government target. In turn this will require new ways of working, something the Improvement Plan recognises.

1.14 The review also supports the Councils intention to establish a Public Service Agreement (PSA). The PSA is based upon improving services, which are important to local communities and reducing bureaucracy. As such the PSA will take account of the Customer First agenda and vice versa. The PSA proposal has now been submitted and targets are being negotiated

1.15 This review of Customer First, has taken account of earlier Best Value reviews and inspections which have been completed, on front line services. Generally the inspections of these reviews have indicated that Barking & Dagenham is using Best Value to drive change and improve services. With the exception of the reviews of Streetscene and Libraries (which did not get a “will improve” rating) all inspections so far have indicated that services either will, or will definitely improve, and we consider this a positive platform to build on.

1.16 At present access to Council services operates in different ways. Two key service areas are already run through call centres. These are the Initial Contact Service for Social Services, and the Repairs call centre for all housing repairs. A new model of integrated working is being developed between the Primary Care Trust and the Social Services Department. Plans are being developed to merge elements of the two management structures. The Improvement Plan for the Customer First review includes links with Health, thus supporting the Community Priority to improve health, housing and social care. In addition the Revenue and Benefits service has reviewed its customer service

Page 30 arrangements and an action plan is being developed to create improvements for the public. The new Community Housing Partnership arrangements are also creating a new focus on the customer.

This range of developing access arrangements means that there are many opportunities to improve access to services and customer service. These will be subject to ongoing public and staff consultation. In the same way that the Revenue and Benefits service is taking the opportunity of this review to make progress in developing customer service, the Council will also seek other opportunities to create improvements using the expertise of staff and of elected Members in tandem with public consultation.

1.17 The review acknowledges that customer contact varies between the 3 large services that receive most customer contact by phone (social services, housing and revenue services); and other services which do not receive as much traffic but which may be equally as important to the public. The implementation plan distinguishes between these services.

1.18 The Council recognises that its reputation is crucial to the success of its regeneration plans and for other inward investment. Improvements in the Borough’s reputation are evident in recent inspections and peer reviews from IDeA, and recent awards including:

• the LGC award for Management Team of the Year 2002, • 6 Chartermarks • inclusion in two Audit Commission reports as case studies on performance management.

1.19 This review has taken account of the document “Modern Councils Modern Services - Access for All” linking service delivery to the e- government agenda. The Improvement Plan for Customer First is very closely linked to the implementation of the e-government strategy for Barking & Dagenham and will also be led by the same Manager.

1.20 PriceWaterhouseCoopers carried out diagnostic work for Barking & Dagenham on the amount of service contact already carried out via electronic means including by computer and telephone. This showed that the 50% target would be achieved during 2002. Since then a more detailed check has been undertaken for the Implementing e- government 2 statement as required by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and this is available on our website at www.Barking- Dagenham.gov.uk

1.21 The Customer First Initiative will be based on a thorough understanding of local needs and aspirations. The Community Strategy and Local Strategic Partnership are now providing opportunities for closer working with the community, as are changes to the housing service through the Community Housing Partnerships, which are being set up during

Page 31 2002/3. This is a strong basis on which to build improved consultation and a new approach to marketing within the Council.

2. Context

2.1 The major socio/economic characteristics of the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham are important features in the overall context within which this review has taken place.

2.2 Barking & Dagenham is part of the East Thames Gateway regeneration area, with considerable areas for regeneration including the Ford site and is currently ranked 15th most deprived Borough in the country.

2.3 The following are important factors when considering service delivery within Barking & Dagenham: -

• Higher than average levels of unemployment for London. • Lowest personal income levels in London. • Higher than average dependence on benefits for London. • Higher than average incidence of single parent families for London. • Lower than average levels of literacy and numeracy amongst adults for London. • Percentage of the population with higher educational qualifications the lowest in the country. • Lower than average for levels of work-related skills for London. • Highest proportion of pensioner households in London. • One of the highest levels of long term limiting illness both in London and the country.

Against this should be set:-

• The considerable improvement in education attainment over the last 10 years. • The new partnership with the Primary Care Trust. • Increasing property prices. • Considerable investment in the Council’s own housing stock through the Shape-Up project and now the Major Repairs Allowance. • New and innovative schemes of housing for older people. • New hospital to be built using private finance initiative on the edge of the Borough. • Attraction of partners to work with the Borough in improving both services and regeneration generally (new school will be built using PFI).

2.4 Examples of Good Practice

Access to services is still provided departmentally in a variety of different ways and to different standards. However over the past few years the Council

Page 32 has been making significant efforts to open up its services to the public and improve standards of customer care. The commitment and enthusiasm of staff have been instrumental in securing improvements such as the following:

Initial Contact Service

The Initial Contact Service (ICS) was established to provide a single access point for people wanting advice, information or help from Social Services. The majority of callers make contact by telephone, through a single access number, with most calls being answered within 5 seconds.

The service is available during normal office hours and the Emergency Duty Team operate a similar screening service for calls up to 11.30 p.m.

Since its inception, links have been built with other council and healthcare services to enable ICS to provide a more holistic, integrated service.

As this service is integrated into the new Primary Care Centres there will be an opportunity to review the best way to provide advice and information on health and social care possibly in conjunction with other public services.

Housing Repair Call Centre

The Housing Repair Call Centre deals with all telephone calls relating to the repair of the Council’s 22,000 properties. The 11 members of staff deal with in excess of 142,000 calls each year.

Call Centre staff ensure that they get all the relevant information from callers to enable them to deal with all requests or enquiries efficiently. This might be logging a request and making an appointment for a repair or dealing with an enquiry, such as where contractors have failed to attend.

Following a Best Value review of the repair service in 2001, regular telephone surveys have been introduced to get feedback from service users and enable service standards to be monitored. The majority of users felt the 20 second target time for answering the phone was reasonable and said this was being met in over 80% of cases. More than 93% of customers surveyed were satisfied with the overall service provided (April 2002).

Respondents have expressed interest in longer operating hours (originally 8.30 to 4.45 Monday to Friday) and an extended service was piloted and evaluated. The service is now available from 8.00 to 6.30 Monday to Friday, with emergency assistance available 24 hours each day.

The call centre has been market tested as part of a package of services following the best value review of repairs.

Page 33 Customer First Charter Mark

The Charter Mark is a recognised sign of excellent, customer-focused services. The Council has embraced the scheme and has already gained six Charter Marks, with other applications in the pipeline awaiting assessment.

Several of the successful submissions were for services with a direct public interface such as Housing Advice, Consumer Advice/Trading Standards and the Asylum Seekers Unit.

All services receiving the award have demonstrated high standards of customer care by, for example, ongoing consultation to set service standards and assess customer satisfaction. They have also shown improvements in the range and quality of information available to the public and initiatives to make the service more accessible to all.

Best Practise in Call Handling and Best Practise for Personal Callers

As services in the Borough are reshaped and technology changes, this review offers an opportunity to explore different ways of providing information, advice and access to services. Experience elsewhere suggests that best practice can be achieved by implementing small scale changes on a pilot basis and building on these.

‘Mystery Shoppers’

To enable us to monitor the quality of front line services from the users perspective, the Council established a team of ‘mystery shoppers’. This comprises a small team of local people who undertake regular tests of front line services both by telephone and by visiting offices and reception areas. Feedback from them has been used to drive improvements.

The results of the exercises show that many of the council’s front line staff are providing excellent standards of customer care.

Results for the latest exercise (November 2002) show that 84% of telephone responses were rated as good to excellent. This is an improvement on previous years. 80% of visits were evaluated as good or above – a slight drop in previous years’ performance.

Findings

The above are examples of good practice within the Council. Future proposals need to build on these successes and extend best practice throughout the organisation.

3. Boundaries and scope of the review

3.1 The review set boundaries and issues for the review as follows: -

Page 34 • The review will include all initial contacts initiated by the public. This does not include cases where someone has to be referred for a more specialist service for example the specialist assessment undertaken by Social Services. • These contacts could be by 'phone, minicom, letter, fax, in person, other electronic means. • The contact could be for a service, as a complaint or for information. • Some tasks that are currently referred to a specialist could be automated/dealt with at the initial contact - to be investigated as part of the review. • The review will make recommendations about Customer Care, standards and behaviour. • The review will ensure that where referrals to a specialist are required these will take place effectively. • The Improvement Plan will ensure that there is an organisational structure that can support the recommendations for change. • The Improvement Plan will be achievable and give time for specialist services and the public interface to change. • The review sees the needs of Members as requiring particular attention to ensure that they can work effectively on behalf of the people of the Borough. • The review should cover all initial public contact by:

− A voluntary sector/not for profit sector organisation − Schools − Business − Individual − Applicant for a job − Employees as residents − Information seeker − Ex-employee on Pension Scheme − Media − Voters − Researchers − People who visit, live or work in the Borough, or have relatives or friends who live in the Borough

The review will look for opportunities to draw upon and develop the expertise of staff; and to maximise value from existing Council systems

4 Challenge

4.1 Background

The challenge phase, recognised as being one of the most difficult parts of the Best Value process for Local Authorities, is designed to ask fundamental questions about why, how and by whom a service is provided. The Council acknowledges that access arrangements need to be simplified and extended to meet the needs of the community. It also acknowledges that it does not

Page 35 have experience in some of the new ways of making services available (for example integrated contact centres) and will have to have regard to best practice elsewhere.

‘Customer First’ encompasses all initial contact with the Council for information, advice and action by individuals, organisations and businesses. There is no doubt of the need for this interface. Our challenge therefore focused on:

• Exploring ways of improving our interface with the public so that it delivers the Council’s vision and puts the customer first • Challenging attitudes, ideas and assumptions as well as systems and procedures • Ensuring we are well placed to respond to the ‘modernising agenda’ including the challenges and opportunities presented by e-government and developments in technology • Exploring different patterns of delivery and suppliers in line with the Council’s Procurement Policy

It is also clear that some parts of the initial contact made by the public require advice, information or advocacy support. This should also be available at the first point of contact.

The challenge process was undertaken using the framework in the Best Value toolkit and included:

• Discussion at regular meetings of the Review team. • Analysis of how the service is currently organised and operating, including performance information. • Comparison of performance through relevant BVPIs and with best practice authorities and organisations (detailed in Section 6). • Using the results of consultation exercise with various stakeholders (detailed in Section 5). • Review information and inspection reports from other Best Value reviews, particularly public relations, property services and repairs. • Studying relevant documentation, including key national reports.

The issues paper at Appendix 1 lists the key findings from the Challenge phase.

4.2 Involving Elected Members in the Challenge Process

Three Members have been part of the review team (Councillors Mrs Twomey, Mrs Rush and N. Gill) and have all been closely involved in the process. They have attended meetings of the Review Team and received all papers. They also participated in visits to other authorities and public consultation meetings. Councillor N. Gill left the council at the last election

Page 36 In addition, a special meeting for all Members held in September 2001 was well attended. Involving elected Members in the review process has greatly strengthened the corporate commitment to change.

Key challenge findings from elected Members were:

• Members felt the review must be wide-ranging and cut across all parts of the Council structure. • The resultant solution should achieve borough-wide coverage and enable easy access for all, including minority and hard to reach groups. • There was strong support for change.

4.3 Involving Local People in the Challenge Process

Two challenge sessions with local people were held in July 2001. This was done by way of focus groups drawn from the 1,000 strong Citizens’ Panel and convened and conducted by MORI. 16 local people attended the focus group.

In addition a number of consultation exercises were undertaken during the review and the information was fed into the challenge process. To ensure we took account of as wide a range of views as possible, care was taken to identify a wide range of stakeholders and use a variety of consultation methods. These are described more fully in section 5.

Use was also made of outcomes from other relevant consultation conducted recently outside of this review.

The review tried to find ways of engaging positively with ‘hard to reach’ groups, such as people from black minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled people and young people. Significant effort was put into making the review as inclusive as possible, including a meeting with the Community Legal Partnership, a group of community/ voluntary organisations offering information, advice and advocacy services. Further details are provided in the ‘Consult’ chapter.

Key challenge findings from local people were:

• Local people wanted customer-focused services with flexible, extended opening hours. • There was support for one-stop shops in neighbourhoods and call centres, provided they retained a ‘human voice’.

Page 37 • Telephone is the main and preferred contact method, but needs to be answered promptly by someone who can deal with the query and not pass the caller round. • There was limited, but growing, interest in other electronic systems with recognition that this was the way of the future.

4.4 Internal Challenge and Scrutiny undertaken during the Review

The Review team included senior officers from all service departments and a representative from the Trade Unions. The team met regularly to discuss findings as the review progressed.

There were workshops and focus groups with customer facing staff and a briefing meeting with Trade Union representatives (see section 5). These have now been extended to regular meetings between the lead officers and the trade unions.

Challenge sessions were held with The Management Team and Departmental Management Teams.

The review team also met with the Council’s Equalities and Diversity Group. Both groups agreed to regularly exchange information to support one anothers work.

Regular quarterly meetings with the Chief Executive checked on progress and also allowed for challenge of the processes and findings of the review.

The review team also took into account findings from two risk assessment workshops run with senior managers by PricewaterhouseCoopers and reported in their Audit Letter 2000/01. This report acknowledged the significant progress made by the Council, but identified 6 critical areas that the Council would still need to focus on to achieve its objectives:

- strategic use of resources - learning - communicating - management of change - vision and delegation - partnership

Since then a significant amount of preparation work has taken place and this is outlined in the implementation plan. The Auditors Management Letter of December 2002 states:

“ The Council has made much progress over the year. There is clarity of the overarching vision and direction regarding its e-agenda and a good understanding and appreciation of the issues required to be addressed in getting there. The supporting corporate stewardship arrangements now in place put the Council in a good position to move the agenda forward. This

Page 38 should facilitate increased ownership and help give the e-agenda the level of status and prioritisation it requires within the organisation.

In order to progress, it is fundamental that Members fully endorse the recommendations arising from the Customer First Best Value review. As part of this process, there needs to be a clear consideration and articulation of all the potential implications that may arise from decisions made. To help facilitate this, a comprehensive corporate risk register identifying those potential e-related risks that will need to be managed appropriately, needs to be developed and maintained. For this to be effective, such a register should be viewed as an evolving and practical document; to be developed and monitored on an ongoing basis as part of a corporate risk management approach, thus ensuring that risks are recognised and mitigated against as and when they develop so that the benefits of the e-agenda are realised.

Whilst the significance of all the staff related issues associated with this major change initiative have been recognised, addressing these in practice will be a major step in 2003. The time and effort required for this should not be underestimated. Creating ownership, highlighting opportunities for future service delivery through internal marketing, identifying and unlocking the expertise and potential of existing staff along with capturing and addressing related training needs required to fulfil future roles, will require a fully inclusive process and a sustained commitment over time. Where expertise gaps are identified, these will need to be filled through identification and selection of suitable external partners, for example, in areas such as process reengineering and system enhancements.”

The review period coincided with a time of great change for the Council and cross-reference was made to major developments that were happening in parallel with the review. The most important of these were the review of Community Forums and the proposals to localise housing landlord services. These demonstrate the Council’s commitment to work closely with local people by creating new opportunities for local people to participate in decision making and by providing services that are responsive to local conditions with decisions taken as close as possible to, and with the maximum involvement of, those directly affected.

Other key documents that informed this review were reports from Policy Commissions, reports from BV reviews of other services and the Council’s review of civic accommodation.

Key findings from the internal challenge were:

• All services and departments should be open to review and we need to think beyond the bounds of our experience. • There are examples of good practice in the Council and these should be built on • There was support for single point of contact/one-stop shops – organisational barriers need to be tackled to achieve this.

Page 39 • Getting in touch should be easy and convenient with a choice of times and means of communication. • Proposed changes must be capable of implementation – both in terms of resources and skills/expertise required. • The Council should work in partnership with other providers to enable easier access to all public services. • Staff empowerment and training are key to success in ensuring appropriate staff attitudes. • We should make the best use of the latest technology to improve efficiency, access and service delivery. • Physical and language barriers to access should be removed and a proactive approach taken to reach disadvantaged groups.

4.5 External Challenge and Scrutiny undertaken during the Review

Kris Hibbert, Principal Member Development Manager from the Association of London Government (ALG), was recruited to the review team as a critical friend. She has worked with elected Members on the modernising agenda and is in touch with a number of customer first/accessible service initiatives in London. Her role was to introduce new ideas and challenge Barking and Dagenham’s views and approach to providing services. She attended review team meetings since October 2001 (when she was recruited) and contributed to the general discussions as well as suggesting specific areas that could be explored. Her key role, however, was to act as an independent ‘sounding board’ by reviewing the findings from each stage of the process as it was drawn to a conclusion.

4.5.1 A number of the Council’s first year BV reviews were inspected during the course of this review. Inspectors’ comments and recommendations relating to Customer First issues were also used to challenge the service.

4.5.2 Full account was taken of the need to respond to national drivers for change, including those set out in ‘E-Government – Delivering Local Government On-Line’ (February 2001) and ‘Modern Councils, Modern Services – Access for All’ (June 2001). There is also the need to respond to the Government’s challenging target for all public services to be available electronically by 2005.

4.5.3 The Review team was concerned to ensure that its work progressed alongside action by the Council to take account of the requirements placed on local authorities by the Government with regard to delivery of services by electronic means and the whole ‘modernising’ agenda. To this end the Council’s ‘Implementing Electronic Government Statement’ was considered, together with comments on e-government in the Audit Letter 2000/01.

4.5.4 A report from PricewaterhouseCoopers ‘e-government Diagnostic Review 2001/02’ made a number of general observations pertinent to the Customer First review, which confirmed the judgements and

Page 40 conclusions reached by the review team.

4.5.5 Key findings from external challenge were:

• Need to make clear links between Customer First/e-government/ICT strategy and develop a corporate business case for introduction of modern technological systems and practices. • Good communication with and between staff and their involvement is essential. • Need to develop and promote partnership working and break down departmental/professional barriers. • Scale of change management required should not be underestimated. • Further work needed to gather baseline information on customers, service usage, local needs and current systems. • The website has been dramatically improved, but further work is needed to maximise benefits of this and other available technology.

In addition, the Council’s e-government strategy should:

• Facilitate a step change in the way the Council inter-relates with citizens and partners. • Improve service efficiency and effectiveness and support high performance culture. • Enable citizens to access services in a way that meets their needs, ensuring that no group is disadvantaged by the new service delivery methods • Encourage greater service take-up and involvement in the democratic process.

4.6 How Comparison was used to drive the Challenge

4.6.1 During the course of the review, a variety of methods was used to compare Barking and Dagenham with the best performing councils and these are detailed in section 6 of this report.

4.6.2 As the compare phase progressed, the findings were considered by the review team and used to challenge both existing service provision and the developing proposals for the future. Key points are set out below.

4.6.3 Best Value Performance Indicators that relate to customer first issues were identified.

BVPI Description B&D London Top 25% Top 25% Average London Nationally 3 Satisfaction with the council 62% 54% 61% 70% 4 Satisfaction with complaint 33% 32% 35% 43% handling 80 Satisfaction with benefits service in relation to:

Page 41 I Contact/access facilities 56% 66% 74% 85% ii Service in the benefit office 60% 67% 77% 87% iii Telephone service 43% 49% 57% 80% iv Staff in the benefits office 69% 70% 77% 87% v Clarity of forms and leaflets 58% 59% 64% 66% ACPI Proportion of public 10% 9% (outer N/A N/A A1 buildings accessible to London) disabled people

As can be seen above, in many areas we do not perform in the top quartile either for London or nationally.

In addition the Audit Commission Performance Indicator relating to accessibility of our buildings shows that while we are above average performance for outer London, we fall short when compared to top performing authorities such as Hounslow (57%) or Croydon (36%).

4.6.4 The review team explored the way services in recognised ‘best practice’ authorities are organised and managed by reviewing published literature and visiting sites awarded Beacon status under Accessible Services theme.

4.6.5 Best Value Inspection Reports on customer-facing services were analysed and inspectors’ comments and recommendations fed into the review process (summarised at Appendix 2) to challenge both service performance and the review process.

4.6.6 Key findings from comparison that informed the challenge were:

• That our performance against relevant national PIs is not in the top 25%. • A one stop shop and call centre model is a feature of all Beacon council sites for Accessible Services. • There needs to be a clear vision for the future that links other strategies such as equalities, customer care, asset management and Information and Communication Technology.

4.7 Ensuring that the Challenges Lead to Specific Proposals for Significant Change

As noted above, there are a number of identified issues and risks involved in a major initiative such as developing customer access services. A specific risk assessment has been carried out on the Improvement Plan for the review and the Implementation Plan for the e-government strategy. This is attached as Appendix 5.

Page 42 4.8 Summary of Findings

4.8.1 Customer First and e-government are closely linked and a high-level, strategic approach is needed to deliver the objectives of both.

4.8.2 The location and design of some civic buildings are not suitable for modern public service delivery. Redesign/reprovision proposals need to ensure accommodation is welcoming and accessible whilst having regard to cost efficiency.

4.8.3 Getting through to the right person quickly is residents’ top priority. They want a range of channels/contact methods with flexible, extended opening hours.

4.8.4 Our performance against customer focussed performance indicators is not top quartile in a number of cases.

4.8.5 The Council has made significant improvements in the range of information available to the public and ways of accessing it. For example the website has been considerably improved and expanded. This work needs to continue, ensuring that people are not excluded because of language or other barriers. Providing clear information on what people can expect from the Council and the constraints that apply will go some way to prevent unrealistic expectations being raised.

4.8.6 Modern technological systems should be exploited to improve efficiency, access and the quality of service delivery. However, the ‘personal touch’ is valued and the choice of face to face contact should be retained.

4.8.7 People will find it easier to access public services if we work in partnership and break down departmental and professional boundaries.

4.8.8 The Council has stated its commitment to put the customer first. To do this requires more information on local needs, customer profiles, service usage and existing service provision.

4.8.9 Proposals will be wide-ranging, taking full account of best practice. Making modest improvements to administration and service delivery whilst leaving existing structures and systems intact will not be sufficient.

4.8.10 Achieving the required changes in culture and attitude will depend on investing in training, empowering and supporting staff and excellent internal communications.

4.8.11 Delivery proposals need to be capable of implementation in terms of Member/senior management commitment, money and available

Page 43 expertise.

4.9 Conclusion

4.8.1 The Challenge phase was used to provide an honest assessment of current arrangements for customer interface, consider external and internal drivers for change and take account of the views of as wide a range of stakeholders as possible.

4.8.2 The outcomes show that delivering the required improvements will require changes to systems, organisation and culture. The options for achieving these are set out in the improvement plan.

5. Consultation Phase

5.1 Background

The Customer First review team recognised that the findings of this review would impact on all stakeholders and would change the experience of all potential customers when contacting the Authority. To ensure that these changes can meet the expectations of stakeholders, it was vital that meaningful consultation took place during the period of the review, which would not only challenge the way in which services are currently delivered but would also assist in establishing procedures and patterns for the future.

To allow the Review team to utilise all the information that was available, findings were drawn from previous consultation exercises that had been carried out by other Best value reviews and by voluntary organisations; and from the consultation undertaken especially for this review.

The review recognises that the type and scale of changes implied by Customer First and by the e-government agenda will require ongoing consultation and research. The next steps are outlined in the improvement plan.

5.2 Ensuring meaningful consultation.

5.2.1 Having acknowledged the impact of the review, suitable methods of consultation were carefully considered, which would not only allow the review team to listen, but use the information to develop an improvement plan.

5.2.2 Local people were consulted through the following methods

• Focus groups • Questionnaire distributed via three different methods

1. Article in the Citizen magazine (33 replies) 2. Forms given to attendees at the community forums (116 replies) 3. Survey placed on the website (16 replies)

Page 44 5.2.3. Other stakeholder groups were also consulted using postal questionnaire surveys. These groups were

• Community & voluntary organisations • Local business and commerce and public services • School governors • Question in the annual consultation with schools

5.2.4 As previously mentioned it was evident that consultation exercises that had been carried out in the past held information that could inform this review. This information was gathered from a number of sources including the following best value reviews:-

• Public Relations • Housing Repairs • Council Tax • Property Services • MORI’s B&D Best Value survey for Street safe, Parks, Cemeteries, Libraries

5.2.5 Whilst completing the consultation phase of this best value review, top-line results from a MORI face to face survey were received. The survey was carried out on two days one in February 2002 the other in April 2002. These results provide up to date information on the views of local people. For example 44% found it difficult to get through to the Council on the telephone; but 61 % felt the Council kept them well informed.

5.3 Taking account of the diversity of the community.

5.3.1 The Citizens Panel set up by the Council with MORI takes account of the diversity of the community. Therefore the Customer First review team decided to use the panel for its consultation with local people.

5.3.2 The Review team recognised the need to work in partnership with other organisations. It was understood that these organisations are better placed to reach ‘hard to reach’ groups. To this end, the results of three consultation exercises, carried out by other organisations, were examined and used to inform the Customer First review.

The consultation exercises were as follows:-

• ‘Hearing the view of vulnerable people in Dagenham’ Carried out by The Primary Care Trust • Consultation exercise with the visually impaired carried out by Disablement Association of Barking & Dagenham • Community Consultation - Disabled people’s view on exclusion and inclusion in Community life and Disabled peoples views about developing a Centre for Independent, Integrated Inclusive Living in

Page 45 the Borough of Barking and Dagenham carried out Barking and Dagenham Centre for Independent, Integrated, Inclusive Living Consortium

5.3.3 Some difficulties have arisen in consulting with people from Black & Minority Ethnic backgrounds and younger people. As a result consultations with these groups has not been as successful as the review team hoped. To ensure that every effort is made to engage fully with these sections of the Community there are currently plans to consult with both groups through the Ethnic Minority Partnership Agency and the Barking and Dagenham Youth Forum. This will be done with the help of voluntary organisations ensuring that the consultation is meaningful, allowing the views of these groups to be taken into account in the changes that may take place.

5.4 Changes that have taken place as a result of the consultation.

5.4.1 To meet the challenges of the future it may be necessary to re- engineer the way the Council interfaces with the public and this will require a long-term strategic plan. The findings of the consultation phase will help to shape this plan. In addition a number of quick wins have been identified in the implementation plan so that the public can see some changes more quickly.

5.5 Feeding back the results from the consultation.

5.5.1 At the end of the review period an article will be produced for the Citizen magazine, reports will be circulated to the six Community forums, organisations, businesses and all interested parties that have taken part in this review. A report will be posted on the council’s website.

Information will be available to the local media and an article will appear in the Councils staff journal, People Matters.

5.6 Consulting with staff and their representatives.

5.6.1 Staff, in particular front line staff, are one of the key elements in ensuring the success of any future plans. The views of staff on how we currently provide services and what could be done in the future to improve were examined via focus groups and an article in the staff magazine, People Matters where staff were invited to submit comments. To ensure that staff are fully involved in the future plans further consultation has started and will be ongoing

5.6.2 Meeting have taken place with Union representatives. A union official was also a member of the review Team, and regular meetings are taking place with all trade unions and the lead officers.

Page 46 5.6.3. Views of senior managers were taken into account through meetings with departmental management teams and workshops run by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

5.6.4 Members on the Review were very keen to ensure that all staff effected by Customer First had an opportunity to be briefed and to contribute their views through formal consultation. As a result four 2-hour sessions were held for all ‘first contact’ staff in December 2002.

332 people were invited and 179 people have attended, representing a good cross section of services. More sessions are being held to offer a further opportunity to staff who have not attended so far.

The common themes from the consultation are:

• staff recognise the need for change, although there are concerns around this; • morale is low in some areas; • better information should be provided for the public about what is available and how to get it; • a new, integrated IT system will be key to success. This will be used for both information and transactions and must be widely available; • to deliver the vision the Council needs to invest in its staff, premises and communications; • many contacts are for basic information/service that could be provided at the initial point of contact, although there will still be a need for ‘specialists’; • skilled, trained staff are key. Relevant, timely training should be available to all. There were concerns that many problems result from inexperienced agency staff being in frontline jobs; • we need to ask customers what they want and cater for specific needs; • front line staff need to ‘own’ a query and take responsibility for it; • we need better co-ordination across the council – breaking down departmental barriers. Everyone needs to ‘buy in’ to customer first to make it work; • human contact is valued and many people prefer face to face contact; • more flexible access through additional (local) service points/extended hours was felt to be a good thing, although this would need investment; • a number of practical solutions were raised – e.g. up-to-date on-line telephone and service directories that were easy to search.

A total of 37 people have volunteered to join on-going focus groups.

5.7 Summary of findings

This cross cutting review used a number of sources for its Consultation phase. For ease of reference a table has been drawn up (Appendix 3) which summarises the outcomes of each of the consultation exercises.

Page 47 5.8 Conclusion

A variety of Consultation exercises were used for the review. The findings are as follows: -

Consultation reveals that 62% of residents are currently satisfied with the way that Barking & Dagenham is run. The Best Value Performance Indicators show that levels of satisfaction varies within different services.

• More information is needed on what some ‘Hard to reach’ groups think about the Council and what they would like to see in the future.

• When accessing Council services those consulted wanted access without delays waiting for the telephone to be answered or queuing and to receive accurate information from one person - not passed from one person to another.

• 67% of residents who took part in the questionnaire survey stated the preferred method of access to Council services is the telephone. This finding was borne out in the other consultation exercises that were used in this review. Interest was shown in the development of a call centre to allow increased access to the Council. To ensure good Customer Care calls should be answered by a human voice. Any Call Centre that is introduced should be to improve Customer Care not to make financial savings.

• The findings show that there is some interest in extended opening hours. This would be more convenient for various stakeholder groups.

• It is important to stakeholders that any enquiry that is made, is received and dealt with by well trained and knowledgeable staff who can access information to provide a seamless /joined up service.

• New technology does not appeal to everyone but most accept that increasing the contact with public services through technology is inevitable (access to the Internet is currently running at the national average).

• Customers will need reassurance that it will be easy to access the services using new technology and that traditional methods will not be closed off or reduced for the foreseeable future.

Page 48

6. Compare Phase

This part of the review looks at best practice in the Local Authority sector in recognition of the wide range of services provided by Councils. The Council will continue to learn from best practice as part of the development of the Customer First Initiative.

6.1 Processes used.

For the Compare phase of the Best Value Customer First Review, three major sources of data were used to compare the relative position of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham with other Local Authorities:

• visits to Local Authorities who demonstrate examples of best practise • statistical data provided from surveys and analysis from external bodies and • Documentation, both internal and external, on aspects of Best Value.

This data allowed for both quantitative and qualitative analysis to be carried out and provided a firm benchmark upon which to assess attitudes and performance.

Four Local Authorities were chosen for visits to reflect their Beacon Council status for Accessible Services theme;

• Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council • London Borough of Lewisham • Thameside Metropolitan Council and • West Sussex County Council with Mid Sussex District Council and Horsham District Council.

Further visits were made to the following council:

• Hertfordshire County Council

Details of the visits can be found in section 6.4 below.

Statistical data has been analysed from the following surveys:

• Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Pathfinder survey http://www.lga.gov.uk/ccn/Bowrey%20Presentation.ppt.

• MORI “Frontiers of Performance in Local Government” http://www.MORI.com/sri/frontiers.shtml

Page 49

• MORI Poll for The Post Office http://www.MORI.com/polls/1997/royalmai.shtml

• Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001: User Satisfaction Survey http://www.local-regions.dtlr.gov.uk/bestvalue/indicators/usersurvey/01.htm

• Best Value Community, the online resource centre for local e- government research and analysis, study of 267 English Councils' Implementing Electronic Government statements 2001. http://www.bestvaluecommunity.com/consilium_online/ontarget/index.asp? generic=Yes&page=OnTarget%20Feature%20Research

Reports that have provided data include the following;

• Nineveh Consulting Limited BVPI 157 analysis report July 2001 • Exeter City Council Application for Beacon Status • London Borough of Lewisham Citizen First “A Best Value strategic review” and • London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Benchmarking Survey 2002.

6.2 Satisfaction Levels

In October 2000, The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham undertook a survey in line with the former DETR requirements to assess the levels of customer satisfaction with Council services measured against the BVPIs for 2000/01.

During the same month, MORI conducted a London wide survey of residents to measure satisfaction against the same BVPIs and the details are shown below. The graph shows that in the two surveys Barking and Dagenham performed significantly above the London Average and was located in the top 25% of Local Authorities.

Page 50 User Satisfaction for London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

66 64 64 62 62 61

56 54 54

LBBD DTLR BVPI 2000/2001 User Satisfaction Survey LBBD Mori Frontiers of performance in Local Government Top 25% of London Boroughs DTLR BVPI 2000/2001 User Satisfaction Survey London Borough Average

6.3 Performance Indicators.

Best Value Performance Indicators that were considered indicative of good customer first/customer care performance were used to enable us to compare ourselves with other London boroughs and top quartile performers.

BVPI 80, which relates to user satisfaction levels with customer facing elements of the benefits service, was considered particularly relevant in the context of this review.

The results are shown in the graphs in Appendix 4 and summarised in the table below:

BVPI Description Top 25% Top 25% London? Nationally ? 3 Overall satisfaction with local authority ☺

4 Satisfaction with complaints handling ☺

5a Complaints determined by ☺ ☺ Ombudsman, classified as maladministration

5b Complaints determined by N/A N/A

Page 51 Ombudsman classified as local settlement

8 Percentage of invoices that were paid ☺ promptly

74 Overall tenant satisfaction with landlord

80i Satisfaction with contact/access facilities at benefits office

80ii Satisfaction with the service in the benefits office

80iii Satisfaction with the telephone service at the benefits office

80iv Satisfaction with staff in the benefits office

80v Satisfaction with clarity of forms and leaflets in the benefits office

BVPI 157 introduced for 2001/02 was also considered relevant:

♦ BVPI 157 Electronic delivery of service where legally possible

The following Audit Commission Performance Indicators (ACPI’s) were also reviewed.

♦ ACPI A1a The Authority’s number of buildings open to the public ♦ ACPI A1b The number of such buildings in which all areas are suitable and accessible to disabled persons

The graphs in appendix 4 show the relative performance of LBBD against top quartile performance for London and nationally. Also included is the average figure for all 20 outer London Local Authorities.

The performance of LBBD against the other outer London Local Authorities can be summarised as follows:

Page 52 Good:

1. In general satisfaction terms, LBBD is within the top quartile for London and 7% higher than the average outer London figure.

2. LBBD had nil complaints classified as maladminstration for 2000-01. This performance is within the top quartile both nationally and in London and it continued for the following year, 2001-02.

3. 83% of invoices were paid promptly. This figure is within the top quartile in London and although it doesn't quite fall into the top quartile nationally, it is significantly (9%) above the outer London average. It is worth noting that the performance for the following year, 2001-02, improved significantly reaching 88,1%.

4. LBBD has 82 buildings open to the public. This figure is higher than the average outer London figure of 66.

5. The number of buildings accessible to disabled persons is broadly in line with the outer London average.

6. Electronic service delivery is high at 45,4% with the average local authority at 35,2%.

Poor:

1. Satisfaction with complaint handling is just under the top quartile performance for London and in line with the outer London average.

2. Tenant satisfaction is below the top quartiles for London and nationally, however, it is broadly in line with the outer London average.

3. Tenant satisfaction with opportunities to participate is below top quartile performance.

4. User satisfaction with contact/access at the benefit office and user satisfaction with the service at the benefit office are below top quartile performance. User satisfaction with the telephone service and with staff at the benefit office is not within the top quartiles, however, it falls broadly in line with the outer London average.

5. User satisfaction with the clarity of forms and leaflets isn't within top quartile, however, it is broadly in line with the outer London average.

6. Percentage of buildings open to the public in which all areas are accessible and suitable for disabled persons is low at 9,8%.

The figures show that LBBD, where it performs well is significantly better than the outer London average, but where it performs less effectively LBBD is only

Page 53 just below the outer London average. However, performance against some of the selected indicators falls short of the top performing 25% of councils nationally.

6.1 Comparisons with other Local Authorities

To compare LBBD with other Local Authorities a number of visits were undertaken to see examples of best practise. Four Councils were chosen who were awarded Beacon Council status for the Accessible Service theme and one council who provided a contrasting method of service delivery.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council.

In June 2001 a visit was made to Knowsley MBC to assess the accessibility of service for the community. The council chose to adopt a One Stop Shop and Call Centre approach, which has taken 8 years to implement at a cost of £12 million.

Current service provision is by five One Stop Shops, a generically themed call centre and Internet access available at Libraries. The service is managed in house and has been awarded Beacon Council Status for Accessible Service.

London Borough of Lewisham

In 2001 a visit was made to Lewisham Council to assess access to service provision. Lewisham Council has adopted a One Stop Shop and Call Centre approach. Currently it operates one Access Point which provides a seamless service for personal visits: a Call Centre which received 1.5 million calls last year but only provides service in 4 areas and 15 Telly Talk video conferencing sites. It has also established a “Frontline Academy” which is a forum for frontline staff to share views and improve communication between service providers.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

In 2001 a visit was made to Tameside Council to assess access to service provision. Tameside Council has adopted a One Stop Shop and Call Centre approach. It currently operates 8 Customer Service Centres; a 24hr Call Centre and “Citizen Portal” which is Tameside’s Pathfinder Award winning Website. This allows for information to be accessed via the Internet for all customers who register their details on the site.

West Sussex County Council with Mid Sussex District Council and Horsham District Council.

In 2001 a visit was made to West Sussex County Council to assess access to service provision. The County Council comprises 7 separate District Councils and so has adopted a new approach to Customer Service. There are currently 18 Help Points, which provide a seamless service for personal visitors. There are 7 x 24hr helplines, answered at Horsham Help Point

Page 54 during office hours and by an out of hours team. The County Council is currently investigating the feasibility of providing a seamless Call Centre for the whole County but is hampered by the differing needs of the 7 District Councils.

Hertfordshire County Council.

In addition to the above four Beacon Status Councils, a visit was carried out to Hertfordshire County Council in June 2001. This Council has rejected the One Stop Shop model for service provision after a public consultation exercise in 1997 revealed very little public demand for a One Stop Shop service. However a seamless Call Centre was implemented which took three years to complete at a cost of £3.3 million.

In addition to personal visits, two councils replied to a benchmarking survey carried out in March 2002 by LBBD.

London Borough of Lambeth.

Lambeth Council has adopted a seamless Call Centre approach to service delivery following a Best Value review in 2001 and is in the middle of a pilot project which has expanded the existing Environmental Services’ Call Centre to allow all Council related enquiries to be dealt with. The current arrangement employs 17 staff and is managed in house. The Call Centre will be named Corporate Contact Centre.

Leeds City Council

Leeds City Council has adopted a One Stop Shop and Call Centre approach to service delivery. Currently it has 13 One Stop Shops providing a seamless service for personal visitors. It also has a Call Centre handling Housing and Social Services enquiries only. Other enquiries are dealt with in the relevant departments. 33 staff are employed in the Call Centre which is managed in house.

One application for Beacon Council Status was studied to compare examples of service delivery.

Exeter City Council

Exeter City Council made an application for Beacon Council Status in the Modern Service Delivery Theme. It recognised that its current system of Customer Service was failing and recommended a system of One Stop Shops to provide a seamless service to customers.

6.5 Benchmarking Survey

LBBD took part in an Outer London Local Authority benchmarking survey on Customer Care in 2002. The survey covered many topics from call answering times to complaints procedures. LBBD compared favourably in all categories

Page 55 and has the best reaction times for complaints regarding street cleaning of any Outer London Borough.

6.6 Summary of findings

• LBBD has a better than average satisfaction rating for its general service provision compared to other outer London Local Authorities.

• It performs above the Outer London average in 6 Best Value Performance Indicators.

• It performs below average in the remaining 9 Best Value Performance Indicators.

• All Councils that were visited or contacted have either established a Call Centre for seamless service delivery or are in the process of doing so.

• Only one Council contacted has rejected the model of One Stop Shop service provision.

• Of the four Councils awarded Beacon Council Status for Accessible Service Theme, three have implemented a One Stop Shop and Call Centre model with the remaining Council looking to do so in the near future.

6.7 Conclusion

The approach to public access being adopted by many authorities is a One Stop Shop and Call Centre model for customer service.

7. Compete Phase.

7.1 Background.

‘Customer First’ does not as yet exist as a discrete service. The role of providing a first point of contact for the public sits in a variety of posts across the different departments of the Council. In some areas this role is already highly differentiated- for example the staff who work in the Initial Contact Service in Social Services, or the staff who work in the Housing Repair Service.

In other areas of service – for example the libraries service – staff who provide the first point of contact for the public also undertake other roles.

Very little of the first contact with the public is provided by external agencies (the exceptions are found in areas like Goresbrook Leisure Centre where staff who work for a private contractors are in effect the face of the Council); or in partnership (the exceptions are areas like Community Mental Health Services where NHS and social services staff work together).

Page 56 However, this review is not just about the existing service. It envisages a completely modernised approach to Customer First. This includes new systems to support staff in dealing with the public; and new ways of offering access to services. These might be electronic (though the website, digital TV, smart cards); or in person on the telephone or over the counter.

These are all new or developing areas within the Council. Systems like Customer Relationship Management – to ensure that we can answer the majority of customers enquiries quickly and directly – have been reviewed. However systems like workflow or electronic document management systems are not developed to any great extent.

These systems are by their nature purchased from suppliers. There are now suppliers in the private sector and through local authority consortia, and implementation could be in house or in partnership.

The type of service which will be developed to ensure modernised customer access arrangements, and to meet the national e-government targets will require some radical changes to the way that services are organised and delivered.

Many other councils have either made these changes or are in the process of making these changes.

The option appraisal (below) is based on a review of the different elements of a fully modernised service:

• staff and change management • systems purchase • systems implementation and development • premises/facilities management

7.2 Cost Effectiveness of the Service

The current service is highly dispersed across different posts and roles across the different departments of the Council. It is therefore not feasible to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of the current service. It is recognised that this information must be available in future and it will be part of the Business Plan and the Improvement Plan.

However, initially at least, creating a modernised service will involve new arrangements which will require additional financial investment as well as investment in offering training and development for existing staff.

The potential for achieving savings will be reviewed as part of the outline business case.

Page 57 7.3 Conclusion

The results of consultation and the compare phase of this review both illustrate that the status quo is not an option. The national e-government target also supports this.

Equally, ceasing to provide the service is not an option.

8. Option Appraisal

The seven options for procurement are set out below. The table shows the different parts of the service and how they might be dealt with.

Option Possible Area Advantages Disadvantage.

Market testing of all All • Truly • Need a core in or part of the competitive house team to service. This • Open to new commission the involves the in ideas work house service • Well developed • Much of the competing with expertise in the service is external external market provided by organisations staff who also perform other functions. • Could also lead to fragmentation /loss of flexibility • Not easy to prepare an in house bid because the current service is dispersed across staff in all parts of the Council. To create an in house bid would require significant expenditure which might not be recouped Formation of a All • Could provide a • This option has public- private or balance similar public – public between in disadvantages to partnership through house and the Option above a strategic contract external as well as its cost or joint venture expertise

Page 58 company • Minimise disruption to service – especially where staff also perform other functions. • Would provide significant benefit at the planning phase. Transfer or • Initial contact • Cost. • There is no externalisation of service defined service the service to • Housing repairs to transfer another provider call centre. across the (with no in-house Council bid). • Transferring further parts of the service which are already targeted on customer interface would reduce the possibility of developing an integrated service

Restructuring or All • This will be • This is a major repositioning of the required to change of in house service provide an structure and integrated culture for all service Council • Offers a departments. significant opportunity to build on existing strengths and maximise value from existing systems Renegotiating of Not applicable • Will not create existing the changes arrangements with required the current provider. Joint Will offer integrated • Requires commissioning or access to public significant change delivery of service. services in systems,

Page 59 in systems, culture and structures Cessation of whole Not an option . or part of the service.

The appraisal of the options is set out below.

Option Appropriat Not Comment. e Appropriat e Market testing of all or b • There is clearly a well part of the service (where developed market in all of the in house provider bids the component parts of a in open competition modernised customer first against the private or service voluntary sector.) • In terms of producing systems the in house capacity would need to be enhanced. • There is no single in- house provider as the service is widely dispersed across the Council. Formation of a public – b • Modernised customer private or public – public access services will need partnership, through a to give access to a range strategic contract or joint of public and allied venture company for services. Will require a example. well trained and effective workforce • There may be a need for a range of partnerships to cover the scope of a modernised service. • A public-public partnership could offer the opportunity to integrate access to services ,for example with agencies such as CAB, Employment service ,Police Transfer or b • There is no discrete externalisation of the service to transfer service to another • Parts of the service could provider. be transferred

Page 60

Restructuring or b • There is considerable negotiating of the in expertise and knowledge house service. in the in- house staff group – the improvement plan will include a process for developing this and reviewing ways of integrating the service. Renegotiations of existing Does not • arrangements with apply current provider Joint Commissioning or b • Opportunities for joint delivery of service commissioning will be reviewed with the Barking and Dagenham Strategic Partnership. • Corporate commitment to honest procurement Cessation of all or part of b the service

8.1 Options for Future Service Delivery.

Customer First is a complex strategic initiative. It encompasses a number of areas of service development.

• Systems design and procurement • Systems implementation and development • Managing staff changes • Development of premises/ facilities management.

The Council will adopt an appropriate approach to each of these areas and will therefore need to research and design an appropriate solution as an outline business case.

The Council recognises that there is a well developed market in the type of systems required to improve customer information. These are both in the private sector and in local authority consortia. The Council will complete its review of systems and their implementation before making any decision about how to proceed.

Systems Implementation and development is also an area where the Council has limited capacity. This work will therefore be reviewed as an opportunity for partnership working.

The issues involved in staff management are complex and far reaching:

Page 61 - Existing staff who provide initial contact services are dispersed across the Council; the Council will consider the viability of integrating initial contact services into a single customer service providing integrated customer access to services. The staff training and development issues are wide-ranging and ongoing. The Council will consider the investment required to achieve these changes. It will also seek opportunities to build on existing partnerships to support the change management, training and development required.

- For those customers who prefer to see a member of staff or who need to be seen as part of the service (for example in Social Services) the development of appropriate one stop premises/ facilities management will be considered as part of the initial business case to review the best way to modernise customer access. If new premises are required they will need to be designed and built or refurbished.

However, because of the scale and nature of such a development these decisions need to be carefully planned. To produce this plan – the outline business case will require private sector expertise in relevant areas (such as systems development) to help define the Council’s requirements and the specification for the new service.

The implementation plan includes an initial workplan for this phase. In addition the implementation plan includes a number of ‘quick wins’, which will also be explored during Year 1.

9 Recommendations

Customer First is new to the Council. On the basis of this review we make a number of recommendations about setting up and implementing new ways of working. These are set out below

9.1 Setting up the Customer First Initiative

The review recommends that

• A corporate Customer First initiative be developed supported by a team to operate as the intelligent client for the programme

• The Customer First Initiative is integrated and managed alongside the e-government agenda

• The Customer First Initiative is far reaching and will take time to implement .The Council must acknowledge the scale and nature of the changes required at an early stage in the development of the Customer First Initiative.

• Some of the most impressive examples of good practice have been developed incrementally starting with a small number of streamlined processes and building on these. The Council will learn from these

Page 62 successful examples where front and back office systems are really integrated to provide a better and faster service for the customer.

• A risk assessment will be undertaken prior to the preparation of the initial business case so that our plans are based on a thorough understanding of what needs to be done.

9.2 Planning the Customer First Initiative

The review recommends that

• The Balanced Scorecard approach is used to produce the improvement plan for this initiative - including an initial budget and timetable.

• The Council produce an e-government strategy and update it in line with local public consultation and the emerging national e-government strategy.

• Improvements to customer contact services are based on wide ranging public and stakeholder consultation.

• Improvements to service are based on the Community Priorities.

• Customer care standards be based on public consultation.

• The Customer First Initiative contributes to improving social inclusion for example through improving adult literacy and redressing the digital divide.

• The Customer First Initiative seeks links to other significant changes in the Borough –for example the regeneration programme to support the vision for the Borough which aims to tackle some of the social issues which face local people.

• New access arrangements be developed in conjunction with partners through the Barking and Dagenham Local Strategic Partnership.

• The improvement plan distinguishes between the 3 services with the largest amount of customer phone traffic –and the other smaller services.

• Opportunities for automation be investigated across the council but services are still to be provided by a human voice.

• The Council considers introducing a marketing function to understand local needs and aspirations and design service and access arrangements accordingly.

Page 63 • The Council considers how the Customer First Initiative can support the Council’s drive to improve performance - including by developing customer care standards based on public consultation.

• The Council consider how to ensure that new customer contact services can offer Borough wide coverage at times and in formats that are acceptable to local people.

• The Council consider how to improve the information and decision making that is available through customers preferred contact arrangements.

• The Council prepares an option appraisal of possible contact centre arrangements, improved web based access and information, and improved intranet services for staff and one stop services based on public consultation. This will include a review of the premises required and looking at existing centres used by the council and other opportunities with partner agencies such as aid and advice centres.

• The mix of services and contact opportunities attractive to the public to be determined through public consultation. It is also important to note that the quality of service is very important – the public have indicated that they are prepared to travel for information as long as they get a good service when they get there.

• The Council considers how to maximise the benefits for improving access services through current initiatives such as the development of Community Housing Partnership offices (which are the new local housing offices).

• A programme of consultation with all stakeholders to determine in more detail the preferred patterns of service access and decision making that would improve customer satisfaction particularly ‘hard to reach’ groups who have been under represented to date and may have specific needs.

• Review ways of equipping and empowering staff so they may provide better information and decision making.

• Areas of poor performance identified in this review be considered as part of the outline business case in order to seek improvements.

• The Council consider best practice in how, when and where services are made available as part of the outline business case.

9.3 Resourcing the Customer First Initiative

The review recommends:

Page 64 • That the management structure and finance to enable the Customer First Initiative to be planned and implemented be made available • That the nature and scale of the changes required are likely to involve some partnering arrangements • The major programme of change management that will be required be properly resourced • That the council provides resources to meet the significant equalities agenda involved in Customer First for example translating its website into the main community languages

9.4 Implementing the Customer First Initiative

Because of the corporate and strategic nature of the changes required to ensure a modernised customer access service there are a number of steps to be taken before a new service can be designed and implemented. The Review recommends that

• The Council prepares a detailed plan for the new service. This will be based upon an initial business case and subject to consultation with staff and partner agencies.

• To produce the detailed plan, the Council seeks assistance from external partners with expertise in a number of areas

• The Council implements ‘quick wins’ when these have been identified as part of the initial business case

10. Improvement Plan

These changes go to the heart of everything we do as a Council and the way we do them.

The implementation plan recognises that such a major programme will require expertise not currently available in the Council. It is based on

• Establishing the Customer First Initiative, including implementing the balanced scorecard and e- government strategy

• Setting up the Customer First Programme board to oversee the programme

• Identifying the projects which will make up the overall programme

• Identifying public sector partners

• Identifying the skills required to support the projects and programme co- ordination

Page 65 • Procuring relevant specialist expertise to plan and implement the programme

• Implementing the projects

10.1 Setting up the Customer First Programme Board

It is proposed that a Customer First Programme Board is set up to oversee the programme. Membership is proposed as follows

Role Requirement/responsibility Customer First David Woods – will act as the Champion. TMT’s Customer First and e- Government champion. Elected members Cllr Jeff Porter, Cllr Mrs Twomey, Cllr Mrs Rush Service Leads. Heads of Service appointed by each of the main service DMTs. Head of Information and Paul Offen - chief technical Systems Technology advisor. Borough Finance Officer Chief financial advisor. Head of Public Relations Jane Bufton -Chief advisor on external stakeholders communication and involvement. Borough Policy Officer. John Tatam-Ensure that direction of the programme conforms to strategic policy objectives. Borough Personnel Alan Beadle-Ensure that staffing Officer. issues are properly considered.

Senior e-Strategist. A person from outside of LBBD bringing innovative and informed thinking on customer focus and e- government practice and possessing the ability to influence decision making at the highest level. Customer /staff Nomination arrangements to be representatives/Trades decided Unions Head of Customer First Lawrence Ashelford - Responsible for the overall direction of the programme and reporting progress to the Board.

10.2 Management and Development Team

To deliver this improvement plan will require a dedicated planning team

Page 66 The team will be led by the Head of Customer First. This role is being undertaken by Lawrence Ashelford on secondment.

It is proposed that the team comprises:

• Change Management • Ongoing training and development • Commissioning & procurement • Programme Management • Administrative support • Additional accountant within Housing & Health team.

Members are being recommended to resource this team subject to justification for up to 5 years at a cost of £600pa with initial start up costs of £65k.

10.3 Training and Staff Development.

There are approximately 320staff who currently deal with the public at the first point of contact. The changes proposed will involve significant retraining for these staff. In turn this will require investment and will also need ongoing discussions with the Trade Unions.

10.4 Premises.

The requirements for premises are currently being evaluated. This includes reviewing whether buildings can be used more effectively to create an integrated approach to contacting public services or whether new investment is required.

10.5 Consultation

The Customer First balanced scorecard will form the basis for wide ranging consultation across the Council and with partner agencies. Wherever possible Customer First services must make it easier for the public to access all public services from one point.

10.6 Initial work Plan

The Customer First Initiative will include new ways of accessing services and retraining many staff. It is dependant on new systems and ways of working that we do not have experience of in the Council. It is therefore proposed to develop the initiative with private sector partners who have the required skills in systems development, telecommunications and reviewing work processes. The indicative workplan for the first stage of the project will allow us to identify and retain private sector partners for the project as set out below.

Page 67 2003 2004 TASK M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O Agree e-gov & CF strategies Making the partner case e-gov options conference Business case report Decision – TMT Decision - Executive Project initialisation PID Set up Board1 Project Team2 Advertise OJEC advertisement Outline Requirements Selection Plan Short Listing Review submissions Check References Interviews Invitation to Propose ITP documents Access for proposers Proposals close Evaluation Plan Evaluation – First Phase Review proposals Immediate clarifications Interview proposers Select to (say) 2 Evaluation – Second Phase Invite 2 re-proposals Discuss with two Reference existing clients Review re-proposals Interview staff Select to 1 Negotiation Refine proposal Negotiate terms Agree service methods Proposer access Invite BAFO3 BAFO

Page 68 2003 2004 TASK M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O Due diligence (if app) Receive BAFO Finalisation Review BAFO Accept offer Finalise contract docs Provide accommodation Sign contract Delivery Partner joins CF team Review programme Joint working on projects

Notes:

1. This could be the Customer First Programme Board 2. Including Project Manager, Partnership Procurement and Legal advisers. 3. Best And Final Offer

This initial workplan will provide some of the technical resources to implement customer first and e-government. Implementation is likely to take a number of years

10.7 Costs

The projections for external expenditure are as follows (£000):

2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 Total 3684 3121 3171 905 10840

These figures are based on the Council’s first Implementing e-government Statement, where potential savings, dependent upon a number of factors, of £3,273,000 per annum were identified. The costs are based on the experience of other Local Authorities. A formal cost benefit analysis is currently being prepared. Both the costs and the potential savings will require a review of existing budgets. The Government has provided funds for e.- government expenditure and other sources of funding will also be explored. These figures do not include the cost of the in-house team required to support the initiative, as set out above.

Page 69 10.7 Developing the Customer First Initiative

At this stage it is only possible to identify the broad scope of the wider programme as set out below. The timing of these developments will be subject to discussion with the Customer First Programme Board. As set out above the overall goals of customer first are:

• Easy access to all public services • Customer requirements Identified, anticipated and satisfied • Top quartile performance

Within this context the key objectives are:

• To initiate, create and direct the Customer First initiative • To create and implement new working arrangements across the Council and with partners • To create a financial programme for Customer First • To develop a workforce strategy

This means that in five years time:

• Customers enquiries are answered quickly and they are not passed from one person to another • Customers do not have to repeat the same information to several different people • Customers enquiries resolved quickly without the need to chase progress or demand further action • Customers receive services in a way and at a time that is convenient to them rather than to the organisation • Members find it easier to track enquiries from constituents

The key work areas are therefore:

• Improving customer relationship management • Researching the need to develop a network of contact centres • Improving local contact arrangements based initially on the Community Housing Partnership • Reviewing opportunities to use other local centres for improving access – for example in libraries and in conjunction with the Primary Care Trust • Developing a marketing function across the council in order to improve our understanding of local people's needs-and to design and promote service changes on this basis. This will start shortly with a detailed analysis of a sample of households • Reviewing and streamlining back office systems and processes- reducing bureaucracy wherever possible • Retraining all the staff who deal with the public when they first contact the Council • Ensuring that the Council's website is properly organised

Page 70 • Developing and implementing a new vision for the Councils intranet This programme encompasses the e government agenda but is also being developed to serve the wider policy objectives of the Council. The strategy includes proposals to support those with different abilities, whose first language is not English, who are economically disadvantaged or who are not comfortable with using new technology, to ensure they are not disadvantaged by the spread of new systems. Customer First is also being used to encourage greater involvement in the democratic process. The current position is that people can: • access the Council's Corporate Complaints procedure and complain online • access the Corporate Customer Care Guidance • get details of their Ward Members and Ward Surgeries

Future plans include:

In 2002/03 -

• access to agendas, minutes, reports etc. for political structure meetings • online Forward Plan with an email link for people to have their say on future key decisions • web pages for each element of the political structure together with a hyperlink to the agendas, plus a direct link to the relevant Democratic Services Officer • access to a summary of the Council's Constitution • submit online suggestions or compliments about Council services • submit nominations for the Ceremonial Council • "blow the whistle" on non-confidential issues and assuming the person is happy to remain anonymous

In 2003/04 -

• register to speak at Development Control Board meetings • apply for postal/proxy votes • web casting - interaction with the Assembly meetings [subject to funding and Member approval]

In 2004/05 -

• extension of web casting • submission of election nomination papers

Action Plan 2003-05

The table below sets out the high level action plan for the overall programme.

Page 71 Completed Actions

Improvement Required Pri Key Actions Progress/Comments ori ty Customer First programme 1 Produce BV Review report including implementation plan Completed – reported to Executive 28th agreed /implementation starts Consult all departments on the draft strategy prior to January 03 formal consultation Done Customer first balanced scorecard developed Scorecard, strategy map and implementation Develop new vision for the revenues & benefits service plan produced

Page 72 and produce 1 year project plan Vision developed and year 1 now being put into operation

Customer First strategy/e 1 Prepare initial procurement brief in respect of planning Done government strategy being and implementation team implemented Assess the market for planning and implementation Done and Public Information Notice placed in partners in preparation for Members’ decision on European Journal resources Proposal to redesign IT service produced Review IT service In preparation Review accommodation and develop Customer First

accommodation strategy

Service improvements to 1 Produce specification for widespread public Done meet the needs and consultation aspirations of residents Produce a brief for a pilot marketing Done analysis of a sample of households To maximise external funding 2 IEG2 Statement submitted to secure Done and Funding agreed in Principle opportunities Government funding To introduce one stop working 2 Create opportunities to shape the Done Community Housing Partnership in Barking as an embryo one-stop service – including involvement with the police Single view of customer 1 Set up Customer Relationship management Group established and meeting regularly Page 73 available group with Initial Contact Service, repairs call centre, health and consumer services

and revenues and benefit staff representation Review CRM market and scope Done requirements for a CRM system Improved content/ 1 Develop project management arrangements Web development group established and transactions on website for the website project plan developed To introduce e procurement 2 Review the e-procurement market Position statement being prepared Improve range and quality of 2 Begin programme to improve the intranet as Done information available to staff a major staff resource – including on intranet streamlining internal Human Resource process

Improvement Plan Community/Customer First

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Customer First 1 Implement Best Value 2003-4 Planning team recruited by £ 600,000 LA programme agreed improvement plan to July 2003 /implementation deliver the Council’s March- May Programme board starts vision established by March 03 2003 Prepare outline change management plan

programme and in place by May 03

Page 74 Business Case and communication plan present to the prepared by March 03 Executive

project work underway in:

Revenues & benefits by KA

March 03

Health & Consumer JD Services by March 03

Environmental MM management by March 03

Present detailed Plan and resources Feb 2003 improvement plan for agreed

the Revenue and Benefits service to the

Executive Customer First 1 Implementation of Best 2003-5 Planning LA strategy/e Value review/e team/finance government government strategy

strategy being Outline business case May 2003 implemented agreed by Members CRM specification Begin phased produced by March 03 introduction of programme set out in first licences procured by £60,000 Outline Business Case October 03

ICT integration plan

produced by May 2003 Page 75

Phase 1 May-Dec 2003 improvements to Implement Year 1 plan £100,000 telephone service/new KA for revenues and office in Barking benefits /improvements to

reception area

Other visible benefits for

the customer as set out in

the outline business case

May-Sept LA 2003 Review Accommodation strategy accommodation agreed requirements Resources for future phases to 2004 LA be quantified as

Phase 2 Implementation of be quantified as proposals are integrated customer service starts including developed 2005 LA some complex customer Phase 3 transactions delivered from a single point Implementation of new face to face service points Service 1 Undertake programme Ongoing from Information gained from Support from LA improvements to of consultation with the Dec 2002 customer surveys, focus departmental staff groups and exit polls. meet the needs public, across the £25,000 and aspirations of Council and with Presentations made to

Page 76 residents partner agencies community forums, management teams and Barking and Dagenham Strategic Partnership Staff briefings and focus groups held

Promote equal 1 Evaluate options and 2003-4 Options evaluated by 2004 WAC access and social prepare plan for Information on website inclusion providing information in available in 10 main different community languages by languages/formats 2004 Information in other formats available in 10 main community

languages by 2004 Costed proposals for total language/format coverage drawn up by 2004 2 Develop an equalities 2005 Opportunities explored by WAC and diversity website 2005 Website developed by 2005 1 Commission best 2004 Brief prepared by 2004 WAC practice service guide for each main Brief in use by 2004

Page 77 community/excluded group

Funding the Future Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Funding to 1 Create a financial Feb 2003 Customer first budget plan LA/CAR LA implement framework prepared by Feb. 03 Customer First Procure support Ongoing from progress and expenditure £2 million pa required including 2003 in line with budget plan BPR/change management/systems/s ystems development/systems integration

To maximise 2 Application(s) for Ongoing Funding secured Staff /skills LA external funding external funding made opportunities Performance Counts

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress To introduce one 2 One stop shop 2003-5 Range of additional Planning LA stop working accommodation services available from team/systems strategy agreed Ripple rd by March 04 /training /buildings Prepare plans for Plans available for future Page 78 implementation of new phases face to face services Single view of 1 Introduce Customer 2003-5 Initial licences for CRM Finance/systems LA customer available Relationship purchased by October 03 £60,000 Management CRM in use by Oct. 03 Improved 1 Create and implement From summer Web development group Departmental e LA/SL content/transaction project management for 2002 established by Sept 02 champions s on website the website Project plan developed by /finance October 02 Increased use of website To introduce e 2 Audit existing service From March Vision and model Staff/ finance LA/SG procurement 2003 designed by Sept. 03 Develop and introduce pilot arrangements in e procurement 2003-5 place in central stores, IT,

training and consultancy by Dec. 03 intranet in use for all procurement by 2005 People matter

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Develop workforce 1 Prepare brief Ongoing from Strategy prepared by Finance/consultan ARB strategy to improve Develop partnering Spring 2003 2003/04 cy training/developme arrangements Partner in place by 2003 Page 79 nt opportunities for Establish Customer College and staff training initial contact staff College programme established by 2003 Improve range and 2 Create and implement Spring 2003 Vision prepared by Sept. Finance PO quality of a new vision for the onwards 2003 /consultancy information intranet management arrange- available to staff on ments in place by Nov. intranet 2003 Increased use of site

Key

LA - Lawrence Ashelford, Head of Customer First KA - Karl Afteni, Head of Revenue Services SL - Sheyne Lucock, General Inspector Information Technology WAC - Bill Coomber, Corporate Equalities and Diversity Adviser SG - Stephanie Goldsmith, Corporate Procurement Officer ARB - Alan Beadle, Borough Personnel Officer PO - Paul Offen, Head of IS&T

Page 80

Appendix1 Issues Paper – Customer First

KEY

CFRM Meeting Customer First review Members Red file

CFMB Customer First Members’ briefing 3.3

SSPC Street Scene Policy Commission 7.65

CEBV Meetings review lead/CE 3.1, 7.2

TMT Meeting with TMT 3.2

DMT Meetings with departmental Management Red file Teams E&D Meeting with Equalities and Diversity group 3.5

ACCOM Report on civic accommodation remodelling 7.77

LLS Report to Executive on future of Landlord 7.57 Services CFC Customer First Consultation File 11

BVR BV Review report - Repairs X.1

BVCT BV Review report – Council tax & NNDR X.2

BVPR BV Review report – Public relations X.3

BVPS BV Review – Property services 7.6

BVIPCL BV Inspection report – Political & community X.4 leadership BVIPR BV Inspection report – Public relations X.5

BVIR BV Inspection report - Repairs X.6

BVIs Analysis of relevant BV inspection reports from X.7 other councils PWC PriceWaterhouseCoopers e-Govt. diagnostic 6.54 review AL Audit Letter 2000/01 7.58 IEG Implementing E-Govt. Statement 6.52 NIN E-Government Strategy 6.53

Page 81

Issues Source

Scope Review cuts across all parts of Council Structure CFRM Must be wide-ranging, radical and fundamental CFRM All services and departments must be open to review TMT

Access Borough-wide coverage – access for all CFRM, IEG, BVIs Have regard to community languages spoken in borough CFRM, E&D, CFC, BVIR, Access hours to be extended to suit customer – including CFMB, BVR, contact with operational staff BVCT, CFC, DMT, IEG, BVIs Involve young people CFMB, E&D, DMT Extend library hours and use as contact points CFMB, IEG One-stop shops in shopping parades/neighbourhoods – learn CFMB, CFC, from East Street DMT, IEG Cost (of one-stop shops) CEBV, CFC Plain English/clear forms E&D, BVCT, BVPR, CFC Ensure physical access for people with physical disabilities E&D, BVIR Variations in building quality/specification/ease of access BVPS Town Hall and Civic Centre designed in a period when general Accom public not encouraged to come in Civic buildings intimidating to casual visitor and obstacle for Accom people with physical/sensory impairment Isolated residents may find it difficult to visit local offices and/or BVR may not have a telephone Some people prefer to visit local office (rather than telephone) BVR Extension to Stour Road office & sufficient seating BVCT Additional office in Barking area BVCT Waiting time in reception area BVCT Access to private interview facilities/toilet facilities BVCT Provide comprehensive information/leaflets; corporate identity BVR, BVCT, BVPR, CFC, BVIR, BVIs Good signage BVCT, CFC, BVIR The importance of public access to the council as a whole on BVPR influencing the public’s view of the Council needs to be recognised Potential to house information points in schools CFC Residents unclear who to contact when seeking help/advice CFC Low literacy levels DMT

Page 82 Are there services that must be face to face? TMT

Staff Training and empowerment of staff is key – keep them fully CFRM, TMT, informed and involved CFMB, CFC, BVCT, PWC, BVIs Must change attitudes as well as procedures, be flexible CFMB, CFC, BVCT, DMT, BVI’s Need to consider how information/staff are kept updated BVI’s

More frontline staff/provision of cover during sickness etc. CFMB, CFC Is required expertise (to deliver) available in house? CEBV Policy should be produced to ensure equitable service BVIPCL, delivery, backed up with staff training on equalities and CFC diversity Effective management and support for staff dealing with CFC angry/abusive clients Training on ICT systems and access to information CFC, PWC Significant investment in training is needed, particularly in BVR relation to customer care Lack of ownership/personal accountability for information CFC Good communications between colleagues/ways of sharing CFC, PWC, good practice AL, IEG

Vision/Future Need strong corporate strategy and clear vision with aims and BVI’s objectives that can be translated into a business plan Some parts of service may be externalised CFRM, BVI’s Strong support for radical change CFMB Build on what exists (eg ICS and repairs call centre) CFMB, DMT Clarify role of Members – IT links to surgeries CFMB Standard of contact with the public should be improved – move SSPC, CFC, towards single point of contact for people living/working in IEG borough Operational areas should be coterminous with community SSPC, LLS forums Need to link with Police/post office/property review CEBV, IEG Need to develop improved customer care standards & embed CEBV, CFC, them in policies BVI’s Cost efficiency a very important criterion – must be TMT, DMT, ‘implementable’ and sustainable PWC, BVI’s To become a listening council need to know about our TMT, DMT, customers - their needs and expectations. More baseline CFC, PWC, assessment work needed to establish customer profile and IEG identify gaps. Need to make best use of accommodation (cost effective) BVPS

Page 83 Ensure customers are at the forefront of service provision and LLS, CFC development Corporate approach needed for future of Control Centre BVR, IEG because of its different functions – may want to look at 24/7 one-stop service Management structure and responsibilities needs realigning to BVCT, PWC be ‘customer focused’ Improved service quality – better access to poor services is TMT, DMT unacceptable Learn from previous and current experience, but how to think TMT, AL wider than our experience Councils have a duty to communicate. They should work in BVPR, CFC, partnership with other providers to enable easier access to all PWC, IEG public services through their communication activities Insufficient recognition of the scale of change that is needed in BVIPR the role of the communications service . . . if the Council is to deliver the modernisation agenda The council needs to strategically integrate its communications BVIPR, with the following reviews: ICT and Customer First BVI’s, PWC, IEG Flexibility, choice and quality CFC Danger in raising (public) expectations that cannot be fulfilled DMT Paternalistic/patronising attitudes must change DMT, CFC Need to find out who is not using services DMT, PWC End of committee structure helped break down DMT ‘departmentalism’ – more corporate approach. Care that community forums do not lead to ‘power bases’ developing Stronger support for joined up working/break down CFC, PWC, departmental barriers AL Need to link business needs identified at departmental level PWC Policy commitments to support the delivery of excellent CFC services Adequate resourcing – people, skills and money PWC, BVI’s Effective communications strategy to keep all stakeholders BVI’s informed Technology Improve use of voice-mail, unanswered telephones & e-mails CFMB Link between e-government and modern public interface TMT, BVPR, NIN, IEG, AL Sometimes difficult to contact repairs call centre and queuing BVR, BVIR system in use is confusing E-business – including payments BVCT, DMT, IEG Modernised IT systems BVCT, BVR, CFC, IEG Telephones promptly answered, not passed around BVCT, CFC, BVPR, BVIR, DMT, IEG

Page 84 Residents focus group was positive about main switchboard BVPR and access to information about the council The website has been radically improved and made more user BVIPR, friendly, but further development needed DMT, BVI’s Telephone main and preferred means of contact, but BVR, CFC increased interest in visiting office/using e-mail Interested in call centres ‘with human voice’, ‘personal touch’ CFC valued Technology should be used to improve customer care and CFC, PWC reach new customers, not make cost savings Limited interest from general public in use of internet, although CFC acknowledged it will come Getting through to right person quickly is residents’ top priority MORI (CFC) Exploit IT eg video conferencing, info. points etc. DMT, IEG Need for confidentiality/data protection issues DMT, CFC, PWC Integrated databases/improved access to systems CFC, PWC Corporate business case for e-Govt. initiatives needs to be PWC, AL developed and process mapping undertaken to identify processes that add value and those that duplicate etc. Need understanding of current state of play of IT systems PWC Facilitate a step change in way Council inter-relates with NIN citizens and partners Support high performance culture NIN Help drive to raise local literacy rates NIN Improve service efficiency and effectiveness NIN Enable citizens to access public sector services in ways that NIN meet their needs Ensure that no group is disadvantaged by the introduction of NIN, AL new methods of service delivery Encourage greater service take-up and involvement in the NIN, AL democratic process

Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 86

Appendix2 Positive comments by the Negative comments Recommendations made by the inspectors inspectors Authority with scoring

Adur District Customer focused vision Not translated to first contact Consult the community on common standard areas. Council service plans & individual targets Ensure that all customers can access the CC services at * Fair service all access points that will Community receives variable probably Helpful staff customer service at the different Information is displayed at access points improvePage 87 contact points New direct dialling and new Poor corporate identity at the Develop & implement a proactive approach to diversity. switchboard access points. Not all staff including training for front line staff Partner with West Sussex and trained in customer care. Lack of achieved Chater Mark award for sharing of information throughout Help point services the contact points lack of consultation with hard to reach groups and partners to access Consultation is beginning to whether services are accessible drive improvements Comparison limited to few local Develop bench marking opportunities councils Reputation- Adur DC has a Conduct research into the possibility of developing the track record of implementing A lack of research has limited the service in Partnership with other CC. CAB, Post offices change and is in the process of challenge made to the services Voluntary or private sector implementing performance and restricted competition management system

Brighton & Improvement in public access – Inconsistent opening hours Hove Council core value Communication & Consultation issues- ‘Public One stop shop – way of tackling Accessibility of some of the Research on consulting with hard to reach groups Access’ social exclusion building Share learning on consultation throughout the *one star Easy web access organisation promising Made changes in response to Over reliance on Voice mail prospects for customers suggestions improvement Page 88 Services users & staff involved Difficult Financial situation Explore joint working initiatives in the review

Realistic plans for improvement covering all areas identified Change management – no plans Ensure the users and staff are clear how changes to Clear commitment to deliver to cope with changes to work public will be achieve. improvements – staff & practices Councillors

Lewisham Good quality staff Some inconsistency of Develop Customer services Champions corporately ‘One Stop Learning organisation information and service throughout the directories Shop’ Good customer care strategy Review the training academy **two star Positive attempts at partnership Quality of queuing system Look at business case for additional access point using likely to working Design of fast track decks and the guidance on procurement improve willingness to consider seating Improve equipment and facilities i.e. seating

innovation Problems with telly talk Wyre Clear aims and objective Inadequate telephone system Review opening hour to take account of customer’s Borough Accessible buildings request for extending access. Council Family friendly facilities Reception & Friendly staff Switchboard Good consultation & comparison *one star will conducted Training for staff on new telephone system improve Good improvement plan Finance already approved for Health and safety checks in building the new telephone system Reputation – history of improving performance Learning culture BoltonPage 89 Clear aims for the future No review of postal Ensure that adequate consultation take place especially Metropolitan Which are ambitious communication with vulnerable people – strengthen communication with Borough Corporate Valuing Diversity Current service – access time staff & people in line with Communication Strategy Council policy and access to some of the ‘Customer Good spread of offices building Establish baseline information on postal communication interface’ Polite staff Signpost in town and the Town and integrate this with the overall strategy Switchboard answered promptly Hall confusing and poor *One star will Good information and support in Inconsistent & inadequate Develop a detailed implementation plan improve the one stop and other venues provision of service in some area

Will improve because Good improvement plan & CRM strategy which 4c’s applied with extensive comparison & consultation adequate challenge. programme

in place to test competitiveness including strategic partner clear phased approach to implementing CRM strategy Finance identified- therefore sustainable programme Reputation- good change –& improvement. Corporate strategy I.T. standards

Congleton Staff a helpful / receptionist No aims or objectives for CS 18 recommendation were given Borough strive to provide good service covering the full range of Customer services e.g. Council Response time times are kept to Staff are not trained , ideas are ‘CustomerPage 90 Council newspaper not valued ♦ extending opening hours in line with Customers care’ needs no star will Involvement in quality schemes Reception areas both in terms of ♦ improve the speed of exchange and quality of probably in some services facilities and overall quality of information by introducing a formal system for improve service needs attention updating the information available for receptionist and telephonist Information leaflets do not ♦ review all council leaflets with a view to streamlining have a corporate style and are and standardisation. not written in Plain English ♦ Info in plain English and a range of formats including Probably improve Braille and audio tape Ambitious improvement plan Accessibility for people with ♦ keep front line staff informed of progress on the reflects findings and public will hearing and visual impairment improvement plan benefit Reputation : track record of ♦ decide on the short medium and long term future of delivering improvements and the current information centres in order to better target improvement plan is immediate improvements underway

♦ option appraisal to identify the most competitive means for future service provision

Page 91

City of York Ambitious vision for the future Vision unclear to staff- Investigate further how and why Customers need to ‘Access to Detailed analysis of customer Insufficient analysis of contact the Council services’ transaction types information collected One star will Staff – use of ‘expert’ front line Better provision are needed for Translate the vision into reality for staff and probably staff people with disabilities Customers .& demonstrate how staff can help to improve Reception facilities Access confusing + standards achieve corporate priorities Quick deposit facilities variable at access points Telephones Web information out of date Develop a programme of addressing security and F.L. Information kiosk not used and staff training. often not working Introduce consistent Standards for Customer Care Probably improve because Lack of corporate ownership

Page 92 Effort , research and commitment Capacity t IT network to deliver put into review + vision for the Training of staff Challenge the cost of access put at £7 million and future How can customer services be identify opportunities for savings improved in the short term prior to pilot scheme? Reputation Corporate culture Improvement plan to include and the lack of joined up working Measurable targets across departments. Resources and responsibilities- including links to the asset management plan How the pilot scheme be implemented what it means to the customer

Identify a lead officer

London At the time of inspection it was Borough of Corporate vision and good links unclear how the vision could be Next stage – develop a robust improvement plan that is Southwark to the corporate plans and put into practice SMART ‘Public strategies. Had not been put into Business Because of the amount of work required follow up visit Access’ plans. Clear links from service by inspectors to ensure that vision has been developed fair service objectives , the implementation unlikely to plan and staff targets were not Recommendations improve made at the time if the Review telephone service inspection consider opening hours to meet the need of the customers Some training in customer care -this had not yielded great allocate staff across one stop shops and some experiments in waiting benefits for the services users improve queue management time shad been tried and to the council itself Page 93 It had recognised the need to improvement plan: change in culture and approach more work required and faster ensure it incorporate smart targets progress to ensure success provide Stakeholders with regular updates on achievement time scales throughout the review were proving difficult to meet establish links with key services – Property and ICT

Ensure Public access corporate aspirations are included in service business plans Ryedale Clear and challenging aims Limited scope – unable to judge Careful implementation of the restructuring programme district Website – which has received whether will achieve Top 25% Completion of the access to services review Council national praise performance Production of e government strategy ‘Communicati Staff training and induction In first six months on and Staff made aware of key A strategy for external communications Customer development issues via team Produce and implement C.C policy Relations’ briefings Define standards and responsibilities in response to **Two Star visitor to Ryedale house.

likely to imp. Fully implementation of communication charter and ensur Communication charter - lack of strategic direction for e staff development procedures are fully implemented both internal and external communications . Will probably improve – (providing initiatives are vigorously pursued ) Items in the improvement plan clearly linked to analysis in the review.

Comprehensive improvement - emphasis on progress rather plan – 43 tasks with completion than outcomes and there are few

Page 94 dates hard targets Reputation: has track record for innovation Plymouth City Strategy provides good a clear Current aims for each services 15 recommendations made in 4 main areas Council and challenging future vary in degree of consistency b ♦ easier access *one star objectives clarity and challenge. ♦ consistent service unlikely to Service aims not understood or ♦ competitive improve communicated and customers ♦ steps to achieve top quartile have not been involved with their development Front line staff helpful Service varies between services and departments lack of cohesive management of customer contact impacts detrimentally on all service levels Insufficient cost data plus lack of comparative data

Review outcome focused Did not connect or fundamentally challenge all of the service areas contributing to the customer contact service . limited its ability to drive forward improvements Achievable short term action and targets( which limited progress has been made) put no step change more review s and decisions required Page 95 Not all partners and stakeholders are signed up to the improvements

March 02

Page 96

Appendix 3

Consultation matrix – Customer First review

Table 1. Consultation commissioned by the Customer first review

Page 97 Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used General Public Barking & ♦ Important to have customer focused services. Residents treated as customers not Dagenham as a nuisance citizens panel 2 ♦ Need for empowered staff

focus groups ♦ Would wish to see one- stop shops in neighbourhoods concerns raised about the finance in providing these. ♦ Interested in flexible/ extended opening hours put would need to look at the operating time of all the services not just the first point of contact ♦ Were not very interested in the use of emails and the internet communications although acknowledged they would eventually come. ♦ Preferred telephone as a means of communication concerns raised about phones not being answered ♦ Interested in call centres that had a human voice not a machine –should be introduced to improve Customer care not make financial savings

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used Questionnaire used distributed 33,116, 16 replies respectively via three different methods ♦ Telephone the main method of contact remained the preferred choose

♦ Article in ♦ Increased interest in visiting an office and using email Citizen sent to every home ♦ Access without delays

♦ ♦ Page 98 Forms given to To speak to someone who can answer the enquiry ( not be passed from one attendee at person to another) Community Forums ♦ Extended hours

♦ Survey placed on the website

Other Questionnaire 8 replies stakeholders survey( 20 sent) ♦ Telephone preferred method of contact ♦ 100% interest in the development of one stop shops Community & ♦ well trained staff aware of the needs of all stakeholders voluntary ♦ Continued consultation organisations ♦ Closer working with voluntary organisations (Members of ♦ Information in Accessible formats the Community legal forum)

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used Local Questionnaire 8 returned businesses survey(13 sent) ♦ Telephone preferred form of communication. commerce and ♦ Interest in email and face to face public services ♦ Empowered staff Education Questionnaire 111 returned (school survey ♦ Varied means of communication has potential governors) ♦ Email or internet for internal communication ♦ Communication by letter to staff /pupils/ parents/carers ♦ Communication in person – to give a personal touch Page 99 Schools Question included ♦ Electronic communication for information from the Council in the annual ♦ conventional methods letters when dealing with non- schools people consultation with ♦ potential to develop other means of communication in the future with non schools schools people

♦ potential to house information points for the community

Staff Discussion with 5 ♦ Emails & telephones main methods of communication Housing strategy ♦ Letters to external organisations officers ♦ Improved access for service users not seen as enhancing the work of the team

Briefing meeting ♦ Increase in staff with trade union ♦ Training needed for staff representatives ♦ Need for one centre for Barking & Dagenham ♦ The need to overcome language and literacy difficulties

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used Senior mangers ♦ Need for departmental partnership working workshops with ♦ Need to learn from good practice and our mistakes PWC ♦ Equalities & diversity needs to remain high on the agenda ♦ Need to move from paternalistic approach towards public consultation and involvement.

Discussions with ♦ Need to change attitudes as well as systems departmental ♦ Proposals must be adequately resourced managers and ♦ More work needed to gather baseline information Page 100 teams ♦ Website improved but more work needed TMT

Workshop with ♦ More joined up working required / partnerships customer facing ♦ staff Flexibility- choice and quality ♦ ICT training for front line staff ♦ Involve staff in planning and implementing improvements to the service Housing & health staff focus group ♦ Training for staff front line staff ♦ Empowered staff with clear areas of responsibility ♦ Flexibility needed ♦ Favourable response to one telephone number approach ♦ Opening times to suit the Customer Article in People Matters 1 response ♦ Learn from experience of the communication centre and other front line staff

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used ♦ Effect management ♦ Training ♦ The need to feel part of a team ♦ The need to feel supported when dealing with angry or abusive ♦ The need for adequate information Focus groups held December 02 with ♦ staff recognise the need for change, although there are concerns around this (as 179 customer would be expected) facing staff ♦ morale is low in some areas Page 101 ♦ better information should be provided for the public about what is available and how to get it ♦ a new, integrated IT system will be key to success. This will be used for both information and transactions and must be widely available ♦ to deliver the vision the Council needs to invest in its staff, premises and communications ♦ many contacts are for basic information/service that could be provided at the initial point of contact, although there will still be a need for ‘specialists’ ♦ skilled, trained staff are key. Relevant, timely training should be available to all. There were concerns that many problems result from inexperienced agency staff being in frontline jobs ♦ we need to ask customers what they want and cater for specific needs ♦ front line staff need to ‘own’ a query and take responsibility for it ♦ we need better co-ordination across the council – breaking down departmental barriers. Everyone needs to ‘buy in’ to customer first to make it work ♦ human contact is valued and many people prefer face to face contact

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used ♦ more flexible access through additional (local) service points/extended hours was felt to be a good thing, although this would need investment ♦ a number of practical solutions were raised – e.g. up-to-date on-line telephone and service directories that were easy to search

Table 2. Consultation that has informed the Customer First review Page 102

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used Business Questionnaire 53 returned Commercial survey (197 sent ♦ Telephone main method of contact Tenants out) ♦ Difficulties in contacting the right person and obtaining information (Property ♦ Request dealt with slowly. Services B.V.) Various Questionnaire ♦ Citizen magazine –good quality & value for money stakeholders surveys ♦ Members-would like to see service developed on the website ( public relation ♦ Media – development of website with back releases BV review) ♦ Staff – PR the need for increased resources and a clearer understanding on a corporate level of the importance of communication ♦ Main issues lack of communication with the council as a whole Public relations Questionnaire ♦ Respondents unclear as to the appropriate contact at the council when seeking help B.V.review cont. survey and advice

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used Citizens panel (communication) ♦ Citizen seen as trusted source of information ♦ Citizen, local papers ‘ council produced leaflets ways of distributing council information. ♦ Internet access increasing in line with national trends ♦ The need for information both factual- service s, points of contact and local events plus how decisions are made and how local peoples views inform those decisions B&D Best Mori survey ♦ The majority of respondents felt that their query was not dealt with well – although Value Survey – out comes may not be changed there is a need to ensure pertinent customer care Street safe priorities are met Page 103 parks , ♦ MORI’s experience ,getting through to the right person quickly is residents’ top Cemeteries and priority Libraries Primary care Face to face ♦ Interviewees saw First Contact people in the local authority - the Council and trust survey emergency personal (alarm systems) as an initial source of help ‘Hearing the ♦ Better communications views of ♦ Single point of contact Vulnerable ♦ Attention to environmental issues- car parking pavements people in Dagenham

Disablement The need to improve association ♦ Signs Consultation with ♦ Lighting the visually ♦ Leaflets impaired ♦ Locations

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used

B&D CIIL Questionnaire Community ♦ 54% used Social services as a first port of calling accessing services and support consultation on ♦ 69% used the telephone as ameans of communication ‘Disabled ♦ 38% visited offices peoples view on ♦ Not given enough information exclusion and ♦ Need support to get out more inclusion in ♦ Don’t know where to go to get help lack of accessible transport community life’ Page 104 LBBD summary 62% satisfaction with the councils service of results BVPI survey Best value Various ♦ More seating in the reception areas review (council ♦ Extended opening hours tax) ♦ More access via the telephones Best value Various ♦ Telephone contact with a call centre seen as being the most convenient way to review on report repairs Housing repairs ♦ There was interest expressed in a repairs service operating out of normal hours ♦ Staff –customers perceived to be low priority for the service too system focused ♦ Members – concerns about operating an out of hours service Best value Personal and inspectors postal 80% found it easy to contact the council survey – questionnaires customer satisfaction on

Stakeholder Consultations Outcomes Group Methods used Housing repairs Mori Citizens’ Face to Face ♦ 64% Fairly satisfied/very satisfied panel 1,038 completed ♦ 63% proud /fairly proud of living in Barking & Dagenham recruitment ♦ 50% have access to a personal computer 2002 ♦ 44% have access to the internet ♦ Find information about the Council from - ♦ Citizen 80% ♦ Local newspaper 66% ♦ Leaflets 37% Page 105 ♦ Council staff 9%, Website 2% ♦ 44% find it difficult to get through on the phone ♦ 51% feel that the residents are not involved in decision making with16% of the figure stating no involvement ♦ 61% feel that the council keeps residents informed ♦ 56% would use the email and the internet for various activities. ♦ 74% feel staff are friendly and polite

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 106 APPENDIX 4 Performance Indicators 2000-01

BVPI 3- Satisfaction with the Local Authority

80% 70% 60% 50% Satisfaction 40% Top quartile National

Page 107 30% Top quartile London 20% 10% 0%

t t m y y n g ld y w g n w n e n st e o es m es e ge fi l rto a m a exle alin n rro s m h utto nha Bren E a n a bridg S For BarneB romle E H llingdo Me ew ha B Croydo Haringe Haverini ou N ed aver H H R Dage on-Th pon T up altham d u W ondon king & r L ar B ingston- K ichmon Oute R

BVPI 4- Satisfaction with complaints handling

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% Satisfaction 25% Top quartile National 20% Top quartile London Page 108 15% 10% 5% 0%

y y n g d y g n e t m e w w es m es s ge net ent l do in el o e a r al nge rton ha m utton or ar B om oy i e a B Bexle E Enfi Harro M S ver Br Cr Har Haverinillingdo New a H Hounsl Redbridg tham F upon-Tham al ng & Dagenha n- W ki London ar B uter O Kingsto Richmond upon Th

BVPI 5a- Number of complaints determined by an Ombudsman which were classified as maladministration

5 4 4 3 No. complaints Page 109 3 Top quartile National 2 2 Top quartile London 1 1 0

t y y g y g n s s n t e m e e n o m rn l ield ri d dge tto res ha x ydon f e g ri n e Brent o Ealin n ringe wha b e Ba B romle E Harrow lin Merton d hameSu Fo g B Cr Ha Hav Ne T m Hil Hounslow Re a Da h & g Walt on-upon-Thame London averag rkin t r a B ngs hmond upon i c Oute K Ri Top quartile value (London/National): 0

BVPI 5b - Ombudsman complaints classified as local settlement

120 111

100

80 80 74

Page 110 60

40 35 31 26 26

20 16 15 13 13 8 6 7 7 6 6 4 5 4

t y y s n e m nt on ld w w on ge re d ring don rest g ham rid nha exley B Ealing nfie ringe arro ve ames Barne B romle E a H unslo hame Mert ew h Sutto verag ge B Croy H Ha o -T N edb a Hillin H R am Fo pon T h & Da upon u ndon g n- Walt o ond arkin gsto m B in Outer L K Rich No quartile information available

BVPI 8- Percentage of invoices which were paid promptly

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Percentage paid promplty 50% Top quartile National 40% Top quartile London 30%

Page 111 20% 10% 0%

y t y n n s n n m et e n e o ld ey ng w e o m ge o ge re e g row ri do o a d a ha arn xl aling n r e g sl h ri orest r n e B E nfi ri a n n w ames e B B roml royd E a H li ham Mert e db h Sutt F ge B C il T e T a H Hav H Hou - N m n av n R on a o D po p & u nd g -u o n WalthL in o nd r rk t e a mo t B u ings ich O K R

BVPI 74 - Tenant satisfaction overall with Landlord

90% 80% 70% 60% Satisfaction 50% Top quartile National 40% Top quartile London Page 112 30% 20% 10% 0%

t n g d y n s s n e w m e st ge lin iel row o o a to e rne a r sl me h m t a nhama Brent oydo nf n w a or e B Bexley r E E Ha u Merton Su F BromleyC o -Tha Ne Th Haring HaveringHillingdH n am Dag on Redbridgeo h p p lt & u g n-u d Wa o n rkin st o er London aver g m t Ba in Ou K Rich

BVPI 75 - Tenant satisfaction with opportunities to participate

80%

70%

60%

50% Satisfaction Page 113 40% Top quartile National Top quartile London 30%

20%

10%

t m et y n ld w g s m e e ley ng ey on e ton est ha ren ie g m dg rag arn ex B ali nf gd nslow ames ut e en B B romle E E Harro Merton bri h S For v g B Croydo m a a Harin HaverinHillin Hou Newha n T D n-Tha Red on o po & u nd -up o n nd WalthaL to o r arking s m e B h ut ing O K Ric BVPI 80i - User satisfaction with contact / acess facilities at the benefit office

90% 80% 70% 60% Satisfaction 50% Top quartile National 40% Top quartile London 30% Page 114 20% 10% 0%

t y n s e t e e ld e w o s g ie g ro ring e a ham mley f n e gd r n arn Brento Ealing ar v ame bridg e e B Bexley r En H a Merton d Sutton v g B Croydon illin -Th Newhame a Hari H H Hounslown n R ham For po pon Thamest do & Da u n -u o n d Wal L o n r rking st o e g t Ba Ou Kin Richm

BVPI 80ii - User satisfaction with the service in the benefit office

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Satisfaction 50% Top quartile National 40% Top quartile London

Page 115 30% 20% 10% 0%

t d t ey on l w ge on s ge l d ling ie ro ring ton am d t a x a f slow h mes ut Brent oy E ar er BarneBe r En H un Mer dbri ha S Forev BromleyC illingdon e T a Haringey HaveH Ho New m n n-Thames R on o do up altha -up on W L nd r e gston Barking & Dagenham n hmo ic Out Ki R

BVPI 80iii - User satisfaction with the telephone service

90% 80% 70% 60% Satisfaction 50% Top quartile National 40% Top quartile London

Page 116 30% 20% 10% 0%

y y g s n n t et e on n s n d eld row ri to e ham fi nge e ham ridge mes or Brentomley Ealing i ar ame b erage Bar Bexl En ar H av Mer ew ha Sutto v gen Br Croy H H -Th N m F HillingdonHounslow Red n T ltha & Da a ndon a o ng d upo W on rki ter L Ba hm u ingston-upon ic O K R

BVPI 80iv - User satisfaction with staff in the benefit office

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Satisfaction 50% Top quartile National

Page 117 Top quartile London 40%

30%

20%

10%

g s et es e on am n ent ield row ing t Br ingey gdon orest Bar Bexley EalinEnf Har lin ham Merton Sut F BromleyCroydon Har Haver T Newham Hil Hounslow Redbridge am Dagenh on- h & up upon Tham Walt on- r London average king ond e hm Bar ingst c Out K Ri

BVPI 80v - User satisfaction with clarity of forms and leaflets

70% 60% 50% Satisfaction 40% Top quartile National 30% Top quartile London 20% 10% 0%

t Page 118 m et y n ld w g s m e e ley ng ey on e ton est ha ren ie g m dg rag arn ex B ali nf gd nslow ames ut e en B B romle E E Harro Merton bri h S For v g B Croydo Newha m a a Harin HaverinHillin Hou n T D n-Tha Red on o po & u nd -up o n WalthaL o nd r t o e arking s m h ut B ing O K Ric

ACPI A1a - The Authority's number of buildings open to the public 2000/1

140

120

100

Page 119 20

t m et y n ld w g s m e e ley ng ey on e ton est ha ren ie g m dg rag arn ex B ali nf gd nslow ames ut e en B B romle E E Harro Merton bri h S For v g B Croydo Newha m a a Harin HaverinHillin Hou n T D n-Tha Red on o po & u nd -up o n Waltha L o nd r t o e arking s m h ut B ing O K Ric No quartile information available

ACPIA1b - The number of buildings in which all areas are suitable and accessible to disabled persons 2000/1

5 Page 120

Percentage of buildings open to the public in which all areas are suitable and accessible to disabled persons 2000/1

30 Page 121 20

The graph below shows that LBBD has made significant progress toward the BVPI target of 100% electronic service delivery by 2005. It is significantly higher than the Outer London average and this was reflected in the awarding of Local Government Chronicle Award April 2001 winner for “Improving services with E-technology. This award reflects the commitment shown by LBBD to answer the findings of the Pathfinder Survey conducted on E-Government in 2001.

BVPI 157 - Electronic delivery of service where legally possible 2001/2

120

100 Page 122

0 LBBD Average Local Highest Score for BVPI 157 target BVPI 157 target Authority Local Authority for 2002 for 2005

Where are we now? a snap-shot

40% of people have PC with internet access

65% last contacted their Council by phone (1% by e.mail) Page 123 35% of people have used a PC to get information, advice or buy products over the last 12 months.

50% of people think new technology will make it easier to deal with the Council.

DTLR Pathfinder Survey

Page 124 RISK ASSESSMENT Appendix 5

Areas of Risk/Impact Circumstances in Risk Severity Likelihood Impact What controls are What controls Lead Member/ Review Date for (Strategic) which it would occur [High/Low] [Likely/Unlikely] [High/Low] in place need to be in place Officer Risk/Impact Political – lack of Members/senior H L H Member Keep Members/ Cllr Porter( vision/leadership officers involvement in senior officers (Executive Lead) - not fully committed to review & through informed/involved DHH( TMT Lead plans or changes Programme Board Officer) needed to deliver them Members H of DS - underestimate scale E-govt. champion Reference Group of change required (Member) identified Identify key supporters TMT lead officer

Economic – Insufficient capital M L H Capital programme Good monitoring & HC1st insufficient resources investment E-govt. funding forward projection to implement planned Clearer view of improvements other works/funding

Page 125 that contribute e.g. CHPs/refurbishment

Lack of/Insufficient on- H L H Corporate funding Commitment to DHH going revenue support regime funding

Over-reliance on L U L What control have Identify all potential HC1st external funding we got over it? sources of funding

Costs higher than H L H Costs phased Robust CBA HC1st anticipated Regular monitoring/ forward projection Social- fails to deliver Service access M U H Improvement plan Plan HC1st on social inclusion proposals fail to proposals/BSC delivery/monitoring agenda address equalities Proposed issues consultation with minority groups Increased use of H L H Improvement plan Good HC1st technology widens the proposals/BSC communications divide Kiosk/call centres No/low take up of operational and technology by user friendly, plus customers finance for meeting specific needs e.g translation

work closely with regional/sub regional agencies to encourage intervention with Telcos develop demand and capacity within the community to

Page 126 encourage Telcos to respond

Need to achieve Wide High Low discussions H IS & T Area Network (WAN) with WAN as foundation to providers delivering electronic aim to reduce government targets cost of WAN by partnership with other authorities and agencies Technology may not be Medium Medium Contract WAN H IS & T “future proof” as a managed service.

Areas of Risk/Impact Circumstances in Risk Severity Likelihood Impact What controls are What controls Lead Member/ Review Date for (Operational) which it would occur [High/Low] [Likely/Unlikely] [High/Low] in place need to be in place Officer Risk/Impact Legacy systems may Very Low ????? High Identify H IS & T not be suitable for potential scope of (likely) (High) delivering services (high) problem from ICT electronically. (e.g. inventory inability to integrate to Electronic overall systems Service Delivery architecture) Strategy will identify those systems that may inhibit progress to delivering services electronically. Policy parameters set for new systems to

Page 127 ensure capability of supporting electronic service delivery Neighbouring LAs aiming to agree set of technological standards/protocols. Legislative – fail to Changes to Govt. H U H Keep abreast of Keep under review HC1st meet statutory policy Govt. changes Project Plan targets/requirements CPA assessment Fair CPA Work to improve assessment CPA assessment Environmental – none identified

Areas of Risk/Impact Circumstances in Risk Severity Likelihood Impact What controls are What controls Lead Member/ Review Date for (Operational) which it would occur [High/Low] [Likely/Unlikely] [High/Low] in place need to be in place Officer Risk/Impact Competitive – cost Decisions/costings H L H Preparation of Robust CBA HC1st effectiveness of made with inadequate outline Business Good data on staff proposals baseline info. Plan numbers/costs - fails to deliver best Lack of baseline traffic/throughput value information - etc. developments not based on demonstrable Monitor HC1st business needs Failure to attract L U H Work to seek partner partner Work with ext. consultants

Customer/Citizen – Decisions based on L U H Proposed extensive On-going HC1st needs not met limited information on consultation consultation customer wants/needs Page 128 Customer needs M L H Consultation/market Ongoing HC1st change ing proposals consultation analysis of Improved H L H “ surveys/complaints access/information Communicate what leads to raised can be delivered demand/expectations

Unable to deliver joined H L H TMT lead member Continue existing Cllr Porter up services Head of Customer and link to controls DHH First for commitment to Work with existing change (above) partner agencies Staff consultation/ briefings

ineffective H L H Communication HC1st communications strategy Maintain effective People matters/ communications newsletters Regular review staff survey Work force plan Business Process Re-engineering Integration Systems

- lack of skills/capacity under-developed back- H L H Improvement plan HC1st office systems Plans for training Monitor plan

Page 129 Implementation not H L H Plans for training HC1st adequately resourced Deliver and evaluate training Failure to recruit/retain M U H Robust Job Specs programme BPO or train suitable staff HR processes Monitor Failure to attract L U H Work to seek HC1st suitable partners partner Work with ext. Monitor consultants

Financial – return on Projected savings not H L H Taking opportunity Monitoring HC1st investment delivered to deliver ‘quick Robust financial Director of wins’ plan & Business Finance Plan Legal – data Inadequate security L U L Data protection Monitor H IS & T protection/privacy /control arrangements arrangements issues Disparate systems proposals obstructed H L H Information Review existing Borough Solicitor by data protection Management data protection Officer/corporate arrangements group

Areas of Risk/Impact Circumstances in Risk Severity Likelihood Impact What controls are What controls Lead Member/ Review Date for (Operational) which it would occur [High/Low] [Likely/Unlikely] [High/Low] in place need to be in place Officer Risk/Impact Physical – no suitable Existing buildings too H L H Asset management Council HC1st accommodation expensive/not capable plan/accommodatio Accommodation of conversion n strategy strategy needs to - security of staff Cash handling/working H U H Staff risk take account of at remote sites/out of assessments Customer First hours H&S audit/action BPO plans Monitor and update Contractual – Respecification of M L H HR processes Monitor BPO changes to staff hours/ways of working Employment law conditions/contracts TU involvement Staff consultation

Technological – disparate systems/lack H L H Improvement plan Monitor HC1st - inability to ‘link’ of common standards E-govt. strategy existing systems

-system failure Technology failure L U M H IS & T Page 130 Disaster/catastrophy L U H H Is & T

Environmental – none identified

Glossary DHH Director of Housing Health HC1st Head of Customer First CMG Corporate Monitoring Group BPO Borough Personnel Officer H of DS Head of Democratic Services H of IS & T Head of Information & Technology TMT The Management Team WAN Wide Area Network ICT Information, Communications Technology LA Local Authority CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CPA Comprehensive Performance Assessment H & S Health & Safety AGENDA ITEM 6

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND LIBRARIES

BEST VALUE SERVICE REVIEW OF SPECIAL FOR DECISION EDUCATIONAL NEEDS FINAL REPORT

The report sets out the findings of the best value review. The report makes recommendations on the future delivery of the Education Service. The review, report and improvement plan will be subject to inspection and it is therefore a politically sensitive matter. For this reason it is necessary that Members agree the report.

Summary

This report sets out the conclusions of the Best Value service review of Special Educational Needs. The review took place over a period of 20 months, from January 2001 to September 2002. In accordance with statutory guidance the review included challenge, consult compare and compete stages. This report summarises how each of these stages was undertaken, the findings and the conclusions that were reached. Also included is the proposed action plan for the service together with options for the future delivery of the service and the capability of each of the options to deliver the service in the manner required. Two separate service areas have been identified for option appraisal. A preferred option is included for each of these two areas.

An executive summary is also provided which sets out the vision for the service and summarises the key changes and improvements that are proposed as a result of the best value review.

Recommendations

Support for SEN is a statutory obligation upon the LEA. The service must, therefore, continue to be provided. At present, the significant majority of support is provided in- house. A small, but relatively expensive, element (e.g. residential accommodation for children with very complex needs) is purchased from outside the borough.

In relation to those services provided within the borough; they are neither particularly expensive nor particularly cheap. Services are generally well regarded by schools. Provision has recently been inspected by Ofsted. Considerable improvements have already been made to address areas of weakness. An extensive restructuring of the former Children’s Support Division, linked to the post-Ofsted Action Plan is already in progress. In view of these considerations, it is recommended that: • These services should continue to be provided in-house. • Restructuring arrangements should be given time to prove their effectiveness. • The impact of restructuring should be reviewed after a period of at least two years.

Page 131

In relation to service elements currently provided externally it is recommended that: • Current contractual arrangements should be reviewed to explore their cost- effectiveness. • Provision for pupils with visual impairment should be reviewed to ensure that, in future, they match those currently available for pupils with hearing difficulties. • The range of provision for pupils with complex emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) should be researched to identify more cost-effective approaches. • Opportunities for improved local provision and multi-agency support should be explored. In particular the borough should explore the benefits of locating integrated provision on a single site, for example that currently occupied by the Jo Richardson Community School, due to be vacated 2004/5.

Reason

The preferred option for future service delivery is in line with the principles of best value. The proposed Action Plan will lead to significant improvement over the next five years

Contact Officer: Principal Inspector Steve Rowe Tel: 020 8270 4820

Page 132

Best Value Review: Special Educational Needs

Final Report

December 2002

Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 134

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 2

1. BACKGROUND...... 4

2. DETAILS OF THE SERVICE UNDER REVIEW ...... 6

3. CHALLENGE PHASE ...... 10

4. CONSULTATION PHASE ...... 16

5. COMPARE PHASE...... 20

6. COMPETE PHASE ...... 24

7. OPTION APPRAISAL ...... 28

APPENDIX 1 OPTION APPRAISAL 1: CENTRALLY-PROVIDED LEA SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SEN .. 30

APPENDIX 2 OPTION APPRAISAL 2: EXTERNALLY-PROVIDED LEA SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SEN 32

APPENDIX 3 ...... 34

APPENDIX 4 BEST VALUE PIS...... 38

APPENDIX 5 BEST VALUE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...... 42

APPENDIX 6 LEA POST-OFSTED ACTION PLAN...... 54

APPENDIX 7 GLOSSARY OF TERMS...... 64

Page 135

Page 136 1

Executive Summary

Context: The Service under review meets the needs of around 1100 Borough pupils who have full Statements of Special Educational Need. It also supports schools in meeting the needs of pupils who do not have full Statements but who nevertheless have medical, emotional and / or learning difficulties that affect their life chances and educational performance. This represents between 15% and 25% of the pupils in any given Borough school.

The major (in-house) service elements reviewed in this report are: central SEN administration services, the Educational Psychology Service, the SEN Team of the Community Inspection and Advisory Service, Specialist Intervention Teachers, the Hearing Impaired Service and the Acorns Early Intervention Project. In addition the report scrutinised the costs of services purchased from outside the borough.

The annual cost of providing these services in 2001-2 was approximately £4,150,000. Of this sum, approximately £2,000,000 was spent on services provided outside the borough. This latter element is both high and rising. Graphs showing the historical trend of rising costs are provided in Appendix 3. (The graphs include some costs not addressed in this report (see Section 2 for details). Many of these expenditure increases reflect the impact of continuously changing Government policy directives and statutory duties for LEAs in the area of SEN. It is important, however, to ensure that the LEA’s duties and responsibilities are undertaken cost-effectively.

Main findings: Support for SEN is a statutory requirement upon the LEA. The quality of support for SEN provided at school level is good. Schools value and recognise the support they receive. Overall costs for SEN are in line with those in similar LEAs. These findings are confirmed by the OFSTED’s recent inspection of the Authority. There is a need, both locally and nationally, to reduce the overall numbers of pupils that are awarded Statements of SEN so that expensive, specialist resources can be targeted more effectively on the most needy. To do this it is important to identify pupils’ special needs as early as possible and intervene promptly. The service has recently undergone a major, internal restructuring and reorganisation aimed at enabling this to happen. Evidence of improvement is already available.

Although a generally sound and cost-effective service is provided, the recent OFSTED inspection of the LEA identified important weaknesses in monitoring arrangements. Evidence from OFSTED and both the consultation and challenge phases of the review indicated a need to improve the coherence and responsiveness of multi-agency support (i.e. support requiring input from a number of different services, departments and disciplines). In addition, there is a need to inform and consult parents, pupils and other service users more widely. The high and rising cost of out-borough services is a cause for concern. These services, and the contractual arrangements on which they are based, need to be reviewed urgently with a view to securing financial savings and improvements in both quality and accountability.

The Improvement Plan (see summary on the following page) is intended to address these findings directly.

Page 137 2

Improvements required: In order to improve the quality and effectiveness of these essential services, for which the Council has statutory responsibility, it is recommended that the LEA: • Continues to provide and improve the current range of in-borough SEN provision (see Option Appraisal 1: Section 7). • Establishes a clear timetable for reviewing the effectiveness and impact of the recently- introduced restructuring arrangements. • Reviews the level of support, cost effectiveness and contractual arrangements for those SEN services currently provided by agencies outside the LEA (see Option Appraisal 2: Section 7). • Implements and monitors the elements of the post-OFSTED action plan that relate to SEN, and especially those elements targeted upon earlier intervention and a reduction of the proportion of pupils felt to require a statement of SEN. • Explores the possibility of establishing a base to enable more coherent, multi-agency provision (for example through use of the site currently occupied by the Jo Richardson Community School). • Improves arrangements for informing, consulting and involving the parents, pupils and key groups who make use of SEN services.

Page 138 3

Main Report

1. Background

(i) Progress of the Review

The Best Value (SEN) Review group first met on January 16th 2001. The scheduled date of completion was March 2002. The Review was led by the (then) Head of the Children’s Support Division, supported by a consultant employed as project manager. Review activities were temporarily suspended at the end of September 2001 whilst the LEA prepared for its OFSTED inspection in January 2002. This inspection was to focus closely on SEN and Inclusion as key areas and would clearly provide both valuable additional evidence and a rigorous, external evaluation of service effectiveness.

Shortly after the inspection, the Head of the Children’s Support Division took up a new post in another LEA. At the same time, the contract of the project manager expired. As a result, other members of the Review team took responsibility for completing the report. This Best Value report, therefore, has been delayed but is strengthened by the evidence base and judgements provided by the Ofsted inspection.

(ii) Changing local and national contexts

Throughout the period of this Review, changes have been made to LEA provision for SEN and the line management arrangements that underpin them. Many of these changes took place as a result of self-evaluation arising from the Review. Many additional changes have been required because of new statutory frameworks for SEN, for example the changes to the national Code of Practice for SEN that came into effect in January 2002. The new Code gives additional responsibilities to schools and has corresponding implications for the organisation of LEA support to help schools to meet them.

Prior to its inspection of the LEA, OFSTED published the criteria it would use to make its judgements about SEN. In parallel with the BV Review, the LEA also reviewed its provision for both SEN and social inclusion against these new criteria. As a result additional changes were made, some of which have been further refined following feedback from inspectors during the inspection itself.

Details are provided, elsewhere in this report, of the changes that have been made. In addition to these changes, the LEA is also required to produce, implement and monitor an action plan that addresses the findings of the OFSTED report. It is important to ensure that the post-OFSTED action plan and the Best Value Improvement Plan are coherent and complementary one with the other.

It is already clear that the LEA’s provision for SEN is much improved from its position at the start of the Review. However, although entirely appropriate in terms of the emerging trends of Government policy, most of the changes made to provision have not yet had time fully to demonstrate their effectiveness. For this reason, the need to monitor the impact of these new arrangements has been made a main finding of this Review report.

Page 139 4

Page 140 5

2. Details of the service under review

Areas of the service covered by the Review:

The broad term “support for special educational needs” covers the following categories of pupil needs and educational settings: • All pupils with statements of SEN (known, until December 2001, as “pupils at Stage 5 of the SEN Code of Practice”). Around 1120 LEA pupils currently have statements (June 2002). • Statements may be written for pupils with any of (or a combination of) the following problems: autism disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD), moderate, severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties, hearing impairment, visual impairment, speech and language difficulties or medical needs. • Support is also provided for pupils on what were previously (before January 2002) known as Stages 1 – 4 of the Code of Practice (now known as “School Action” or “School Action Plus”). • At present this represents between 15% and 25% of the pupil population in most of our maintained schools

A wide range of specialist and administrative personnel in the following LEA departments and sections provides support for SEN: • Educational Psychology Service (EPS) • Specialist Intervention Teachers (SITs) • Home Portage Service • Hearing Impaired Service • Early Intervention Project (“Acorns”) • Speech and Language Support Service • Community Inspection and Advisory Service (CIAS) • SEN Assessment and Review Team (SENART) (From April 2002 the service also includes the work of 2 SEN Monitoring and Inclusion Officers.)

Some additional services and departments also make contributions to the overall provision of SEN support. These include: • Out-borough provision paid for by the LEA, for example the Joseph Clark Peripatetic Service for the Visually Impaired, Little Heath Special School Outreach Service and fees for pupils in residential accommodation outside the borough. • SEN bases and nursery assessment bases attached to mainstream schools (i.e. at Valence Infant School, Five Elms, Richard Alibon, Hunters Hall and Godwin Primary Schools, Dorothy Barley Junior School and Eastbury, Warren and Dagenham Priory Comprehensive Schools). Funding for each base is delegated to the budget of the host school. • Inclusion support for individual pupils integrating into mainstream classes from Trinity Special School

Aspects not covered by the Review:

Some related LEA services (for example Admissions and the provision of home to school transport for SEN pupils) are already subject to separate Best Value reviews (some current, some planned for the future). They have not, therefore, been included within the scope of this Review. Some other elements (for example Portage, school-based provision and the use, by schools, of devolved funding) were not looked at within the Review in order to ensure that it remained manageable and focused on the key areas.

Page 141 6

Similarly, Special Educational Needs often need to be addressed on a holistic basis, with linkages to Social Services and Health departments. Provision for pupils post-16 also entails robust relationships with other agencies such as Connexions and the Learning Skills Council. Service users commented on the effectiveness of some of these relationships during the ‘consult’ phase of this Review. It was not possible, however, to extend the work of the Review team beyond those areas directly managed by the LEA.

The costs of the service:

The total financial cost of those parts of the service covered by the Review (financial year 2000-2001) was: £4,150,000

Some of the more significant service elements contributing towards this overall total are given below. Quoted figures (financial year 2000-2001) are rounded-off for convenience. Exact costings are provided in the evidence file. a) residential fees, recoupment payments to other LEAs and fees paid to other out-borough providers: £2,000,000 b) Educational Psychology Service: £610,000 c) Hearing Impaired Service: £500,000 d) Specialist Intervention Team £290,000 e) Central Administration £240,000 f) Inspection and Advisory Service (SEN element) £200,000 g) Acorns Early Intervention Project £170,000 These aspects represent approximately 97% of the £4.15 million total cost of the service.

The element represented by residential fees, recoupment payments and fees to other out- borough providers (£2 million) has been rising steadily. In 1999-2000, for example it was £1.7 million. In addition the SEN provision provided by the CIAS is enhanced through a buy- back arrangement. Secondary schools currently contribute £102,000 per annum from their Standards Fund (“Pupil Retention Grant”) allocations in return for additional advisory teacher support. The Educational Psychology Service also generates around £41,000 annually for services provided to outside bodies. This funding is used to provide extra resources within the service.

The SEN provision delegated to schools in 2000/2001 was: a) Support for pupils with statements of SEN 2,600,000 b) Trinity School budget 2,800,000 c) Special units attached to schools 700,000 d) SEN element of delegated budgets (“proxy funding”) 780,000 Total: 6,800,000

In addition, central government provides specific grants to LEAs to support the provision of their statutory requirements. Most of these grants are made through the Standards Fund (SF) and require an LEA contribution in order to maximise the grant allocation. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) also provides 100% grant funding specifically for staff training. Details of these grants for 2001/2002 are set out below.

Total Funding LEA Funding £ £ Pupil Retention Grant (SF) 848,400 398,750 SEN Grant (SF) 309,830 145,620 SEN Children in Public Care Grant(SF) 29,710 13,960 SEN Sick Children Grant (SF) 8,490 - Staff Training Grant (TTA) 56,480 -

Page 142 7

Two of these Standards Fund grants are substantially delegated to schools, on a formula basis. The remainder is retained centrally by the LEA as follows:

Devolved Retained £ £ Pupil retention grant 653,300 195,000 SEN 43,250 13,230

Thus, of the £4.15 million total cost of SEN services, approximately £910,000 is met from Government grants, supplemented by income from buy-back arrangements and the sale of educational psychology services to other boroughs.

Expenditure trends:

Graphs at Appendix 3 show the escalating cost of meeting the special educational needs of pupils with statements of SEN for the previous 9 years. The LEA is obliged to meet whatever provision is specified in a statement. In addition, the process of issuing each statement costs between £2,000 and £3,000. If there are increases in either the number of Statements written or the degree of specialist support specified, then costs inevitably rise. In fact, this has indeed been the trend at both local and national levels.

The graphs shown at Appendix 3 relate only to the cost of supporting pupils with statements. They do not include, for example, the support for pupils with SEN but without statements that takes place within mainstream schooling. For this reason they do not match the figures quoted above precisely. They do, however, present a clear picture of the difficulties involved in controlling and managing levels of SEN expenditure overall.

Page 143 8

Page 144 9

3. Challenge phase

3.1 Establishing the need for the service and who it is for

It is a fundamental right that all children and young people should have any special educational needs identified and met as early as possible and as appropriately as possible. This is enshrined within a statutory framework (e.g. the SEN Disability and Discrimination Act 2002 and the new SEN Code of Practice of January 2002) which places LEAs at the heart of the process. The local service has been developed to: • assess and meet the special educational needs of every child and young person • work in partnership with parents / carers in assessing their child’s SEN and supporting their educational development • work in partnership with schools and early years settings to assess needs, support children and develop whole school, inclusive policies and procedures • work in partnership with Health, Social Services and other relevant agencies to assess and meet a range of needs

The learning and developmental needs of children can be identified from a young age. It is possible to carry out a statutory assessment of SEN for pupils as young as two years old. The earlier such needs are identified, the greater the potential impact of any support provided.

3.2 Involving elected members, local people and others in the challenge process

The following elected members were members of the Review Team: Councillor Mrs S Bramley, Councillor Mrs E Bradley and Councillor Mr C Pond. (Councillor Pond passed away in May 2001 and Councillor M McCarthy was subsequently appointed to take his place on the Review). A senior officer from a neighbouring LEA with responsibility for SEN (Head of School and Student Services) joined the group in the role of ‘critical friend’.

Employee satisfaction surveys and open consultation opportunities were provided for employees in the various LEA departments and units supporting SEN. Open meetings were held with a range of local service users and members of the community. Consultees and participants in these meetings took the opportunity to challenge the service in a variety of ways. More details of the contributions made by these groups are provided later in this report (Section 4.6). The main areas of challenge, however, related to the need for the service to identify needs and intervene earlier, respond more quickly and provide more support to the families of pupils with SEN.

3.3 Internal and external challenge and scrutiny undertaken during the review

Self-directed challenge was evident throughout the discussions of the group as many of the Review team members directly manage aspects of the LEA’s SEN service delivery. The effectiveness of this process is indicated by the number of changes to service organisation and structure that were made during the period of the Review. In addition, however, external challenge was provided because one senior officer from a neighbouring borough (Havering) and others from different Council departments (e.g. Social Services and the Chief Executive’s Department) were also members of the Review team.

Page 145 10

In addition the following external evaluations of the service, or parts of it, were also scrutinised: • Inspection of Barking and Dagenham LEA (Ofsted: January 2002) • Review of LEA Support for Behaviour (CIAS: October 2001) • Sensory Support Services Review (July 2001: Anne Duffy – consultant) • Independent Review: Michael Camp, Chartered Educational Psychologist (July 2001)

The main conclusions from each of these reports and reviews are summarised below. Full copies of all the documents are provided in the evidence file.

3.4 Summary of external challenges and their main conclusions

3.4.(i) Ofsted Inspection Report Ofsted identified many important strengths of LEA provision. • At school level, SEN support is good and school SEN Coordinators are very well supported. The report comments favourably on advisory teacher support, links to mainstream literacy and numeracy strategies, ‘catch-up programmes’ and accredited training courses for teaching staff. “Schools are well supported and know it.” • “Overall costs for SEN are broadly in line with similar LEAs”. Criteria for the delegation of monies to schools are clear. The formula for distribution of the Pupil Support Grant is appropriate. • Provision for behaviour support is satisfactory overall. Good progress has been made in reducing the number of permanent exclusions. Good arrangements have been made for alternative vocational courses and the use of Learning Mentors for disaffected pupils. Some good examples of effective inter-agency cooperation have been developed. • There is a carefully thought-out strategy for SEN, informed by a clear vision of inclusion. The strategy incorporates appropriate plans for improved partnership working, more effective support for parents and an appropriate role for the Beacon Special School (Trinity) as a centre of excellence.

Ofsted criticised some important structural and organisational aspects of SEN provision, however. The most significant are listed below: • there are weaknesses in detailed long-term planning for SEN and financial accountability at officer level; • there is a need for greater coherence between the work of the Children’s Support Division and the work of the Community Inspection and Advisory Service (CIAS); • there are weaknesses in the central monitoring of the quality of provision for pupils with statements of SEN and of the use and effectiveness of monies devolved to schools for SEN. • provision for pupils who are out of school is poor**. (**Although this point relates mainly to Admissions, which is covered by a separate BV report, it impacts upon SEN because a high proportion of pupils without places have been excluded for poor behaviour. It also relates closely to findings from the CIAS Review of LEA Support for Behaviour – see 3.4(ii) below)

Ofsted’s comments about weaknesses in monitoring apply generally and widely. They appear in several different parts of the report, for example the sections on children in public care, behaviour support, inter-agency cooperation, the quality of out-borough placements and statutory provision for statemented pupils. Taken together with related comments about weak financial accountability, Ofsted judged that, as things stood, the LEA lacked the ability to make clear evaluations of the value for money and cost-effectiveness of its SEN provision. Ofsted’s findings reflect the difficulties faced by the members of the Review team in gathering sufficient information to support their own decisions on this area.

Page 146 11

In addition to Ofsted’s comments about structural weaknesses, one specific area of concern was also identified. This related to the measures taken to fulfil statutory obligations for statemented pupils, which was judged to be unsatisfactory. The national expectation is that all statements should be written within an 18 week deadline. Despite recent improvements, only 86% of statements overall were written to deadline. The proportion written to deadline where support from other agencies was involved was only 38%.

3.4(ii) CIAS Review of LEA Support for Behaviour (October 2001) This was an extensive review carried out by LEA Inspectors over a period of 6 months. The review scrutinised a wide range of financial information and performance data, including Ofsted reports on our schools and evidence submitted by a range of service providers and Council departments. In addition, questionnaires were sent to the headteacher and SENCo in every school, with follow-up interviews in 25% of schools. At 80%, the response rate to the questionnaires was very high.

The review identified many strengths in the LEA’s support for behaviour: • Fixed term and permanent exclusions have reduced significantly since 1998. DfES data shows that the LEA is now at the average for the London region. • The general level of behaviour in schools is good. Ofsted reports confirm this. • Schools feel that they are more self-reliant and manage behaviour better than in the past. Effective, whole-school systems are in place in many schools. The LEA has supported the development of these processes well. • Schools feel that the LEA’s advice, support and guidance on behaviour management is consistent and of good quality. • Schools feel that whole-school training in behaviour management, for both teaching and non-teaching staff, is effective and of good quality. • Improvements in the curriculum and the quality of teaching have had a significant impact on improving pupil motivation and reducing incidences of poor behaviour. (Ofsted reports confirm that there is a good standard of teaching across the LEA as a whole.) The LEA has supported these developments well. • Some good models of highly responsive multi-disciplinary working, developed under a two-year LEA behaviour support project, are suitable for further development within the wider behaviour support services.

The review also identified a number of key weaknesses, however. These were: • There is no clear, overarching framework for behaviour support across the LEA. Schools are not always sure about how to access the different tiers of support and which support services to contact in different situations. • There are important gaps in provision. Alternative provision for individual pupils with extremely challenging behaviour, including short term respite provision for schools, is not yet good enough. Where pupils have been excluded from school, arrangements for their re-integration are weak (see 3.4(i) above – section in italics). • Speed of response to support pupils with very challenging behaviour is not quick enough, nor consistent across all services. New ways of working needed to be developed to improve this. Some services need to provide a better balance between predictable, time- allocated support and a rapid response capability. • Multi-agency working needs to be improved, particularly with departments who are not line managed within the Education Department such as Social Services and Health. Schools perceive some external support providers to be ineffective and unreliable. • The LEA needs to collect more robust, accurate and consistent data on behaviour that can be shared across, and acted upon, by all sectors of the service. • More needs to be done to involve, support and empower the families of pupils with extremely challenging behaviours.

Page 147 12

3.4(iii) Sensory Services Review This review by Anne Duffy, an independent consultant, looked at provision for hearing impaired and visually impaired children. The broad findings of this review were as follows: • the decision to provide an in-borough Hearing Impaired Service, linked to school bases, whilst buying in support for visual impairment from out-borough was not leading, in practice, to equality of opportunity and access for all pupils with SEN • approaches to referral and assessment of pupils’ needs were inconsistent across the various sensory-impaired services; • accommodation at the secondary hearing impaired base was inadequate and needed to be reviewed;

The review recommended two delivery options: • Option 1: create a co-ordinated service for sensory impaired pupils, with parity of provision and clear policy and consistent criteria for support. • Option 2: continue with current arrangements but create a senior officer post with responsibility for co-ordination of referral routes, assessment placements and levels of support.

A decision on which of these options is the most appropriate will be taken shortly, based on consultation with parents, schools and other agencies.

3.4(iv) Independent Review: Michael Camp (Chartered Educational Psychologist) Michael Camp was commissioned to carry out a review of the operation of the Special Needs Management Team (SNMT). This body meets weekly to consider requests for statutory assessment (‘statementing’) of pupils and to discuss provision, funding and amendments, if required, to existing statements.

His report made a number of recommendations covering general operational procedures and specific gaps in provision that have an impact on the effectiveness of the service. The main conclusions were as follows: • there is no coherent Borough strategy nor specialist provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties • decision making processes within the SNMT are not sufficiently transparent; wider representation from schools and other agencies should be considered • there are no agreed criteria for circumstances where joint financing from several agencies is required; when arrangements are agreed, however, there is insufficient monitoring of the allocated finances • there is insufficient monitoring, by the LEA, of provision in residential placements out-of- Borough • provision for some specific groups of pupils, for example those with speech and language difficulties and those with social / communication difficulties (autism) needs to be improved

3.5 How comparison was used to drive the challenge

A range of comparative information was used to inform the review. The main sources of comparative information scrutinised were as follows: • the Ofsted Survey of Schools (conducted by Ofsted as a preliminary activity prior to the recent inspection of the LEA);

Page 148 13

• the LEA Survey of Schools (an annual local survey, based on the Ofsted model, on which data has been collected for the last two academic years); • the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) that apply to SEN; • pilot data (January 2001) from the “London Region SEN Benchmarking Club” set up in 2000 by the 33 Inner and Outer London LEAs; • scrutiny of recent Ofsted reports, on other LEAs, where performance in SEN has been held up as good practice, including a visit by Review team members to Kensington and Chelsea LEA. A description of these activities and the main conclusions drawn from them, by the Review team, are provided in the ‘Compare’ section of this report.

3.6 Ensuring that the challenges lead to specific proposals for significant change

Throughout the Review, the key concepts underpinning the team’s discussions were: • More efficient and effective service delivery • Stronger monitoring and management of provision • The need to improve and sustain improvements in levels of pupil achievement

A major concern for the Team was the cost and effectiveness of the Statementing process as a whole. The assessment process leading to a Statement of SEN costs, on average, from £2000 to £3000. In the main, Statements should be issued to pupils whose needs are severe, complex and / or lifelong. Their needs should be identified as early as possible so that support can be put in place quickly, enabling them to maximise their learning potential. The Team felt that, in many cases, Statements issued relatively late in their school careers to pupils whose needs relate mainly to literacy represents poor value for money. A key aim, following the Review, must be a reduction in the overall level of statementing, allied to a drive to identify and meet the needs of the most needy pupils at the youngest possible age.

With these concepts in mind, a significant number of changes to provision were made during the period of the Review. Where relevant, the reasons for these changes are clarified elsewhere in this report. A summary of all the main changes made, in tabular form, is provided in Paragraph 4.7 in the next section of this report.

3.7 Summary of findings and conclusions

Although different in their contexts and terms of reference, there are several common features emerging from the challenge process and the Review team finds the arguments persuasive. The high standard of support in schools and at classroom / SENCo level is cause for confidence and a foundation of strength to build upon. However there is a real need to address shortcomings and improve performance in the following areas.

The LEA needs to: 1. improve the monitoring of the quality of provision at both school and LEA level. This includes the need to collect and analyse better quality performance data 2. demonstrate greater transparency of procedures and improve financial accountability 3. address important gaps in the range of LEA provision for key areas and in particular for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) and those with very challenging behaviour 4. improve provision for pupils out of school, especially those who have been permanently excluded 5. respond more speedily to support schools dealing with pupils with particularly challenging behaviour – especially where multi-agency support is required 6. improve and make more coherent the management of pupils’ routes of access to specialised provision

Page 149 14

Page 150 15

4. Consultation phase

4.1 Background The term ‘special educational needs’ is a catch-all phrase encompassing a vast number of potential customers and stakeholders. On a day-to-day basis there is a wide range of multi- agency and cross-departmental meetings which give opportunities for professionals from different settings to discuss and influence their own working practice. There have been limited arrangements in the past, however, for some stakeholder groups to be consulted on their views of the service. This situation needs to be improved in future.

4.2 Ensuring meaningful consultation was undertaken with local people, customers and other key stakeholders

The Review team took evidence from a number of different local groups, customers and service users through the media of open meetings and questionnaires. The groups consulted were: • headteachers and SENCos in schools • school SEN governors • parents and carers of pupils with SEN • pupils with SEN • representatives from the voluntary sector • Social Services and other partner agencies

4.3 Taking account of the of the diversity of the community

Of the 1120 school-age pupils in the borough with full statements in June 2002, 85% were of white, UK heritage. This figure rises to approximately 90% when ’other’ white European categories are included. Of the remainder approximately 7% are of black African or Caribbean heritage. Around 3% are of Asian or Chinese origin. These percentages reflect, almost exactly, the ethnic mix across the borough’s schools as a whole.

40% of the consultation group representing parents and carers came from ethnic minority backgrounds. Interpreters were provided at the public meetings. All meetings were held in venues that provided full access for people with disabilities.

4.4 Consulting with staff and their representatives In addition to consultations with partners and service users, evidence was taken from a wide range of stakeholder groups involved directly in service delivery. These were: • CIAS inspectors • SEN advisory teachers • The Educational Psychology Service • Specialist Intervention Teachers (SITs) • The Hearing Impaired Service • The SEN Assessment and Review Team (SENART) • The Acorns Early Intervention Project

Page 151 16

4.5 Feeding back the results of the consultation to the consultees Summaries of the outcomes of consultations with employee and LEA groups were sent directly to each group consulted. Notes taken of the meetings with parents were circulated to all those who took part.

4.6 Summary of findings and conclusions

Summary of findings from consultations with customers and stakeholders: With the exception of the consultations with headteachers and SENCos, the majority of consultation meetings were attended only by small numbers of people. Although some of these groups did not comprise a sufficiently large sample on which to base detailed judgements, there were many common elements in the responses across the groups. The main issues are listed below. Where relevant, the group(s) from which the suggestions originated are given in italics: (i) there is a need to develop early diagnostic, preventative approaches (headteachers, parents, voluntary agencies) (ii) there is a need for better, quicker, more cohesive arrangements for multi- agency involvement are needed (SENCos, parents, voluntary agencies) (iii) there is a need for improved, specialist provision in school and/or specialist bases (examples given included medical difficulties, autism and speech and language therapy). (iv) there is a need for improved family support and partnership arrangements, including more pupil / parent / carer involvement in the assessment and target setting processes (pupils, parents) (v) there is a need to improve training in specific aspects of SEN (governors, parents)

Summary of findings from consultations with staff and their representatives: Information from staff groups was proffered in a variety of different ways. In some cases one person in the organisation made an extended written submission. In others, individual interviews were conducted with every member of a team or group. Some groups responded to structured questionnaires, others wrote on topics of their choice. The Review Team found it difficult to evaluate this data, given the absence of a clear focus and the inconsistencies in the approaches to gathering it. Detailed analysis of questionnaires, reports of meetings and other submitted evidence is provided in the evidence base.

In several cases, the points raised reflected concerns of the specific service, linked to issues such as status, accommodation and the flow of communication. Work has already been undertaken to address some of these concerns. For example the SENART team has been restructured and relocated into improved accommodation in the Town Hall. From September 2002 the deployment of advisory teachers, educational psychologists, SITs and other support staff will be reorganised to create multi-agency teams to support specific clusters of schools. These arrangements should ensure that all relevant staff receive the appropriate information quickly and that pupils are supported more rapidly and flexibly.

Page 152 17

4.7 Changes that have resulted from the consultation and challenge phases

The main changes, arising from the challenge and consultation phases, are summarised below:

Change References in the BV Review

Lifelong Learning and A need for greater coherence between work of Children’s Inclusion Division Support Division and the CIAS [Para 3.4 (i) – LEA Ofsted established Report] Weaknesses in detailed long term planning for SEN and financial accountability at Officer level [Para 3.4 (i) – LEA Ofsted Report] No clear overarching framework for behaviour support [Para 3.4 (ii) - LEA Review of Behaviour and Para 3.4 (iv) - Michael Camp Review]

Monitoring and Inclusion Weaknesses in central monitoring of provision of pupils Officers appointed with Statements of SEN [Para 3.4 (i) – LEA Ofsted Report] Insufficient monitoring of external residential placements [Michael Camp Review Para 3.4 (iv).]

SENART Team LEA’s SEN statements did not meet statutory requirements restructured. All [Para 3.4 (i) – LEA Ofsted Report and DfES directive] Statements of SEN re- LEA did not meet expected 18 week deadline for writing written statements [Para 3.4 (i) and 5.2 (b) – LEA Ofsted Report and BVPI 43(a) and 43(b)]

Reception and Where pupils have been excluded from school, Reintegration Unit arrangements for reintegration are weak [Para’s 3.4 (i) and created. Individual 3.4 (ii) - LEA Review of Behaviour] Pupils’ Behaviour Need to improve provision for pupils excluded from school Support Team created [Para 5.2 (a) - Compare Phase, Schools’ Survey] In-borough provision for pupils with complex behaviour difficulties is limited [Para 6.2 - Compete Phase]

Redeployment of LEA Speed of response to support pupils with very challenging Support Staff. Multi- behaviour is too slow and inconsistent across services disciplinary, education [Para 3.4 (ii) - LEA Review of Behaviour] and social inclusion Multi agency working needs to be improved, especially cluster teams created with services not line managed by the LEA [Para 3.4 (ii) - LEA Review of Behaviour and Para 4.6 (ii) - Consultation Phase] Need to improve family support and partnership arrangements, especially in the assessment and target setting arrangements. [Para 4.6 (iv) -Consultation Phase] Need to improve provision at the statutory Assessment Phase [Para 5.3 (d)]

Page 153 18

Primary Outreach Provision for pupils with speech and language difficulties Language and and on the autistic spectrum needs to be improved [Para Communication Service 3.4 (iv). - Mike Camp Review] (Autism) and Secondary Need for improved specialist provision in schools and in Autism Base (at Jo bases [Para 4.6 (iii) - Consultation Phase] Richardson School) established

A second Early Need for earlier, diagnostic, preventative approaches [Para Intervention project 4.6 (i) - Consultation Phase] (Acorns) established

Co-ordinator for Looked Need to improve support for looked after children [Para After Children appointed 5.2(a) - Compare Phase]

Page 154 19

5. Compare phase

5.1 Background

Information on comparative performance in SEN is available from 4 main sources: • The Ofsted Schools’ Survey – arising from Ofsted’s consultation with schools prior to the inspection of the LEA. Data is compared with responses from all LEAs, nationwide. • Best Value performance indicators (BVPIs). Two of the LEA’s BVPIs relate to the field of SEN. These can be benchmarked against comparative national and regional data. • London Region Benchmarking Club – a voluntary initiative initiated by the London boroughs that compares their outlay on various categories of SEN expenditure. • The LEA’s own schools survey. This has been carried out every year since 2000, using the Ofsted model. It is not benchmarked against national data but does show improving or worsening trends in schools’ satisfaction with LEA provision.

All four of these indicators were scrutinised. The findings are summarised below.

5.2 Comparison with the top 25%

(a) Schools’ views: Ofsted Schools’ Survey Prior to the Ofsted inspection of the LEA, the inspection team surveyed all schools, asking for their feedback on the effectiveness of different aspects of the LEA’s performance. The results are made available to the LEA and are informative because: (i) a response is received from 100% of schools, across all phases (ii) schools’ responses are compared with those in all other LEAs nationally on a quartile basis (iii) separate data is available for primary, secondary and ‘all schools’ (i.e. secondary and primary taken together)

In the field of SEN (as opposed to aspects linked to Admissions) upper quartile results for ‘all schools’ are given for: • LEA support for SENCos • Support for improving pupils’ behaviour

Lower quartile results for ‘all schools’ are given for: • Alternative provision for pupils excluded from school • Support for children ‘looked after’ by the LEA • Involvement of schools in decision making about statutory assessments (statements)

In all other areas, schools’ responses were comfortably within the interquartile range. However it is clear that secondary schools’ responses are more positive than those of primary schools. The responses of secondary schools are in the upper quartile in most areas, other than in the three weaker aspects identified above.

(b) Best Value Performance Indicators

Two Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) relate to SEN:

(i) BVPI 43(a) This best value performance indicator deals with the percentage of statements of SEN that are prepared within (the expected) 18 week period {see final paragraph of section 3.4(i)}. It excludes those statements that require the involvement of other agencies in the preparation. This data shows that:

Page 155 20

from a low point of 7% in 1998/9, performance had risen to 86% by 200/1 – a dramatic rate of improvement however, this figure remains below the current upper quartile boundary for London (99%) and nationally (96%) there was a fall in 2001/2 to 67% (this was caused by the DfES requirement that the LEA re-write all its statements following the removal of the locally-applied ‘Banding System’) the most recent figures for the current year (i.e. April to June 2002) show that 100% of statements were written within the expected time period in April and May. 96% were written to the deadline in June (one statement being delayed). If sustained, this would represent a significant improvement.

(ii) BVPI 43(b) This best value performance indicator deals with the percentage of statements of SEN that are prepared within (the expected) 18 week period. It includes those statements that require the involvement of other agencies in the preparation. The indicator confirms the views of Ofsted {see final paragraph of section 3.4(i)} in that: From a low point of 6% in 1997/98 the percentage of statements written in 18 weeks rose to 38% by 2000/1. This figure remains well below the current upper quartile boundary for London (75%) It is also well below the current upper quartile boundary nationally (77%)

Although both sets of figures indicate room for improvement, BVPI 43(b) gives the greatest cause for concern and reflects the concerns of Ofsted {3.4(i)}, the CIAS {3.4(ii)} and the external consultant {3.4(iv)} about weaknesses of liaison and performance between the LEA and other agencies such as Social Services and Health.

As part of the Review, Team Members visited the neighbouring borough of Havering, which completes 100% of its multi-agency statements within the expected period. As a result, a number of changes were made to our own procedures locally. Analysis of the most recent information (June 2002) about BVPI 43(b) shows that the most frequent reason for the delay is that the parent/carer and child failed to attend meetings. This was the case in 8 out of the 16 assessment meetings arranged between January and the end of May 2002 (i.e. 50%).

In Havering this problem has been addressed and is no longer the case. As a result of the visit, Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust has made changes to its procedures for notifying parents about meetings. Appointments are now also notified to the LEA’s SEN Assessment and Review Team (SENART). SENART undertakes to telephone parents to remind them of both their appointment times and the importance of attending. It is too early to assess the impact of these new arrangements. However, the most recent figures for the current year (i.e. up to November 2002) show that 66% of statements involving other agencies have been written within the expected time period. This is close to the benchmark level for the top 25% of London boroughs. Improvement needs to be sustained and improved beyond this level, however.

Graphs showing the most recent BVPI data are provided in Appendix 4.

(c) London Region SEN Benchmarking Club For the first time in 2000, all London LEAs agreed to pool their data on SEN expenditure as part of a pilot project. A management consultancy was employed to collate and analyse the data. The Review team scrutinised the initial report, which was published in January 2001.

It was not possible for the Review team to draw conclusions from the data, however. The document itself advises caution in the interpretation of its data. The LEAs present their SEN data and cost their provision in very different ways. It is difficult to compare like with like. In addition, many data tables are only partially complete because some LEAs did not submit

Page 156 21

information under every heading. In addition, because it has only been provided recently, there is no indication of trends. We anticipate that this form of benchmarking will be better established by the time of the next SEN Best Value Review. For the purposes of the current Review, however, the document was not considered helpful.

Note: The Benchmarking Club produced its 2002 analysis of 2001 figures shortly before the final publication of this report. It again advises caution about the reliability of its data. However there is evidence to support the judgement of the Ofsted inspection team that Barking and Dagenham’s SEN costs are broadly in line with those of other LEAs. The following examples illustrate this: • The numbers of staff employed to support the statementing process (1.3 per 10,000 of the population) is exactly at the median for London boroughs • The staffing costs linked to supporting statementing (£52,308 per 10,000 of the population) is exactly at the median for London boroughs • The number of statements maintained by the LEA per (2.13 per 10,000 of the population) is exactly at the median for London boroughs • The SEN budget as a proportion of the overall Local Schools Budget (15.04%) is just below the median for London boroughs (16.87%)

(d) Schools’ views: Annual LEA Survey These findings are given last of all because they cannot be benchmarked against other sources. They can, however, be used as reference points against other indicators and evidence elsewhere in this report. Details of the survey are available in the evidence base.

Schools, overall, give high satisfaction ratings for: • training and support for SENCos • training and guidance on IEPs (Individual Education Plans) These findings very much reflect the high level of satisfaction noted elsewhere in this report for SEN support at school level.

Schools, overall, give low satisfaction ratings for: • learning support services at Stage 3 of the old SEN Code of Practice • behaviour support services at Stage 3 of the old SEN Code of Practice • efficiency with which statutory assessments are made These findings also reflect comments elsewhere in this report. They relate, for example, to the poor performance in preparing Statements of SEN (see BVPI indicators above). They also indicate that secondary schools are more satisfied with provision than primary schools (see Ofsted Schools’ Survey above).

Schools give improving satisfaction ratings for: • schools’ involvement in key decisions about SEN funding (improved from 25% to 51%) • the effectiveness of the work of the Educational Psychology Service (improved from 20% to 60%) • efficiency of the statutory assessment process (improved from 15% to 54%)

These findings indicate that some of the improvements put into effect at an early stage of the review were beginning to have an impact in schools at the time of the survey.

5.3 Summary of comparisons with different sectors: comparison with the public sector The vast majority of SEN services are provided by LEAs in a public sector context. Comparison with these providers was undertaken in relation to the indicators identified in 5.2

Page 157 22

(above). In addition, LEA Ofsted inspection reports were scrutinised for boroughs where good practice had been identified. comparison with the private sector Extensive private sector involvement has taken place principally in LEAs whose performance, as judged by Ofsted inspection, has been inadequate. Where re-inspections of these boroughs, following private sector intervention, had taken place these reports were also scrutinised. comparison with the voluntary sector The voluntary sector makes an important contribution towards elements of SEN provision in most LEAs. There are no LEAs, however, where the overall management of SEN services is carried out by a voluntary agency.

5.4 Summary: what we compared • Inputs: in terms of the costs of the service, Ofsted states that we are broadly in line with similar LEAs {para 3.4(i)}. This is confirmed by (less accurate) data from the London Region SEN Benchmarking Club {para 5.2(c)}. • Outputs: From a low base there has been considerable improvement in the relevant Best Value Performance Indicators {para 5.2(b)}. This needs to be sustained over a longer period, however, before firm conclusions can be drawn. • Outcomes: It is not possible to make comparative judgements about the outcomes from the SEN service as there are no comparative indicators for levels of achievement for pupils with SEN. By definition, each case is ‘special’ and must be evaluated individually. Many pupils with statements of SEN will not achieve in line with national expectations (although some clearly do). • Satisfaction levels: schools are generally satisfied with the service provided, with support for SEN at school level very highly rated {paras 5.2(a) and (d)}. There is evidence of improving satisfaction in several key areas {para 52(d)}.

5.5 Summary of findings and conclusions

From a low base, as measured by BVPIs, the service is improving in comparison with others. It is neither particularly expensive nor particularly cheap. Schools are generally satisfied with the support they receive, though they have some reservations about the efficiency with which pupils transfer from entirely school-based support to support based upon a statement of SEN. The key task, therefore, is to address schools’ concerns about the responsiveness and effectiveness of the service in relation to the assessment and statementing process.

Improved responsiveness can be accomplished in three main ways: • Reduce the overall numbers of statements of SEN that are written (for example by agreeing not to write statements for pupils whose needs relate mainly to learning difficulties, especially in literacy or numeracy). This would enable existing services to allocate their resources more effectively. • Identify pupils with complex needs much earlier (for example at the pre-school and foundation stages). This would enable intervention to have more time to make an impact. • Reorganise the support provided to schools by basing it upon multi-disciplinary teams linked to discrete clusters of schools. This would enable complex assessments to be made more rapidly and multi-disciplinary support to be organised more efficiently.

Recommendations relating to all three of these issues should be incorporated into the Best Value action plan.

Page 158 23

6. Compete phase

6.1 Background From the investigations carried out under the Review it is possible to identify two broad elements of provision:

(a) Services for schools and pupils provided by LEA teams: These include central administrative services, for example those provided by the SEN Assessment and Review Team (SENART) and the recently appointed Monitoring Officers. They also include school-based services such as those provided by SEN advisory teachers, educational psychologists, Specialist Intervention Teachers (SITs) and the SEN bases attached to LEA schools.

(b) Services for pupils based upon out-of-borough agencies: In the main, these comprise residential placements (e.g. for pupils with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties) and support for pupils with autism or visual impairment that cannot, at present, be met from within the borough.

6.2 Cost effectiveness of the service

The cost of services provided centrally by the LEA are in line with those in similar Authorities. The standard of classroom-based support is good and highly regarded by schools. In other areas, provision is improving. Early indications are that recent restructuring arrangements are having a positive impact.

The costs of external provision are high and monitoring their quality has, in the past, proved difficult. There is evidence of a disparity of quality between different areas of provision. For example support for pupils with hearing impairment (provided locally) is better than for visual impairment (provided externally); out-borough provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties is very expensive whilst in-borough provision is severely limited (etc.).

6.3 Options considered for future service provision

Separate option appraisals have been carried out for each of the elements identified in paragraph 6.1. These are considered in more detail in Section 7.

6.4 Action taken to develop a market for the provision of the service

On a national basis, markets for SEN provision are limited at present. Consultancy services are generally available for specific areas of provision (for example advice on behaviour management or the writing of statements etc.). Where LEAs delegate funding for specific services (e.g. advisory support or educational psychology) large secondary schools or clusters of smaller schools can employ specialist support staff directly. In general, however, meeting complex special needs involves detailed, individualised work across a wide range of services. Such provision is generally expensive and difficult to predict or standardise. For this reason SEN provision is not usually a target for extensive out-sourcing.

Some LEAs sell the services of specialist units, accepting pupils from other boroughs or selling consultancy services and outreach provision. For example Barking and Dagenham buys services from the Joseph Clark Peripatetic Service for the Visually Impaired and sells

Page 159 24

some educational psychology services to other LEAs. Similarly, a small number of Barking and Dagenham pupils are accommodated in residential provision outside the borough. Such facilities are used by a number of different LEAs, however, and demand for places generally outstrips supply.

LEAs that fail their Ofsted inspections are sometimes subject to ‘intervention’ by the DfES. In such cases private organisations (or other LEAs) may be invited to tender to provide all or part of the weaker LEA’s services. In the majority of cases where this happens, SEN is retained under LEA control. In 4 LEAs however (Leeds, Bradford, Southwark and Waltham Forest) the full range of services, including SEN, is under external control. This has only happened, however, where the overall performance of the LEA, across a wide range of areas, has been found to be unsatisfactory. There are no examples where SEN alone has been out-sourced.

Of the 4 LEAs noted above, recent Ofsted reports are available from Leeds and Southwark. Both show that improvements in SEN provision have been made under the new arrangements, although these have been from a low base. In the case of Barking and Dagenham, our inspection report (April 2002) was positive and the LEA does not require intervention. Our SEN provision, overall, was judged to be satisfactory but with some areas for development {see para 3.4(i)}.

Two LEAs (Essex and Surrey) are currently exploring arrangements whereby SEN services might be out-sourced to external providers. These explorations are still at an early stage and few firm decisions have been taken. Both LEAs in question are large, county authorities that may be able to take advantage of economies of scale. It is not yet clear whether this approach would be appropriate for a smaller, urban Authority such as Barking and Dagenham.

6.5 Action needed to develop a market for the provision of the service

In view of the findings above, it is not felt that there is a need to out-source those elements of SEN provision currently provided in-house. The preferred course of action is to allow the current and ongoing restructuring proposals time (at least 2 years) to demonstrate their effectiveness. A review of these arrangements, by September 2004, is recommended, however.

With regard to those elements of SEN provision currently provided externally the following recommendations are made: (i) Review the current contractual arrangements with external providers to explore their cost-effectiveness. (ii) Research opportunities for improved provision for pupils with visual impairment to ensure that, in future, they match those currently available for pupils with hearing difficulties. (iii) Research the range of provision for pupils with complex emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) to identify more cost-effective approaches. (iv) Explore the opportunities for improved local provision and multi-agency support that would be offered by the accommodation currently occupied by the Jo Richardson Community School when it is vacated on 2004-5.

Page 160 25

6.6 Conclusions and summary of findings

In view of the findings outlined above and in earlier sections of this report, it is recommended that the LEA: • Continues to provide and improve the current range of in-borough SEN provision (see Option Appraisal 1: Section 7). • Establishes a clear timetable for reviewing the effectiveness and impact of the recently- introduced restructuring arrangements. • Reviews the level of support, cost effectiveness and contractual arrangements for those SEN services currently provided by agencies outside the LEA (see Option Appraisal 2: Section 7). • Implements and monitors the elements of the post-OFSTED action plan that relate to SEN, and especially those elements targeted upon earlier intervention and a reduction of the proportion of pupils felt to require a statement of SEN. • Explores the possibility of establishing a base to enable more coherent, multi-agency provision (for example through use of the site currently occupied by the Jo Richardson Community School). • Improves arrangements for informing, consulting and involving the parents, pupils and key groups who make use of SEN services.

Page 161 26

Page 162 27

7. Option Appraisal

7.1 Background

The previous section of the report identifies the two distinct areas of provision that have been identified for option appraisal i.e: (a) Services for schools and pupils provided by LEA teams (b) Services for pupils based upon out-of-borough agencies A separate option appraisal chart has been completed for each.

7.2 List of procurement options

The procurement options considered are summarised in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (which follow).

7.3 Conclusions and summary of findings

Please see Section 6.6 (preceding section).

Essentially, we recommend that services for schools and pupils should continue to be provided centrally and remain in-house for the time being. We need to ensure, however, that recent improvements are sustained and that our arrangements for restructuring are proving effective. To this end we also recommend ongoing monitoring of these new arrangements leading to an interim review in two years time.

Improvements are needed, however, in relation to those pupil services where provision is entirely made by agencies external to the borough. Improvements in some of these areas, for example provision for pupils with extremely challenging behaviour or those with visual impairment, may require additional expenditure, including some capital expenditure. We therefore recommend a more extended review of wider possibilities to include, for example, development of the current Jo Richardson School site or joint commissioning with other LEAs.

Page 163 28

Page 164 29

APPENDIX 1 Option Appraisal 1: centrally-provided LEA support services for SEN

Not Outline of option Appropriate Comments Appropriate Few contractors currently tender to Market testing of all provide the full range of SEN services. or part of the service The need for such provision is usually (where the in-house restricted to poorly-performing LEAs. provider bids in open Some discrete SEN services are 3 currently available on a market basis. competition against Wider delegation to schools of funding the private or for these elements of the service is voluntary sector) possible. At present, however, our school-based SEN support services are performing well and are highly valued by schools. The service, either in its current form or Formation of a public after restructuring, does not have any private partnership 3 major additional capital expenditure requirements. Externalisation of SEN services, Transfer or nationally, is normally linked to the need externalisation of the for intervention following serious service to another 3 underperformance. The inspection of provider the LEA found few serious structural weaknesses. The weaker elements of local provision are improving rapidly. An extensive restructuring of LEA Restructuring of the support for SEN is currently under way. in-house service Allowing this restructuring to continue,

3 subject to further in-depth review, is the preferred option. No elements of in-house service Renegotiating of provision are currently contracted-out to existing external providers. This is considered arrangements with 3 an appropriate alternative in Option the current provider Appraisal 2, however. Schools are generally satisfied with Joint commissioning school-based support services. Joint or delivery of the commissioning, in partnership with service 3 neighbouring LEAs, may be mutually beneficial for some areas that are not currently provided. Option Appraisal 2 considers these issues.

Cessation of the The LEA has a statutory duty to meet the special educational needs of its service in whole or in 3 pupils. The LEA cannot abandon its part responsibilities in this area.

Page 165 30

Page 166 31

APPENDIX 2 Option Appraisal 2: externally-provided LEA support services for SEN

Not Outline of option Appropriate Comments Appropriate

Market testing of all or part of the service (where the in-house We cannot market test, on a competitive provider bids in open basis, for services we do not currently competition against 3 provide. the private or voluntary sector)

If extensive new provision (e.g. for Formation of a public pupils with extreme EBD) were private partnership required, additional capital expenditure

3 may be necessary. Use of the Jo Richardson School site may be a better option, however.

Transfer or The services under discussion are externalisation of the already supplied by external providers. service to another The cost is already high and rising, provider 3 however.

Restructuring of the We do not currently provide these in-house service services in-house.

3 The cost of current external provision is Renegotiating of high and rising. Arrangements for existing monitoring the quality of provision have arrangements with been established only recently. Review the current provider 3 of current contractual arrangements is a recommendation of this review. The LEA may wish to expand its Joint commissioning provision for EBD and visual or delivery of the impairment. If so, joint commissioning service 3 with partner LEAs is an option. Further exploration of this area is a recommendation of this review.

Cessation of the The LEA has a statutory duty to meet the special educational needs of its service in whole or in 3 pupils. The LEA cannot abandon its part responsibilities in this area.

Page 167 32

Page 168 33

APPENDIX 3

Page 169 34

Page 170 35

NON MAINTAINED SCHOOL FEES (i.e. fees paid to residential SEN schools outside the LEA)

2001/02 £1,003,643

2000/01 £1,068,384

1999/00 £900,723

1998/99 £939,766 Page 171 1997/98 £846,544

1996/97 £689,420 FINANCIAL YEAR

1995/96 £631,525

1994/95 £690,619

1993/94 £357,742

£0 £200,000 £400,000 £600,000 £800,000 £1,000,000 £1,200,000

SUPPORT FOR STATEMENTED PUPILS (includes the cost of support provided both within LEA schools and purchased from outside the LEA) (does not include support for pupils with SEN but without statements, i.e. pupils on ‘School Action’ or ‘School Action Plus’) 2001/02 £3,306,286

2000/01 £2,712,775

1999/00 £2,485,198

1998/99 £2,890,838

1997/98 £2,242,536 Page 172

FINANCIAL YEAR 1996/97 £2,256,910

1995/96 £1,803,155

1994/95 £1,311,552

1993/94 £820,276

£0 £500,000 £1,000,000 £1,500,000 £2,000,000 £2,500,000 £3,000,000 £3,500,000

APPENDIX 4 Best Value PIs

Page 173 38

Page 174 39

DEAL - Lifelong Learning and Inclusion BV 43a - Percentage of statements prepared within 18 weeks excluding ☺ those involving other agencies

100% GOOD 96% 97% 86% 80%

67% 60%

Redbridge 40% 36% Havering Newham Barking & Dagenham 20% Top 25% - London 12% Top 25% - National Local Target 7% 0% BAD 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 03/04

No comparative data available for 97/98

DEAL - Lifelong Learning and Inclusion BVPI 43b - Percentage of statements prepared within 18 weeks ☺ including those involving other agencies

100% GOOD

80% 69%

66% 60%

40% 38% 39% Redbridge Havering Newham 20% Barking & Dagenham 15% Local Target 6% Top 25% - London 5% Top 25% - National 0% BAD 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Qtr 1 Qtr2 Qtr 3 03/04

No comparative data available for 97/98 and 98/99

Page 175 40

Page 176 41

APPENDIX 5 Best Value Improvement Plan

Page 177 42

Page 178 43

PERFORMANCE COUNTS

(i) Extend and improve the current range of in-borough SEN Provision (ii) Implement and monitor those elements of the LEA’s post-OFSTED Action Plan that relate to SEN

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Improve the High Month-by-month By September Improved and sustained One additional Head of speed with which analysis of BVPI 43a & 2003 progress on BVPI 43a & 43b post for the Educational statements of 43b to at least London Area SEN Assessment Inclusion SEN are written. Average or better & Review Team (SENART) and Improve the Analysis of responses Upper quartile position in Admin speed with which by Head of Educational national and local LEA support services Inclusion and SEN benchmarking data Two Inclusion

Page 179 respond to Operations Manager Officers requests for Fewer complaints and SEN support Analysis of agency Tribunals Statement writing responses as above outsourced until Increase time Upper quartile rating in August 2003 allocation from Termly data analysis. annual school survey support services Targets set and into school and assessments Improved parental views class support completed

Improve local High Write Strategic Action By September Increased placement within Existing Inclusion Heads of provision for Plan for progressing 2003 the Borough of children with Teams and Educational pupils with this area in terms of statements of EBD Inclusion & Head emotional, social building capacity to Additional post for of Social Inclusion & behavioural meet needs in-borough, Reduced out-borough behaviour support difficulties wherever possible placements of pupils with team EBD

Reduce referral Increase training on of pupils to panel behaviour management for and requests for primary schools additional funding by 50% Fewer statements where over a period of EBD difficulties are key 2 years presenting factor.

Increase Develop effective Decrease in requests for Appoint Early inclusion in Early partnership work with additional funding for Early Years behaviour Years and Non- EYDCP and develop Years SEN behaviour specialist teacher maintained joint training support settings of pupils programme with more Effective funding and complex needs Data collection to target support structures for Early Page 180 support Years and non-maintained settings established

Develop multi- High Establish Strategy and By December Resourced provision for Additional funding Head of agency, task groups 2002 pupils with autism / highly for specialist base Educational borough-wide Action systems, challenging behaviour set Inclusion & Head strategy for structures and training up at Trinity Special School of Social Inclusion Autism outlined in draft borough-wide strategy Multi-agency feasibility Joint funding for on autism study on outside school care multi-agency initiated (including respite feasibility study re: care/supported home care) care.

All primary schools Resourced provision for consulted on autism primary aged pupils provision and outline established plan written

Review established strategy on autism and consult with parents

Establish multi- Write strategy plan December Outreach support Service agency strategy 2002 established group for speech and language difficulties

Review the Medium Establish a timetable September Review is commissioned, Time commitment Head of effectiveness of for carrying out the 2004 planned and conducted by by review team – Educational new procedures review Autumn Term 2004 existing resources Inclusion (General within a two year Inspector SEN) period Identify clear criteria for evaluation

Identify key personnel and groups to be involved in the review Page 181

FUNDING THE FUTURE

(i) Review the effectiveness of contractual arrangements for SEN services currently provided from outside the Borough. (ii) Explore the possibility of establishing a base for more coherent multi-agency provision

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Sample audit of High Identify the10 most By September Audit is completed to Existing resources Head of current costly external 2003 timescale. Educational arrangements placements in 2002-3 Inclusion & Head Report identifies clear of Social Inclusion Evaluate the conclusions. assessment process, allocation procedures, monitoring and costs of Page 182 these placements.

Identify potential savings and lessons to be learned for the future Review the High Audit all Service Level By September Analysis of all current SLAs Existing resources Procurement effectiveness of Agreements (SLAs), 2004 is completed. plus: Officer with advice contractual analyse their cost from Head of arrangements effectiveness and New contracts drawn up Extra Educational examine alternative according to Procurement administrative Inclusion modes of delivery. Procedures/Manual. time to collate SLAs. Develop clear Develop clear, time Cost-savings demonstrated and improved limited agreements and used to develop procurement about costs, services to additional preventative arrangements be delivered and Borough-based SEN standards required. services.

Identify and introduce LBBD multi-agency protocol good procurement for joint-funded placements practice agreed.

Rigorous Schools carry out LEA support 25% of schools Inclusion Officers monitoring of all yearly supported ‘self in Year1 and 10% in Year 2 and Inspection and LEA SEN and review’ of all SEN advisory team other Govt. funding within funding devolved framework 90% of schools return or delegated to completed forms to the LEA schools Data on performance of on time children with SEN is collected and analysed

Audit all areas of High “Gap and needs based By September Inclusion Strategic Action Head of SEN not analysis” is completed 2003 Plan produced and Educational currently consulted upon (3-5 year Inclusion & Head resourced within A costed 3-5 year plan plan); linked to EDP, School of Social Inclusion the Borough, to address gaps and organisation Plan and Asset across all age- address needs in management Plan Page 183 ranges (0-19 provision is written years) A timetable for developing Collect good practice the capacity of mainstream models within and schools and Early Years outside the Borough to settings to meet the needs help shape the Plan of children currently educated in special sector Provide effective Review all types of and different provision, assessing Pupils make good progress. types of longer term outcomes Benchmarks established provision Target setting is effective All children in special settings have dual Timetable for training all registration with local teachers to support pupils neighbourhood school effectively

Accessibility High All schools and centres Ongoing - by Numbers of adaptations Government funds Borough Officer for Plans & Strategy draw up costed September planned and delivered via Accessibility Policy and Accessibility Plans 2003 Strategy Planning Borough Accessibility Plan Lifelong Learning and completed. Inclusion Officers link 3-5 year plan completed with Assets Team to develop plan Systems established to celebrate and recognise Admissions Forum school’s work with children achieves more even who have SEN and distribution of children counterbalance negative with SEN (including impact of performance those with EDB) across tables local schools Page 184 Identify and cost Medium Write a cost-benefit 2004 Client groups consulted Feasibility study Policy and potential sites analysis of each site And evidence of views taken commissioned Planning Officer for a base at into account Head of Life-long which a coherent Learning multi-agency provision can be established

COMMUNITY FIRST

Improve arrangements for informing, consulting and involving the parents, pupils and key groups who make use of SEN services

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Improve High Develop further Parents By September Establish Contractual Current LEA Head of arrangements for in Partnership links, 2003 arrangements for Parent funding for Educational informing, including a year-long Partnership Service Parents in Inclusion consulting and programme of events Partnership involving parents link this to current More open consultation and carers developments in meetings with parents, more parents in Education surveys of views, more and Family Learning specialist groups compared courses to previous years (to 2002) Page 185 Examine feasibility of a Fewer complaints and “surgery” for parents Tribunals Focus group established Establish a focus group By September of parents on issues to 2003 Evidence of parents’ views do with progressing taken into account in Improve services for autistic planning services arrangements for children and low informing, incidence disabilities Network of support consulting and groups/links for parents involving Improve links with established voluntary voluntary organisations organisations on SEN and Inclusion

Improve Deploy SENART staff By September Area has named SENART Existing resources Head of arrangements for to Educational areas in 2003 Officer plus continued Educational informing, order to support area training Inclusion consulting and inclusion teams programme involving schools in statutory assessment

Improve Pupils’ own views on By September Pupils’ views on their SEN Existing resources Head of arrangements for SEN are explored as 2003 and/or Inclusion needs Educational informing, part of every (where appropriate) have Inclusion & Head consulting assessment with: been explored and are of Social Inclusion children and Educational included as part of the young people Psychologists and advice for statutory LEA request, within the assessment in 70% of cases Page 186 statutory assessment procedure

PEOPLE MATTER

Extend and improve the current range of in-borough SEN provision

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress

Implications of High The views of all team By January Report on comprehensive Existing resources Head of Lifelong restructuring in members in Inclusion 2003 collation of views of all team plus extra admin Learning and terms of roles, Teams sought and (Conference 1 members produced Inclusion, Head of remits, workload, analysed in new November) Educational training needs structure. Inclusion & Head analysed by of Social Inclusion senior officers

Page 187 Training needs of By July 2003 Strategy for addressing Training budget Head of Social and individual/team/ division needs produced established Educational outlined and a Inclusion programme of training established

All teams’ support By July 2003 Training programme needs explored e.g. IT, established. admin, etc. Linked to development plans and Inclusion strategy Support needs costed and addressed

PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE

Improve arrangements for informing, consulting and involving the parents, pupils and key groups who make use of SEN services

Improvement Priority Key Actions Timescale Outputs demonstrating Resources Lead Required progress Raise awareness High Briefings at DMT on Ongoing and Briefings delivered Current and Head of Lifelong of Inclusion Inclusion issues by September existing resources Learning & needs within the 2004 Inclusion, Head of Borough Briefings of other Educational groups within the Inclusion & Head Council e.g. Scrutiny of Social Inclusion Panel (Looked After Children Panel -

Page 188 November 2002)

APPENDIX 6 LEA Post-OFSTED Action Plan (Extract)

(This extract includes only those sections of the post-OFSTED action plan that deal with SEN issues.

It should be read in conjunction with the Best Value Improvement Plan (see Appendix 3)

Page 189 54

Page 190 55 IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEA'S STRATEGY FOR SEN Recommendations 2 a-d

Recommendation Context Summary of Proposed Actions

2a Meet the requirements of the At the time of the inspection the LEA's inclusion policy In developing the policy, the LEA felt that the policy statement and accompanying strategy needed to cover not SEN alone revised code of practice for special was still at draft stage. The existing policy for SEN but needed to be more inclusive, covering all aspects of educational and social inclusion. In Spring 2002 the department educational needs by completing was felt to be sound and used effectively during the was given the lead responsibility for social inclusion within the Council. and publishing the policy statement transition to the new Code of Practice. on inclusion as a matter of urgency;

2b Make the development plan The inspectors judged that the strategy for SEN has The SEN Strategy group, now known as the Inclusion Strategy Group reflecting its inclusive work direction, recognised the feasible by drawing up for 2002/3 a been carefully planned, and consultation has been need to extend the plan beyond 2002/03 and will also take into account: fully costed and sequential plan to effective. The LEA's move to strengthen its inclusion - input from the Best Value Review; implement the LEA's inclusion policy is well understood and supported by schools. A - updates from the SEN handbook; strategy. detailed action plan guides the implementation of this - the ongoing training programme and schools conference; major policy change and was based on a sound - financial planning, following the introduction of cost centre management. analysis of need. Originally set over a very short The Education Development Plan contains a specific activity relating to this and should be referred to, see activity 1.1 - timescale, to August 2002, it did not appear to provide 'Review the LEA Strategy for Social Inclusion.' for change to be fully embedded. Page 191 Long term financial planning was not secure and current proposals were not accompanied by a plan for the deployment of resources. Strategic objectives and resourcing decisions were not satisfactorily synchronised. 2c Address structural and The inspection reports states: "Although work is Within weeks of the inspection it became clear to the LEA that two members of the departmental management team would management issues to ensure proceeding to improve co-ordinated support for pupils be leaving and the department took the opportunity to re-organise into a manner that could respond positively to the close working between CIAS and with SEN, structural and management issues will need current needs. One division was created to bring together social and educational inclusion. the children's support division. to be resolved to ensure close working between the children’s support division and the CIAS."

2d Improve the alignment of Strategic objectives and resourcing decisions are not Lack of financial accountability was identified as a weakness common throughout the department , and also corporately. monitoring and resource delegation satisfactorily synchronised. A weakness identified was This will be addressed through the introduction of cost centre management (see recommendations 5a-e - Improve in order to effectively target the lack of financial accountability by senior divisional structures for achieving Best Value). The SEN team had begun to develop and implement new monitoring procedures at resources to need. staff. They were not budget holders, at the time of the the time of the inspection. inspection, and this was judged to impinge on their capacity to plan effectively for policy implementation.

56 IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEA'S STRATEGY FOR SEN Action Plan 2a

No. Recommendation Links to other activities and plans 2a In order to improve the effectiveness of the LEA's strategy for SEN meet the requirements of Education Development Plan - Priority 1, Activity 1.1 the revised code of practice for special educational needs by completing and publishing the Inclusion Strategy Group policy statement on inclusion as a matter of urgency. Policy Commission on Social Inclusion

Purpose To publish the inclusion policy in accordance with the revised code of practice Nature Consult with schools and relevant agencies Finalise the inclusion policy

Target group Schools, parents, non-school educational settings, the CIAS, the Educational and Social Inclusion Teams

Actions to be taken Lead Timescale Resource implications Success Criteria (including Monitoring (1) Evaluation (2) Responsibility baseline where possible) and Benchmarking (3) Write a definition of the department's Head of Educational August 2002 - COMPLETED Additional salary costs All departments within the Council (1) Head of Social Inclusion and statement on inclusion, with a mission Inclusion receive a copy of the mission Inclusion Strategy Group through statement on inclusion. statement on inclusion by end of interim reports to the Send copy of the approved mission statement Head of Lifelong September 2002 Distribution costs met from existing September 2002. Departmental Management Team. on inclusion to other corporate partners (e.g. Learning and resources. Page 192 health, social services). Inclusion Publish education policy (2) and (3) Annual national survey Establish a consultation group and working Head of Lifelong 1st week of September 2002 Staff time statement on inclusion by end of of schools comparison with party consisting of: Learning and October 2002. national data. - headteacher representatives from Inclusion primary, secondary and Trinity Special Upper quartile ratings for 'The schools; quality of your LEA's SEN - elected members; strategy' in the 2003 survey. - Head of Lifelong Learning and Inclusion; heads of educational inclusion, social inclusion, youth services. Develop an inclusion questionnaire with draft Heads of Educational 1st two weeks of September Staff time and associated additional policy statement: and Social Inclusion 2002 salary costs, met from existing - circulate to the consultation group; resources. - collate responses and review. Distribute inclusion questionnaire for wider Heads of Educational Last two weeks of Staff time and associated additional consultation: including all schools, special and Social Inclusion September 2002. salary costs, met from existing bases and non-school settings; collate and resources. analyse responses. Inclusion Conference: Heads of Educational October 2002 Venue and speaker costs - present final policy statement; and Social Inclusion Invitations to headteachers, SENCOs, - present school self-review; educational psychologists, Parents in - present links to the new code of practice. Partnership service, SENART, outreach (see also action plan 2b) services, monitoring officers, representatives from other services and departments.

57 IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEA'S STRATEGY FOR SEN Action Plan 2b

No. Recommendation Links to other activities and plans 2b In order to improve the effectiveness of the LEA's strategy for SEN make the development Education Development Plan - Priority 1, Activity 1.1 plan feasible by drawing up for 2002/3 a fully costed and sequential plan to implement the See Recommendations 5a-e LEA's inclusion strategy. Inclusion Strategy Group Policy Commission for Social Inclusion Best Value Review - SEN report and improvement plan

Purpose To develop a plan to deliver the inclusion strategy Nature Input from the Best Value Review; Updating the SEN handbook; Improved training programme and schools conference; Improved financial planning and monitoring (see rec 5a-e)

Target group All children with SEN and those who support them, including schools, parents/ carers and professionals.

Actions to be taken Lead Timescale Resource implications Success Criteria (including Monitoring (1) Evaluation (2) Responsibility baseline where possible) and Benchmarking (3) See EDP Activity 1.1 - Review the LEA Positive feedback and evaluation (1) Feedback to Inclusion Strategy Page 193 Strategy for Social Inclusion from training programme. Group from schools Established monitoring and tracking Head of Social Spring 2002 - ACTIONED Two (2 no.) monitoring officers have procedures of the development plan and SEN Inclusion been appointed. Completion of the education (1) Regular reports to Heads of provision, including out of borough provision. inclusion strategy and Educational and Social Inclusion (see also action plan 2d) presentation to headteachers and and Inclusion Strategy Group from Update the SEN Handbook - to explain clearly Head of Educational October 2002 Staff time and associated salary costs. elected members for approval by the SEN Monitoring Officers. the whole process and identify responsibilities. Inclusion Printing and distribution costs. July 2003. Inclusion Conference: outcomes form the Heads of Educational October 2002 Venue and speaker costs (1) and (2) Budget reports from conference will inform the detailed and Social Inclusion No need for additional funding Financial Services - see rec. 5a-e development of the inclusion strategy and plan request part way through 2003/04 by the inclusion teams. (see action plan 2a) financial year. (2) Analysis of feedback from Deliver improved training programme for Heads of Educational November 2002 - ONGOING Within existing resources. training programme. teachers, parents/carers and staff. and Social Inclusion Upper quartile in rated responses: Implementation of improvement plan from Heads of Educational 5 years to 2007 see SEN Best Value report and action 'The quality of the LEA's SEN 2) and (3) Annual National Survey SEN Best Value Review - report to go to and Social Inclusion plan strategy' and 'LEA's planning of of Schools. Assembly for approval in November 2002. SEN provision to meet identified Identify initial pilot schools who will complete Head of Educational January 2003 (pilot) Within existing resources. needs' in 2003 national school the school self-review on inclusion - reviews Inclusion survey. will be collated and information audited. May 2003 (Following pilot, all schools will be invited to participate). Development of the educational inclusion Heads of Educational July 2003 Within existing resources. strategy including thorough costing of the and Social Inclusion development plan and monitoring of financial resources.

58 IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEA'S STRATEGY FOR SEN Action Plan 2c

No. Recommendation Links to other activities and plans 2c In order to improve the effectiveness of the LEA's strategy for SEN address structural and Organisation of the Department of Education, Arts and Libraries management issues to ensure close working between CIAS and the children's support division.

Purpose To improve the effectiveness of the SEN strategy Nature Establishing formal links between similar teams and projects; Organisational re-structuring.

Target group All those work to support children with SEN.

Actions to be taken Lead Timescale Resource implications Success Criteria (including Monitoring (1) Evaluation (2) Responsibility baseline where possible) and Benchmarking (3) Re-structuring of the department by dissolving Departmental ACTIONED Additional salary costs arising from job There is now a single Inclusion (1) Inclusion Strategy Group; the Children's Support Division and bringing Management Team - effective 1 September 2002 changes/ upgrades. Team with two line managers Head of Lifelong Learning and all the advisory and support services for SEN reporting to the (divisional) Head Inclusion. together within a newly organised Lifelong of Lifelong Learning and Inclusion. Learning and Inclusion Division. (see (2) and (3) Annual National Page 194 organisation chart below) Improved ratings for the SEN Survey of Schools function in 2003.

The OFSTED inspection report praised the creation of the children's Support division, particularly in light of the focus it brought to certain aspects of social inclusion. It was clear, however, that the operational, strategic and pedagogical aspects of SEN needed to be brought together. The new Lifelong Learning and Inclusion Division allows the department to: fulfil better our statutory obligations with regard to SEN as a result of improved communication structuring between teams supporting pupils with special needs; address more fully to the needs of corporate social inclusion and work with the community; respond more rapidly to the schools' needs; promote the attainment and achievement of young people through links to Lifelong Learning, addressing their needs through better planning and tracking.

59 IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEA'S STRATEGY FOR SEN Action Plan 2d

No. Recommendation Links to other activities and plans 2d In order to improve the effectiveness of the LEA's strategy for SEN improve the alignment of Recommendation Action Plans 5a-e monitoring and resource delegation in order to effectively target resources to need. Education Development Plan - Priority 1 Balanced Scorecard for Children's Support 2002/03

Purpose To improve financial planning and monitoring Nature Introduction of cost centre management with training Established monitoring procedures for SEN

Target group All those who support special educational needs Actions to be taken Lead Timescale Resource implications Success Criteria (including Monitoring (1) Evaluation (2) Responsibility baseline where possible) and Benchmarking (3) Appointment of monitoring and inclusion Head of Social ACTIONED Additional salary and workplace costs Upper quartile of rated responses (1) and (2) Inclusion Strategy officers: Inclusion/ PEP - appointments made in April met from existing budget resources. for 'The clarity of the LEA's Group earlier identification of needs; 2002 and June 2002 rationale for the deployment of improved planning for the LEA overall. SEN funding,' 'The LEA's planning (3) Annual National Survey of See action plan 2b of SEN provision to meet identified Schools. needs,' 'The LEA's effectiveness

Page 195 Establishing procedures to identify a child's Head of Lifelong Spring 2003 Additional post to be created to support in monitoring your support for developmental framework universally, input Learning and increased administrative or support pupils with SEN' in 2003 survey. from all departments health, social services Inclusion procedures. and education. Input from: Head of Educational Inclusion Head of Social Inclusion & PEP Head of Early Years

60 IMPROVE STEPS TAKEN TO MEET STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS IN RESPECT OF SEN Action Plan 3

Recommendation Context Summary of Proposed Actions 3 Closely monitor plans to improve In 2000 the LEA's procedure for banding provision in The LEA, in responding to the need to re-write the statements, also has an strategic objective to reduce the number of co-ordination with other agencies in statements was challenged and as a result there was a statements. Arrangements for reviewing statements had improved in the year previous to the inspection, with health and the production of statements, and need to re-write all statements by August 2002. This social services contributing appropriately to a multi-agency review panel which includes school representation. The LEA ensure rigorous procedures for meant a decline in statementing rate and the inter- will continue to: monitoring and review. agency rate of statementing (38% for 2001/02), - develop cross-agency working; involving health and social services, was of particular - closely monitor the performance indicators; concern to the inspection team - establish procedures for monitoring and review.

Purpose To improve the efficiency of the statementing process Links to other activities and plans Nature Improving procedures for cross agency work Inclusion Strategy Group More detailed monitoring of the statementing process and associated Education Development Plan - Priority 1, Activities 1.1 and 1.2 performance indicators Balanced Scorecard 2002/03 for the former Children's Support Division Target group All those involved in the statementing process for children with SEN Actions to be taken Lead Timescale Resource implications Success Criteria (including Monitoring (1) Evaluation Responsibility baseline where possible) (2) and Benchmarking (3) Monthly monitoring of statementing figures at the Head of Educational ACTIONED - July 2002 Within existing resources. Increase percentage of (1) and (2) The SEN Page 196 Departmental Management Team meeting. Inclusion statements prepared within 18 Operations team monitor Appointment of monitoring officers - for monitoring Head of Educational ACTIONED - Spring 2002 Two (2 no.) monitoring officers have weeks - performance indicators BV43a-b monthly. They will and review process. Inclusion been appointed. BV43a-b. also be monitored by the Actual performance for 2001/02 Departmental Management Developing work with social services at a detailed Head of Educational ACTIONED - Spring 2002 Within existing resources. - - excluding those involving Team. operational level, for example, social services Inclusion and Head of and ONGOING other agencies: 67.1% follow up with parents on appointments with a Children & Family - including those involving (2) and (3) Annual national 'phone call reminder. Services (Social other agencies: 38.8% and London comparisons Services) Targets for 2003/03: within the BVPP. - excluding those involving Establishing procedures to identify a child's Head of Lifelong Spring 2003 Additional post to be created to support other agencies: 90% (2) and (3) Annual National developmental framework universally, input from Learning and increased administrative or support - including those involving Survey of Schools all departments health, social services and Inclusion procedures. other agencies: 50% education. (see action plan 2d) (see BVPP 2002/03) Develop strategic planning with key partners, for Head of Social ONGOING Time and associated additional salary example health and social services. Inclusion costs. Improved rated responses for 'The Training offered to Social Services teams Head of Educational September 2002 Costs associated with delivering a efficiency with which statutory Inclusion training cost - venue, refreshments, assessments of pupils with SEN paperwork, staff time. are made' in 2003 survey

61 IMPROVE STRUCTURES FOR ACHIEVING BEST VALUE Action Plan 5e

Recommendation Context Summary of Proposed Actions 4 complete a monitored audit of Since April 2001, schools have received delegated The LEA has essentially completed the audit and will be seeking more detailed information required from schools in the school SEN expenditure and resources for both statemented and non-statemented Autumn Term. provision by no later than SEN support. The inspectors found that the criteria for September 2002. the deployment of resources are clear and are under review to ensure a more effective system for resource allocation. However, until budgetary responsibilities are clearer and monitoring improved, weaknesses outweigh strengths and value for money is not assured.

Purpose To monitor and evaluate value for money Links to other activities and plans Inclusion Strategy Group Nature review school SEN expenditure and provision

Target group All schools

Page 197 Actions to be taken Lead Timescale Resource implications Success Criteria (including Monitoring (1) Evaluation Responsibility baseline where possible) (2) and Benchmarking (3) Review of school provision Head of Finance, COMPLETED - Summer Completion of the audit by end of (1) Report on action plan to Planning and 2002 Autumn term 2002. Departmental Management Procurement Team Review of school expenditure Head of Educational October 2002 Staff time and associated salary costs. Improved ratings for the SEN - develop a proforma to gather clearer Inclusion function in the 2003 survey. (3) Annual National Survey of information; Schools - distribute to schools; - links with review of pupil retention grant (see recommendation 12).

Review of SEN Transport costs Head of Educational October 2002 New post to be created to work with - improve procedures for the allocation of SEN Inclusion parent/ carer to agree transport needs. transport (this is an action from the Best Value Review - Transport).

62 IMPROVE STRUCTURES FOR ACHIEVING BEST VALUE Action Plan 5e

Page 198

APPENDIX 7 Glossary of Terms

Page 199 64

Page 200 65

Best Value Review of SEN : Glossary of Terms

BVPIs - Best Value Performance Indicators: nationally recognised measure of performance used to compare different LEAs against common criteria.

Banding System - A system devised by the LEA to enable different levels of funding to be allocated to pupils with Statements, according to their ‘band’ or level of need. Recently judged, by DfEE, to be inappropriate.

CIAS Community Inspection and Advisory Service.

DfES/DfEE - Department for Education and Science. Previously known as DfEE (Department for Education and Employment).

Early Intervention - A project to support children of pre-school and Reception age Project (Acorns) who are in school but felt to be in need of additional support in terms of their social and behavioural development. The Project also works closely with the children’s families.

EBD - Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.

EPS - Educational Psychology Service.

IEPs - Individual Education Plans. All pupils who have Statements of SEN must have an IEP. This shows how their educational needs and personal targets are to be met, on a practical basis, by schools and class teachers. Pupils’ progress in relation to their IEP targets must be reviewed regularly.

Learning Mentors - Adults (not teachers) who support targeted pupils to try to help them overcome barriers to learning. Their work may involve personal and social support as well as help with academic work.

Multi-agency - In the case of pupils with very complex needs, support for pupils and their families often has to be met through detailed collaboration between several different departments, agencies or specialisms (e.g. Social Services, education, Health etc).

OFSTED - Office for Standards in Education. The central body responsible for carrying out inspections of schools and LEAs).

Pupil Retention Grant - A grant given to schools, annually, by Central Government. Schools are expected to use the PRG to help them reduce exclusions (including drug-related exclusions and improve attendance).

School Action (Plus) - under the new SEN Code of Practice, pupils with special needs are designated as either ‘School Action’ or ‘School Action Plus’. The latter designation implies a more serious level of need involving support from more than one agency. ‘School Action’ implies that most of the pupil’s needs will be met from within the school’s own resources.

Page 201 66

SEN Code of Practice - The statutory framework that regulates how support for SEN is to be provided. It is amended from time to time. The most recent amendment took place in January 2002.

SENART - Special Educational Needs Assessment and Review Team.

SENCo - Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator : Every school must have a SENCo. The SENCo (usually a teacher) co-ordinates provision for all pupils with special educational needs.

SITs - Specialist Intervention Teachers : Prior to the recent reorganisation of the Children’s Support Division, SITs were line managed directly by the Educational Psychology Service.

SNMT - Special Educational Needs Management Team. LEA Officers with managerial responsibility for SEN meeting together.

Standards Fund - An annual grant from central government to enable LEAs and schools to fund their provision. The Grant is divided into several discrete sections, several of which relate specifically to SEN.

Statement of SEN - Around one in thirty pupils in the UK has a Statement of SEN. A statement specifies the particular provision that a pupil should have in order to address identified, complex and long-term special needs.. LEAs have a duty to arrange the provision specified.

Statutory Assessment The formal process through which a Statement of SEN is Process awarded.

Page 202 67 AGENDA ITEM 8

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND LIBRARIES

PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE BARKING REACH FOR DECISION

This report is submitted to the Executive for their approval as it affects the basic provision of school places and the Executive need to resolve the action required to secure the designated site.

Summary

This report seeks authority from the Executive to designate the area of land set aside under the Section 106 Planning Agreement for the purposes of a community primary school and seek the transference of the land to the ownership of the Council, in accordance with the agreement dated August 1999.

Recommendation / Reason

That the Executive resolves that the school and community site is required for education community purposes and that Bellway’s should be formally requested to transfer the land to the Council’s ownership at no cost. This action is required to secure the basic provision of increased school places, specifically for local residents in the Barking Reach area.

Contact Officer: Mike Freeman Head of Assets and Tel: 020 8227 3492 Administration Fax: 020 8227 3274 Minicom: 020 8227 3180 e-mail: [email protected]

1. Background

1.1 As part of the planning approval for Phase 2A, an agreement was made with Bellway Homes for a planning gain under Section 106 in favour of the Council to designate a site to provide a primary school on the Barking Reach development.

1.2 Plan number BRP01, showing this site, is attached as Appendix A to this report.

1.3 There is an obligation on the developer, Bellway Homes, not to use this site for any purpose other than for community or educational purposes. This agreement lasts for a period of 10 years from August 1999.

1.4 Within that time span the Council can resolve that the land is required for the development of education and community facilities.

Page 203 2. School Provision

2.1 As part of the report to the Executive on 17 December 2002, information was provided which demonstrated the need for additional pupil places across the Borough. In particular, there is a need to develop a primary school to address the growing need for creation of pupil places south of the A13 in the Barking end of the Borough, that is at Thames View and Barking Reach. There are currently some waiting lists in certain year groups for Thames View.

2.2 It was proposed, as part of the process to secure a new school, that a bid would be made to the DfES for PFI credits to support the provision of a new primary school to be located at Barking Reach.

2.3 This new school will be located on the site designated as part of the Section 106 agreement once the land has been transferred. It is proposed that the school will be an extended school, including community facilities.

3. Consultation

3.1 This report has been compiled following consultation with the Head of Planning and the Borough Officer for Democratic Support and Legal Services.

Page 204

. SITE IDENTIFIED

Page 205 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 206 AGENDA ITEM 9

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & HEALTH

ALLOCATIONS POLICY REVIEW: OUTSTANDING MATTERS FOR DECISION FOR DECISION CONSULTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

This report addresses a number of outstanding matters affecting the Council in the revision and review of its rehousing service provision, which affect all Council wards.

Summary

This report draws together a series of outstanding items for decision and consideration. These need resolution before final revision and implementation of the new Housing Allocations Policy can proceed. Included within this paper is feedback on the outcomes of recent consultation, the proposals to advise members on the operation of the new policy and a provisional timetable for the launch of the new Allocations Policy.

Recommendations

The Executive is recommended to consider

1. The outcomes of consultation on the new points prioritisation scheme. 2. The proposed date for the introduction of the new allocation policy. 3. The proposals suggested for briefing members on the operation of the new allocation policy

The Executive is recommended to agree

1. That nominations to Registered Social Landlords count as formal offers. 2. The establishment of an appeal mechanism to determine if offers made to applicants are ‘reasonable’. (i.e. in accordance with Council policy). 3. Enhanced provision within the Housing Allocations Policy for children leaving the Council’s care where a need for social housing has been assessed. 4. An annual review of the number of lettings made under the ‘children leaving care’ provisions alongside the general volume of annual lettings. 5. The proposal to explore choice-based lettings options for the council.

Reason

The prioritisation scheme will produce a more transparent allocation process.

Contact: Anthony Alexander Community Housing Tel: 020 8227 2210 Manager Fax: 020 8227 2841 Minicom: 020 8227 2685 Email [email protected]

Page 207 1. Background

1.1 A review of the Housing Allocations Policy began originally in October 1999. The review period is about to be drawn to a closure prior to full implementation of the new policy.

1.2 During the course of this review a number of changes have been made to the allocations policy and procedure with the agreement of the Executive. A series of further changes are proposed as part of this paper to facilitate the operation of the new policy.

1.3 A key final change proposed has been around the scheme for awarding points to applicants and the merging of the current separate lists for homelessness cases, housing register applicants and transfer applicants.

1.4 The new revised points prioritisation scheme (Scheme agreed by Executive 19/3/02 attached as APPENDIX X) introduces one common list with bands into which all the above categories of applicant are placed.

1.5 As part of the review process consultation with an extensive range of key stakeholders has taken place. This feedback from the most recent consultation is presented. The proposals for taking forward the review are set out in this paper.

1.6 A series of other additional proposals supplementary to the main one are included within this paper. Including some outline of the council’s present position in respect of the recent Government initiative of choice based letting schemes.

2. Outcomes of Consultation

2.1 There has been public consultation on the changes proposed to the points prioritisation scheme under the revised Allocation Policy. In the new scheme the transfer waiting list and transfer lists are effectively combined with the creation of a 4 band system into which all applicants including homelessness cases are listed.

2.2 Included as part of a comprehensive consultation on this scheme publicity articles were issued in Spotlight (August 2002), The Citizen (June 2002) and the Members bulletin (June 2002). Consultation was also undertaken with tenants’ representatives.

2.3 In addition to the articles published leaflets and posters were created for distribution setting out the proposed changes to the prioritisation and points scheme. These were displayed in the Area Housing Offices and other public buildings such as Libraries across the borough.

2.4 The public was advised to present comments on the points prioritisation scheme by a deadline of 30th September 2002.

2.5 There were just five responses received in different formats to the consultation exercise. These raised a range of issues varying from the impact of the banding system through to the process of implementation of the new policy. The issues raised were acknowledged and addressed by officers.

Page 208 3. Members Briefing on the new allocation policy

3.1 As a first part of the briefing for members an article will be placed in the members’ bulletin setting out the details of the proposed new prioritisation scheme.

3.2 In addition to this formal briefing sessions will be offered to members to work through the proposed operation of the new scheme. This is to assist Members in responding to enquiries made at their surgeries.

3.3 As part of this briefing a pack will be prepared that includes relevant key paperwork (e.g. applicant guides) that are being produced to support the introduction of the new scheme. This information will also be provided to the Borough’s Members of Parliament.

3.4 An objective will be to hold these briefing sessions prior to final implementation of the new policy

4. Introduction and Implementation of the new allocation policy

4.1 The new points prioritisation scheme simplifies the assessment process with all applicants completing one common application form and being entered into one of several bands on one combined list.

4.2 There are a series of remaining actions that are required before implementation of the new allocation policy can take place. These include the following key actions.

• Agreement on the details of an incentive scheme to increase the supply of specified properties (e.g. Large or Disabled units) within the housing stock.

• The collation of additional information from existing applicants to administer the new points scheme.

• Changes to the computer system in order to run the new prioritisation scheme.

4.3 A letter setting out the general details of the new banding scheme will be provided to applicants on the Housing register and the transfer list. This will give an outline of the new banding scheme. It is hoped to be able to send this letter by May 2003.

4.4 A second letter to applicants will give a specific indication of the impact on their applications, their revised points total, and how it will affect their prospects for rehousing.

4.5 It is anticipated that the new prioritisation scheme will come into operation in approximately June 2003.

5. Registered Social Landlords Nominations

5.1 At the moment when applicants on the waiting or transfer list are nominated to a Registered Social Landlord and receive an offer of accommodation it does not count against their tally of offers.

Page 209 5.2 Applicants may refuse the nomination made and still be eligible to their quota of offers.

5.3 It is proposed that in future nominations to RSL count as offers against their tally. This will enable the council to make the best use of the diminishing supply of the available to let properties.

5.4. If the Executive agrees this change our RSL partners would be consulted on the proposed change.

6. Allocations Offer Appeal Mechanism

6.1 The Homelessness Act 2002 made it necessary to establish an appeal mechanism for offers of property made as part of the allocations process

6.2 Applicants who were dissatisfied that an offer made was a ‘reasonable’ one, with regard to their assessed need, would be able to make a formal appeal. This would be made to a person other than the original allocation officer.

6.3. A number of possible grounds for appeal could exist including around the issue of medical assessment, the condition of the property, bedroom size and issues of personal safety, in respect of management transfer cases.

6.4 Appeals would need to be dealt with speedily to ensure that offers of accommodation made were not kept open for long periods affecting the turnaround times of empty properties.

6.5 It is proposed that a formal mechanism for dealing with appeals against offers of accommodation be established. Several options are set out for Members to consider.

• As indicated in an earlier paper of 29th October 2002 to the Executive the Community Housing Partnership (CHP) Board Members might have a role in dealing with appeals.

• Alternatively as the separate staff structures of the different CHP areas develop a senior officer in an adjacent CHP area could deal with appeals.

• A final option is that Members deal with appeals with the support of officers.

6.6 The recommended option is that a senior officer in an adjacent CHP area hears appeals. In addition to this senior officer having the detailed experience of the housing stock, policies and procedures further key benefits are that they would guarantee a degree of independence, address confidentiality matters and be able to respond more swiftly than a CHP Board or Members panel.

6.7 This provision of appeals being undertaken by a senior officer would allow for a flexible response to any future potential growth of appeals.

Page 210

7. Additional provision for children leaving the Council’s care

7.1 An arrangement exists between the Housing and Health and the Social Services departments to jointly assess the housing needs of young people leaving care.

7.2 At the present time it has been agreed that a maximum of 15 units be allocated to care leavers following this assessment process.

7.3 In the two full years to date 2000/01 and 2001/02 the quota set has not been exceeded.

7.4 The scheme has proved successful insofar as of the 41 tenancies created 38 have been sustained

7.5 The Children and Families Division of Social Services have indicated that the present quota set will not be adequate to meet projected demand both in the current year 2002/03 and the following year 2003/04.

7.6 The main cause of the increase of demand has been the responsibility the council has had to assume for unaccompanied children who have entered the country who have been granted leave to remain in the UK.

7.7 Once these unaccompanied children reach the age of 17/18 they have to be treated in the same way as native care leavers.

7.8 An estimate provided by the Asylum Seekers team indicates that approximately 15 of these additional care leavers will become eligible for housing this year.

7.9 In view of the Council’s corporate parent responsibility towards children leaving its care and to ensure consistency of response the same provision of accommodation via the Allocations Policy should be made to this category of care leaver.

7.10 In order to facilitate this the existing quota for care leavers would need to be raised from the present level of 15 units to 30.

7.11 As in the existing system the assessment process would need to be satisfied with the young person demonstrating that they were able to live independently with an appropriate package of support being provided.

7.12 To ensure that these applications receive adequate priority applications will be placed in Band B of the new Housing allocations prioritisation scheme, as agreed by the Executive on 19th March 2002.

8. Annual Review of Lettings

8.1 Under the new Housing Allocations Policy it is proposed that an annual report on lettings be made to Members via Members Matters. This will set out the overall volume of lettings made and how they are apportioned by category. (e.g. Transfer, Waiting List or other special category such as key worker or care leaver)

Page 211 8.2 This report would allow members to see how the outcomes of allocation performance matched against the agreed targets for specific allocation groups.

8.3 This report would be made to the Executive in the first quarter of each allocation year in either May or June to allow opportunity for collation of the lettings outcomes for the pre-ceding year.

8.4 This would also provide useful information to Members on lettings patterns and stock availability.

9. Choice Based Lettings

9.1 As the allocation policy review is drawn to a close it is proposed to extend the terms of a separately conducted overlapping review on choice-based lettings. This is the Government’s preferred way for local authorities to carry out lettings in future.

9.2 The purpose of choice-based lettings schemes is to promote greater applicant and customer choice. This accords with the Government’s broader agenda of modernising public services.

9.3 The principles of choice based lettings schemes can be set out as follows:

• Initiative taken by customers

• Market information supplied to customers

• Property and neighbourhood information for customers

• Systems for vulnerable households

• Selection and eligibility criteria (i.e. need)

• Quality of communications between customers and organisations

9.4 The Government has signalled that 25% of local authorities should have choice- based lettings schemes by 2005 and 100% by 2010.

9.5 The outcomes of lessons learnt from a series of choice-based lettings pilots has recently been released in a guide for social landlords. The government proposes to release a good practice guide on choice based lettings in the latter part of 2003.

9.6 The design of choice-based lettings schemes is aimed to give greater transparency in the way the lettings process works. A series of potential benefits can derive as a consequence of such schemes. These include

• empowering residents by giving them greater involvement in the management of their rehousing application.

• freeing up staff time in the management of the letting system hence staff resources.

Page 212 • reducing the volume of members enquiries as communication around lettings is improved.

9.7 The council has already taken an active interest in the choice based scheme run by Newham Council, the East London Lettings Company.

9.8 It is proposed within the next nine months to explore how choice based lettings might be introduced in Barking and Dagenham in a manner compatible with the new decentralised structures of the Community Housing Partnerships.

9.9 This will consider a range of options for taking forward the choice-based lettings scheme. Included will be an assessment of whether to join the choice- based scheme run by the East London Lettings Company.

10. Consultation

10.1 Consultation would be required with RSLs about the proposals to make nominations count against an applicant’s formal offer quota.

11. Links to Corporate Agenda and Justification for the Proposals

11.1 The new points prioritisation system will make the allocations scheme more transparent in operation thus meeting with the Council’s priority of developing rights and responsibilities.

11.2 The proposal to monitor lettings and report formally to the Executive will support the Council’s equalities agenda in ensuring fairness and consistency in the operation of the allocations policy.

11.3 The enhanced provision of units for care leavers will reduce the incidence of homelessness for this vulnerable group of young people and promote social inclusion.

Background Papers used in the preparation of this report. • Housing Allocations Policies and Practices Document • Initiatives to raise void performance • Report to Housing Allocations Working Party 29/2/2000 • Report to the Allocations Working Party 18th October 1999 • Report to the Executive 19/03/2002 • Housing Green Paper ‘Quality and Choice – A Decent Home For All’ DETR and DSS 2000 • How to Choose Choice – Lessons from the first year of the ODPM’s CBLs Pilot Schemes (A Guide for Social Landlords).

Page 213

APPENDIX X

THE EXECUTIVE

19 MARCH 2002

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & HEALTH

REVIEW OF THE HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY FOR DECISION

This report concerns policy issues affecting the Council and its rehousing services.

Summary

This report evaluates the progress made on the review of the Housing Allocations Policy against the original objectives. The report sets out a new scheme to determine the prioritisation of applicants for social housing and indicates how choice for people will be extended. The report then deals with other issues relevant to the Council’s corporate objectives.

Recommendations

The Executive is recommended to agree to adopt:- (1) The prioritisation scheme for rehousing based on a banding system as shown in para 2.3. (2) The local lettings scheme proposals to support regeneration initiatives in para. 5.2

The Executive is also recommended to accept further reports:- (a) establishing with Social Services a single waiting list for all forms of elderly persons’ accommodation with a common assessment and prioritisation scheme (b) to explore ways to support raising educational achievement through changes to rehousing operations (c) on the equalities implications in terms of ethnicity of the operation of the Allocations Policy.

Reason

The prioritisation scheme will be easier for the public to understand and more transparent in operation. The proposals will also contribute to • the Housing Strategy Delivery Plan • improving health, housing and social care • regeneration and neighbourhood renewal • creating better educational and learning opportunities for all

Contact: Ken Jones General Manager – Telephone: 020 8227 2210 Service Development Fax: 020 8227 2841 Minicom: 020 8227 2478 Email: [email protected]

Page 214

The following were consulted in the preparation of this report: Barking & Dagenham Housing Association Group Tenant representatives from the Joint Area Liaison Group Social Services Barking & Dagenham Race Equality Council Education Barking & Havering Health Authority – Manager Public Health Council Equalities & Diversities Adviser Disabled Persons Accommodation Group

1. Background

1.1 The Executive at its meeting on 31.10.2000 agreed to:-

• the extension of choice in letting social housing • a 3 band model for determining priorities between applicants for rehousing by the Council or nomination to Registered Social Landlord partners • open access to the Housing Register for keyworkers with a quota of 5% of all new lettings plus de-designated elderly person sheltered flats

1.2 A separate prioritisation scheme for elderly persons’ accommodation is in operation which requires specific attention. Discussions have commenced with Social Services Older People’s Services Division on setting joint eligibility criteria and a system for establishing priorities between applicants for this accommodation.

2. Progress Evaluation of the Policy Review

2.1 At the inception of the Housing Allocations Policy review a number of key themes and objectives were identified which the review must address:- • support the Housing Strategy • social exclusion and community safety • the needs of people with disabilities and the use of adapted properties • against the background of the Joint Review Team report into Social Services – give emphasis to the wider range of social needs • contribute to raising educational achievement • the Housing Green Paper

2.2 The policy proposals made so far (some of which have been implemented) have gone some way to responding to all of these issues – see APPENDIX A.

3. Prioritisation Scheme

3.1 Previously we have highlighted that the new scheme for determining priorities between applicants for rehousing would bring together all sources on to a common list. This means that all applications to enter Council housing for the first time, homelessness cases and transfer requests go on to the same list. This system simplifies the assessment process, so that there will be one application form and one set of criteria to prioritise cases (at present there are 2 separate pointing schemes).

Page 215 3.2 In updating the system regard was given to the Housing Green Paper and it was decided to follow the suggested model of a 3 level banding system. However, given the volume of applicants within the bands (in excess of 6,000) it is necessary to determine priorities within bands B and C – i.e. outside those in band A who are outright priorities for urgent rehousing. APPENDIX B shows the proposed prioritisation scheme.

3.3 In arriving at the detailed points levels and the weightings between these, extensive testing on the allocations computer system was carried out.

3.4 A separate system is in place to assess and prioritise applicants for elderly persons’ accommodation – whether Council or RSL partners. Work has started with Social Services Older People’s Services Division on establishing a single waiting list for all forms of accommodation for local elderly people with a common assessment tool and prioritisation scheme. A report on the outcome will be brought to the Executive.

4. Choice

4.1 The Government have emphasised their commitment to giving choice to people in accessing social housing in the Housing Green Paper.

4.2 The Executive have supported the principle of extending choice in the lettings process and officers have given an indication of how this can be delivered.

4.3 The following measures will be brought into effect on the implementation of the final phase of the Housing Allocations Policy changes. The key to this is to facilitate an informed choice for people seeking social housing in the borough: • Provide better information on the breakdown of the Council’s and RSL partners’ housing stock and the location of facilities such as schools, health centres, shopping areas etc. • Regularly publish details on properties that have become void i.e. locations and types of properties. • Publish information on the priority levels that applicants had on being let properties – again, by area and type. • It is intended to use the Citizen, press releases and the Council’s website to publish this information. • RSL tenants living in the borough will be given access to transfer into Council property. • The suspension period to be imposed when an applicant refuses 2 reasonable offers is being halved to 1 year.

5. Further Issues to be Addressed

5.1 It has become evident that the scope of the policy review needs to be extended to ensure that the service makes a positive contribution to some of the other corporate priorities.

5.2 Local lettings and regeneration / neighbourhood renewal

The report and recommendations agreed by the Executive on 31st October 2000 included provision for local lettings schemes in certain circumstances and subject to local community support. Given the vital contribution that housing and allocations

Page 216 policies can make to regeneration initiatives it is proposed that any local lettings schemes be tied to and support neighbourhood renewal / regeneration initiatives. The details of specific schemes will need to be fashioned by the demands of the particular circumstances and local community needs and aspirations. The essence for the arrangements would be that people in the area should benefit from the housing initiatives in that area.

5.3 Supporting the creation of better educational and learning opportunities for all

The agreed changes to the Housing Allocations Policy around the issue of children sharing bedrooms were designed to support this objective. Indications from Education point to the negative impact on children aged between 7 and 11 of moving home because of the disruptive effect of changing school or from the child travelling from the new home to the original school. It is likely that the changes already agreed (see APPENDIX A) but not yet implemented will assist. However, research needs to be undertaken on this and a report back to the Executive.

5.4 Equalities assessment of the operation of allocations policy

It is essential to ensure that the outcomes in terms of rehousing people be considered on the basis of equalities between ethnic groups. Recent monitoring needs to be continued to determine reliable trends which can be evaluated in the light of the data which will be received from the analysis of the 2001 Census. When this is completed it is intended to report back to the Executive.

6. Consultation

6.1 There has been extensive stakeholder involvement in the formulation of the policy changes and in the development of the new prioritisation scheme.

6.2 Public consultation on the changes will be undertaken using: • The Citizen • Local press releases • Posters in Housing Offices reception areas • Borough Liaison Group • Tenants Spotlight newsletter • The borough’s tenants & residents associations. Feedback on the outcome of this will be reported to the Executive.

6.3 Following this 2 letters will be issued to all applicants on the Housing Register and transfer list. The first will appraise applicants of the new banding scheme. The second letter will give details of exactly how the changes impact on their application and likely prospects for rehousing. This letter will go out very close to the implementation date.

7. Links to Corporate Agenda and Justification for the Proposals

7.1 A major criticism of the current allocations scheme is that it is difficult for the public to understand. The proposed scheme is simplified and more transparent in operation. This is consistent with the Council’s priority of developing rights and responsibilities.

Page 217

7.2 The proposals for prioritisation are consistent with the banding approach outlined in the Housing Green Paper.

7.3 The Housing Strategy Delivery Plan requires that the specific housing needs of people and groups should be addressed. Band B of the scheme provides for referral agencies to gain rehousing for their clients. To illustrate this, Social Services Looked After Children policy will be supported by these proposals by providing direct access for care leavers and also for foster carers.

7.4 The agenda for extending choice to people in the lettings process will be delivered by the measures in para. 4.

7.5 The Council’s equalities agenda will be supported by the work on monitoring and reviewing rehousing outcomes.

7.6 The local lettings proposals will support regeneration and neighbourhood renewal initiatives.

Background papers used in the preparation of this report:

Report to Housing Allocations Working Party 29/2/2000 .. Executive 31/10/2000 .. .. 16/1/2001 .. .. 30/1/2001 Housing Allocations Policies & Practices Document

Page 218

APPENDIX A

PROGRESS EVALUATION OF THE HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY REVIEW

Disabled people and use of adapted properties

Criteria have been established with Social Services Community Disabilities Service to ensure a more efficient use of adapted Council properties. A system of financial incentives has been adopted to:- • encourage tenants who do not need an adapted property to transfer and release that dwelling • encourage disabled persons to transfer to an available adapted properties where the circumstances are appropriate.

Addressing a wider range of social needs

Prioritised access to rehousing has been provided by means of a direct referral arrangement from Social Services Children & Families division for care leavers and foster carers. Work is in progress with Older Peoples division to establish a single waiting list for all elderly persons accommodation, with a joint assessment and prioritisation scheme.

Social exclusion and community safety issues

Referral systems have been put in place for urgent rehousing with sensitive allocations for clients of Community Mental Health, Probation and the Multi Agency Public Protection Panel ( comprising Police, Probation, Child Protection, Children & Families and Housing & Health ).

Housing Green Paper

The Housing Allocations Policy review has addressed the themes from the Green Paper:- • extending choice in lettings for people • prioritisation by means of a banding system • access to rehousing for keyworkers

Contribute to raising educational achievement

The policy for bedroom eligibility in relation to children sharing was reviewed and changes agreed. These will favour families with children aged 10 and over. The purpose of this is to give priority to accessing larger properties so that children of this age group would have a better opportunity to have a bedroom of their own at an age when they are required to do homework / course work. Given the housing stock and availability of larger properties it must be recognised that this policy change can only have a marginal effect.

Page 219

APPENDIX B

PRIORITISATION SCHEME Banding

Band A – homelessness cases, “A” medical priorities, decants and management transfers. Band B - referrals supported by agencies for specific housing need including move on, key workers serving the Borough, Council interest ( tenants giving up houses or larger / valuable flats ) and ex Council staff in tied accommodation. Band C - transfer waiting list, Housing Register ( including all non “A” medical cases ), reciprocal moves and Housing Association tenants requesting access to Council rehousing.

Housing List

To determine priorities within Bands B and C a points system will be applied.

Points system Points

Waiting – for each completed year from date of entry to waiting list - 8 In addition, for every year living in a flat / maisonette above the ground floor - 2

Lack of bedrooms – for each bedroom lacking in accordance with the bedroom eligibility schedule attached - 20

Releasing Council houses to move to smaller house / or flat – Points per bedroom underoccupied (move to house) - 20 ...... (move to flat) - 30

Statutorily overcrowded - 20

Facilities – either lacking or shared with non family members - inside WC -10 - bath / shower - 10 - adequate kitchen facilities - 10 - only form of access by means of external staircase - 4

Applications containing one or more children under 16 years living above ground floor in a flat / maisonette: - served by a lift - 8 unlifted - 12

For each child under 16 years of age - 20

Security of tenure – assured shorthold tenancies - 5

Page 220 - tenants with a valid notice to quit - 20 - people eligible to enter the housing list threatened with eviction from a non social housing landlord - 80 - licensees of RSL hostels / move on accommodation in the borough - 20 applicants sharing accommodation with no licence/contract - 20

- applicants with no fixed abode - 15

Separated families premium - 17

Medical – A priority urgent rehousing - 999 B assessment - 30 C assessment - 10 D assessment - 0

Social / Welfare needs

Households including someone with a specific need for settled accommodation on social / welfare grounds or where a combination of social / welfare factors indicate a need for accommodation of a particular nature be made available (medical factors will be considered when making an assessment). - 25 Where rehousing will:- (a) save the Council from providing a service to the current home e.g. meals on wheels, home care (b) significantly facilitate assistance a person can give to an elderly and / or disabled relative (c) bring an elderly or disabled person appreciably closer to shops, bus routes etc. (d) bring a household significantly closer to a facility where there is a service available which would contribute to an improvement in the quality of life of one or more family members e.g. special club, childminder / nursery/ school offering special facilities etc. - 8

Page 221

ELIGIBILITY FOR NUMBER OF BEDROOMS

Bedsit – single size room - single person .. double .. .. – single person / couple

1 bedroom - single person / couple

2 bedrooms - 2x single persons couple and single person parent(s) and 1 child parent(s) and 2 children – same sex with older child under 16 parent(s) and 2 children – same sex with age difference less than 10 years parent(s) and 2 children – opposite sex with older child under 10 single person / couple / family releasing larger house ex Council staff in tied accommodation (depending on circumstances)

3 bedrooms - parent(s) and 2 children – same sex with older child over 16 parent(s) and 2 children – same sex with difference greater than 10 years parent(s) and 2 children – opposite sex with older childover 10 parent(s) and 3 children – depending upon age and sex of children family with 2 bedroom eligibility and single person/couple

4 bedrooms - parent(s) and 3 or more children depending upon age and sex of children larger families – depending upon number, age and sex of children some families may have a bedroom eligibility in excess of 4 bedrooms.

Page 222 AGENDA ITEM 10

THE EXECUTIVE

28 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE

A CHARTER FOR CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE IN FOR DECISION BARKING & DAGENHAM

This report is submitted to the Executive as the Children’s Charter will form an essential foundation for policy in the Borough.

Summary

This report seeks comment from the Executive on the draft Charter for Children and Young People prior to its presentation to the Local Strategic Partnership. Comment from the Executive is important because the Charter will become an essential foundation for policy in the Borough.

Recommendation / Reason

The Executive is asked to endorse the principle that a Charter is needed as an essential foundation for the establishment of service and strategic developments which are critical to improved outcomes for children.

Contact Officer: David Ward Service Manager Telephone: 020 8270 6780 Commissioning & Quality Fax: 020 8270 6774 Assurance Service [email protected]

1. Background

1.1 Chief Officers in Health and Social Services, Education and the Police are developing a Children’s Charter for Barking and Dagenham, and a draft copy is attached as an appendix.

1.2 The Charter will be an important part of the broad community strategy and will commit signatories to some key principles, based upon the UNESCO Charter on the Rights of the Child, and to a programme of action to improve the health and welfare, education and social care of children and young people in the Borough. As such it will have an important impact upon all local services for children and young people and their families.

1.3 It is important that the Charter reflects the views of all local agencies and not least the views of children and young people themselves. To this end a consultation process has commenced and an earlier draft was widely circulated, within the statutory services and beyond, during November last year. The attached copy has been amended following comments received. The consultation will continue, and comments are being collated by Social Services.

Page 223 1.4 The idea of the Charter was welcomed in comments from the Voluntary Sector, and several amendments have been incorporated into this draft. More generally, however, agencies have commented that the value of the Charter will lie in how effectively it influences future service planning and delivery. The opinion was expressed that the actions to which signatories would be committed are currently very general; and several agencies offered to be involved in more detailed planning. One specific point frequently made was the need to develop better Independent Advocacy Services for children and young people.

1.5 Importantly too, the Charter was presented at a Youth Forum meeting in December, where young people themselves gave it a very encouraging response. They found, however, the language of the attached draft to be not easily accessible. A group of them agreed to work with Council staff to make more detailed comments, and to look at similar documents being developed elsewhere. This work will continue over the next eight to ten weeks.

1.6 It is intended that the Charter will be presented to key agencies for formal adoption before April 2003, with work to implement the proposed actions commencing in the new financial year.

1.7 Comments meanwhile may be sent David Ward, the Social Services Children’s Commissioning Manager.

2. Strategic Considerations

2.1 The Minister of State at the Home Office - John Denham - has recently issued guidance to Councils in preparation for the publication of a Green Paper on “Children at Risk” (copy attached) which indicates the Government’s intention of expecting Authorities to give very high priority to reducing child poverty and social exclusion. It is also clear that in addition to the setting of targets and strategies, the Government looks to Authorities to formulate and agree clear statements about objectives agreed between Agencies at local level.

2.2 The Charter will fulfil this function and therefore support the work of the Local Strategic Partnership.

Background Papers • Draft Children’s Charter • Ministerial Letter - John Denham - Draft Guidance to Local Authorities on the production of Local Preventative Strategies

Page 224 A Charter for children and young people in Barking and Dagenham DRAFT JANUARY 2003

“ We should have high expectations for every child and should work to ensure that provision for children and young people is designed to give every one of them an equal opportunity to develop ” (Central Government’s Children and Young people’s Unit)

“ There are strong reasons for making a special case for children’s rights: the costs to society of failing its children are huge; and the healthy development of children is crucial to the future well-being of any society ” (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child)

Children and young people are the future of Barking and Dagenham and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that they grow up to achieve their maximum potential. This policy reflects our commitment and has been drawn up following consultation with local community groups, with the Voluntary Sector and with the Community Forums.

All partner agencies will work to ensure the welfare of all children within Barking and Dagenham: enabling each child to be the best they can be and to grow up as active and valued participants within the local community. We believe that each child should grow up, wherever possible, cared for and supported within a stable family environment; and that parents, who have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of a child, should be encouraged to undertake, and be supported in, that task.

We recognise that local agencies, such as the Local Education Authority and Schools, the Primary Care Trust, the Police, Housing and Health and Social Services and the Voluntary Sector, all have an important role in preparing children and young people for the future and in making arrangements to safeguard and promote the health and welfare of all children.

We are committed to celebrating the diversity of our community, including children with a disability or with other special needs, and to ending child poverty and social exclusion.

We believe that each child has the right:

to protection from harm to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and well being to a standard of living, including housing, adequate for the his or her physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development to an education directed to the development of their personality, talents and abilities and which provides the fullest opportunity to reach the educational standards that enable them to be successful to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to their age; and to participate in cultural life and the arts to grow up encouraged and supported to become a responsible citizen and to participate fully in the life of the community

We recognise that some children and young people will face particular difficulties. We believe that, in these cases, services must provide early support to help children and young

Page 225 A Charter for children and young people in Barking and Dagenham DRAFT JANUARY 2003 people, and to help their families. Failure to do so will not only lead to children and young people having behavioural problems, ill health, or leave them at risk of offending; but also that these young people will be more likely to face continuing difficulties as adults and parents themselves.

The Barking and Dagenham Partnership has agreed a number of Community Priorities. These are:

Promoting equal opportunities and celebrating diversity.

Making Barking and Dagenham cleaner, greener and safer.

Better education and learning for all.

Developing rights and responsibilities with the local community.

Improving health housing and social care.

Raising general pride in the Borough.

Regenerating the local economy

Services for Children and Families are central to achieving progress in each of these areas. Accordingly partners will ensure that all their services will give consideration to the best interests of all children in the Borough and will adopt the four strategic themes identified by the Children and Young Peoples Unit. These are:

1. Designing polices around the needs and priorities of young people: Developing effective mechanisms for listening to children and young people and making sure that child centred information is available which facilitates their participation, in order to develop high quality, child centred policies and services

2. Prevention: Continuing to shift the balance of resources within the Borough into preventing young people from encountering the worst problems rather than providing emergency services when they are in trouble. This will include continued investment in early years development and Sure Start; Behaviour Support Teams in schools; Family Support; the Children’s’ Fund; Connexions; and our work to reduce youth crime.

3. Co-ordination and leadership: Ensuring effective structures are in place to ensure the integration of services and improve planning and partnership

4. Continually improving services: Setting clear targets within and across services to improve services for children and young people year-on-year, sharing and developing the knowledge of ‘what works’ within and beyond the Borough.

Page 226 A Charter for children and young people in Barking and Dagenham DRAFT JANUARY 2003

During 2003-05, we will take the following actions:

A. Continue to invest in education and life-long learning as a priority

B. Ensure the continued development of integrated and effective preventive care services that promote health and well being and which will include education, health and social care to young children in their early years and to their families

C. Ensure that we work together to prevent harm to children and young people and keep them safe, including providing effective services to children and young people who have been victims of crime. In undertaking this task we will also review the Area Child Protection Committee to broaden its involvement, its scope and its functioning.

D. Drawing upon our experience to date, agree, fund and implement a children’s participation strategy, which will include the direct representation of children and young peoples views’ to each agency.

E. Facilitate an analysis of children and young people in need in the Borough and use the findings of this work to inform the development of future policy.

F. Agree fund and implement a Family Support Strategy which seeks to effectively co- ordinate externally funded schemes such Sure Start, the Children’s’ Fund, the Behaviour Improvement Programme and Connexions with mainstream services. This strategy will develop a clear approach to supporting families and to preventing social exclusion. It will range from childhood into early adulthood (0-19 years). The strategy will set out clearly how we will measure its effectiveness, and in doing so we will draw upon national and international experience.

G. Continue to actively monitor and report standards and performance in services for children

H. Recruit, train and retain staff to deliver safe and good quality services.

I. Ensure that the better integration of planning and services is reflected in effective joint commissioning plans which identify common themes and ensure planning and investment is effectively co-ordinated, and performance effectively monitored. This work will be undertaken in the light of continuing developments such as “Serving Children Well” and initiatives such as the development of Children’s Trusts and tracking systems for vulnerable children.

J. During 2004, we will review the impact of this policy upon local children, young people and their families. In the light of this review, we will further consult closely with the local community upon how we may better meet their needs.

Page 227 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 228 AGENDA ITEM 13

Document is Restricted

Page 229 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 230 AGENDA ITEM 15

Document is Restricted

Page 231 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 240 Document is Restricted

Page 241 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 242 Document is Restricted

Page 243 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 244 Document is Restricted

Page 245 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 252