Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Does the JAR need to scar? Phil Mason (Principal Adviser, Northamptonshire). Kate McKenna (Head of Policy & Performance, Rutland)"— Presentation transcript:

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

2 Overview and Context Setting the scene Northamptonshire Rutland

3 Context - Northamptonshire 171,000 Children and young people (0-19yrs) 8.1% ethnic minority pupils (14.9% nationally) 0.3% asylum seekers/refugees (0.8% nationally) 3.1% SEN (nationally 2.9%) A county of contrasts 44 areas in highest 20% of most deprived nationally (10 areas in highest 10%) But, many areas of high prosperity Planned rapid growth (Milton Keynes/South Midlands Growth Area)

4 Context - Northamptonshire (cont) 7 Borough and District Councils 3 Main PCTs 1 Police Authority 1 LSC and 1 Connexions Service 3 FE Colleges (2 multi-sited) Children and Young Peoples Partnership Board formed in March 2005 (our Childrens Trust)

5 Context - Rutland Rutland is the smallest county in the country and considered totally rural. Unitary authority status in Population 35,600 and 13,457 households (Census 2001). Two market towns, Oakham and Uppingham, and 58 parishes. Under 2% black and ethnic minority population (Census 2001). 0.5% unemployment (Job Centre Plus 2005). Average household income is £34,000 pa, but 34.7% of household incomes below £20,000 (ONS). Average house price at December 2004 was £237,480 making it one of the least affordable areas in England outside the SE (ONS). 17 primary schools, three community colleges, one special nursery, one FE college (satellite). Total statutory school age (5-16) population 5,696 (Census 2001) against a number on roll of 4,801. An average of 120 children and young people with needs are identified at any one time - this is a transient number.

6 Rutland - A County of Partnerships Lincolnshire and Rutland Connexions and LSC Leicestershire and Rutland Police and YOT Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Strategic Health Authority Melton, Rutland and Harborough PCT Peterborough Diocese MOD (RAF, Army)

7 Fail to Prepare and be Prepared to Fail Partner engagement Briefings, briefings and more briefings verbal, written, meetings, presentations Challenge everyone to think outcomes Engagement of children and young people

8 Self Assessment An enhanced version of APA Partner engagement essential Honest assessment (feeds into evaluation of management) Evidence based (outcomes and impact) JAR Toolkit Case studies

9 Self-Assessment (cont) New template - more open, more concise 3 sections: - Context and joint working - Analysis, involvement and impact (5 Outcomes) - Service management Criteria for judgements published (1-4 scale)

10 Analysis Week Documentation Partner held information Accommodation Managing expectations

11 Neighbourhood Study - JAR Requirements Selection - one from three Criteria - - A well defined area - Proportion of C&YP in line with LA average - Outcomes significantly below LA average About three days of concentrated fieldwork Expectation - evidence of partnership working

12 Neighbourhood Study - Preparation General Publicity (Pamphlet) Sub-team to organise Meeting of all services providing inputs into the neighbourhood Asking them – What should JAR inspectors see? Proposed 3 day timetable to JAR team Local base room for team

13 Neighbourhood Study - Preparation (cont) Confirming visit/meetings arrangements following Analysis Week Briefing staff - Key points - Line/performance management - Communications - Partnership working - Projects in neighbourhood Feedback system following meetings

14 Neighbourhood Study - In Reality Lead inspector requirements different from JAR guidance No visits to schools No separate meetings with C&YP Neighbourhood study runs in parallel with case tracking Project focus

15 Case Files Whose files Consent Partner engagement

16 Timetabling and Logistics Interviews - frontline staffarea managersteam leaderssenior managerscorporate managers politicians Focus groups - Neighbourhood groupscounty groups Visits - Little time after the neighbourhood study (highly selective)

17 Timetabling and Logistics (cont) Meetings - 53 Visits - 21 Focus Groups - 32 Case Tracking events - 18 Telephone meetings - 3 Duty Room observations - 2 Scrutiny Committee observation - 1

18 Reporting Process Informal reporting Negotiation stage Formal publication Action planning

19 Lessons Learned Make your lead inspector your best friend Partnerships are crucial Communications, tune up your skills Inspectors dont chat! Needs analysis, outcomes, Needs analysis, outcomes You cant predict what you will be asked you can decide what you want them to know about It ain't over till its over Streamlined processes! Ba Humbug - Cancel life!!

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

Similar presentations

Ads by Google