Planning and Setting Outcomes

1
Planning and Setting Outcomes

• The National Schools Contract and NASS Standards

2
How do you know that the services you provide and
purchase are good?

• Ofsted inspection
• Internal QA
• Preferred provider with Local Authorities/Pre-Qual
  ifying arrangements
• We see the progress children and young people
  make

3
But

• Until recently, no national framework for
  outcomes but lots of regional and local versions
  all very slightly different!
• What providers value as outcomes are not always
  LA priorities and vice versa
• Confusion and disagreement over what we should be
  measuring and how

4
Why measure outcomes?

• To show the effect a placement at a given
  school/home/service has on a child or young
  person.
• To show potential purchasers that you provide a
  high quality service
• But- can you meet both functions with the same
  set of data?

5
What do we want to know?

• Output a tangible result of a given action e.g.
  a child protection policy or new training
  programme for staff
• Outcomes the result of that output e.g.
  decrease in child protection referrals or 95 of
  all staff trained
• Impact what difference does this make to the
  children or young people receiving the service
  e.g. young people report that they now feel more
  confident sharing issues with staff and they now
  feel happier at school

6
Who wants to know it?

• Outputs are relatively easy to measure. For
  monitoring, its feasible for providers to
  demonstrate policies, minutes of meetings etc.
  This is useful in setting minimum requirements
  for providers and allowing purchasers to weed
  out those who do not meet them.
• Outcomes are more difficult and tend to require a
  degree of evaluation. This places a greater
  requirement on providers and purchasers to
  collect, monitor and evaluate data.
• Impact is most difficult to measure doesnt
  lend itself to quantitative evaluation simply BUT
  provides the richest and most useful information
  about what an ongoing placement means for an
  individual child or young person.

7
Outcomes and the National Contracts

• Childrens Home Contract launched November 2007
  first national contract to be launched with a
  highly detailed outcomes framework
• Schools Contract re-launched April 2007 with
  understanding that outcomes would be developed in
  2008. High level K.P.I.s now developed for
  consultation
• IFA Contract now ready for launch also includes
  detailed outcomes but, for the first time,
  features an individual tracker mechanism
• Wish to make links between the frameworks of the
  3 contracts and the guiding principles in setting
  and monitoring outcomes.

8
Outcomes and NASS Standards

• NASS Standards due for review
• Wish to set meaningful and useful standards for
  membership, rather than just echo regulatory
  requirements
• Wish to avoid adding another slightly different
  data collecting burden to schools

9
How are outcomes measured across the 3 Contracts?

• Commitment to gathering data on all outcomes but
  recognition of some K.P.I.s
• Measurable targets
• Recognition that some targets are aspirational,
  rather than absolutes
• General focus on service-level outcomes

10
Experience of using outcomes frameworks

• Recognition of value from providers and
  purchasers
• Number of outcomes can feel a bit overwhelming
  for both those providing and those monitoring
  data
• Residential Homes contract about to undergo a
  review at the end of its first year
• IFA contract seeking to address child-levekl
  outcomes data

11
Setting KPIs for the Schools Contract

• Small working group began in December 2007 with
  aim of doing a focused piece of work on KPIs
• Aim to keep number as small as possible
• Aim to make relevant for all schools
• In parallel wanted to think about how schools
  can capture the interesting information about
  children and young people that cant be reduced
  to numbers

12
KPIs for Schools Contract

• Adapted the Education outcomes from Residential
  Homes Contract
• Resisted temptation to cover everything stuck
  to 10 broad KPIs that should be flexible enough
  to be used by all schools
• In September, NASS Council signalled wish to
  adapt these as a key element of NASS Standards
  now consulting
• Consultation with Local Authorities will take
  place in early 2009 via review of Residential
  Homes contract
• DCSF has agreed in principle to fund software
  development that would allow all providers using
  the 3 National Contracts to input data

13
Setting child-level outcomes

• We are currently exploring how a set of guiding
  principles could be adopted across the national
  contracts to support outcomes-setting and
  monitoring for individual children and young
  people. The process must
• Fully involve children, young people and their
  families in setting of life goals and aspirations
• Separate out child-level from service level
  outcomes
• Provide a clear and transparent process for how
  children, families, Local Authorities and
  providers work together on outcomes and assess
  the impact of placements and interventions
• Make use of existing expertise to provide
  guidance on what are appropriate outcomes for
  children and young people, including those with a
  wide range of severe, complex and/or low
  incidence special educational needs and
  disabilities
• Support transition into adult services

14
The Process

• 1. Setting life goals
• At this stage the child/young person and their
  family work in partnership with the local
  authority and/or other current service providers
  to map out broad life goals. This might include
  questions such as
• What do I want/want for my child?
• What might I be able to achieve?
• Where would I like to live?
• What do I want to do with my time?
• This stage is independent of the school and takes
  place in advance of any decisions being made
  about placement.

15
Process

• 2. Placement
• Placement decisions would be made in the usual
  ways, but, we would hope, with particular regard
  to the wishes of the child/young person and their
  family. Such an approach is in keeping with adult
  person-centred planning but is not currently
  explicit in all placement decisions. Local
  Authorities would be able to make use of high
  level, service-focused outcomes at this point to
  make decisions about the best type of placement.

16
Process

• 3. Translating life goals into achievable
  outcomes
• The provider where the child/young person is
  placed works with the goals set in stage 1 to
  develop achievable outcomes, framed in ECM terms.
  These would take the goals as an end point and
  work back from there to set the outcomes that
  would need to happen at specific times to allow
  the child/young person to move towards their
  goals. This ensures that no one loses sight of
  the end goal but that these goals are broken down
  into step by step achievements.

17
Process

• 4. Monitoring and evaluation
• Schools and Local Authorities make use of
  existing review opportunities to consider how
  these outcomes are being met. This process should
  be ongoing and linked back to stage 3
  consistently so that outcomes can be reviewed and
  adapted as necessary.

18
Process

• 5. Impact evaluation
• Providers and purchasers need to have a clear
  sense of the impact a placement or intervention
  has had on a child/young person. We think that
  scenario planning could help with this by
  creating a picture of what the impact on a child
  could be if
• All the outcomes/goals set are fully met
• The outcomes/goals are partially met
• The outcomes/goals are not met
• For example, a young person who has a goal to
  live and travel independently might still have
  certain support needs, if these goals were
  achieved. However, these would be different if
  the needs were partially met e.g. increased
  transport costs if she was not able to achieve
  independent travel. If none of the goals were
  met, the scenario might be of a young woman
  living in a group home with high support needs.

19
Process

• 6. Local and Regional Priority setting
• Following the process listed above should assist
  Local Authorities in both setting and monitoring
  against their own local and regional priorities.
  This model could be followed with both
  in-authority and out of authority provision and
  allow for comparison of the merits of each.
  Aggregating information from a range of
  placements would allow Local Authorities to
  assess both the cost and impact of a range of
  placements and interventions.

20
Turning principles into process individual
outcomes trackers

• The IFA Contract is the first of the National
  Contracts to introduce an individual tracker.
• Regionally, there has been some helpful work done
  in the South West and West Midlands in developing
  approaches
• Trackers aim to capture a mixture of qualitative,
  narrative-based information and a quantitative
  evaluation of this that can be gives quick access
  to comparative data
• SW region looking at whether tracker could be
  adapted to be a helpful tool for schools

21
Thanks to all NASS members who were part of the
working group

• Tracy De Bernhardt-Dunkin West of England
• Catriona OMalley Sunfield
• Helen Hewitt Together Trust
• Sylvia Lamb Chailey Heritage
• Pam King Hollybank
• Kate Britt Bladon House
• Alan Day St Josephs
• David Duncan Rossendale
• Frances Gander - Priory

• Cyreline Curren SENAD
• Harry Dicks Treloars
• Sue Tresman Grafham Grange
• David OConnor Fullerton House
• Norman Stromsoy Percy Hedley
• Wendy Eadsforth RSD Margate
• Barry Robinson Farney Close