HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
POLICY AND RESOURCES CABINET PANEL
THURSDAY 18SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 2PM
COMPREHENSIVE AREA ASSESSMENT
Report of the Head of Performance Improvement
Author: Jennifer Williams, Organisational Improvement Manager
01992 588382
Executive Members: Richard Roberts and David Lloyd
1. Purpose of Report
To update members on the proposed framework for the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).
To seek members inputfor our response to the Audit Commission’s consultation.
2. Recommendation
Members are asked to note the proposed framework for the CAA and agree their response to the Audit Commission consultation questions in section 7.
3. Background
The Audit Commission has published its latest consultation document outlining the revised proposals for the CAA framework and is seeking views on the 15 questions which are shown in section 6 of this report. A prototype reporting tool has also been developed showing the information which would be published as a result of the CAA and is available on the Audit Commission website.
3.1What is Comprehensive Area Assessment?
CAA will draw together information about how well residents are being served by their local public services. It aims to give people a clear and impartial assessment of how successfully local organisations are working together to improve the quality of life in their areas.
CAA will have 2 main elements:
3.1.1An Area Assessment that looks at how well local public services are delivering better results for local people in local priorities such as health, economic prospects and community safety and how likely they are to improve in the future; and
3.1.2An Organisational Assessment of individual public bodies. For councils and fire & rescue authorities, these will combine Use of Resources and Managing Performance themes into a combined assessment of organisational effectiveness. Since the previous guidance it appears that this aspect has been strengthened.
3.1.3There will be a clear link between the two assessments ensuring that accountability is properly attributed.
Where appropriate, risk-based inspections will also be carried out.
3.2When will CAA begin?
CAA replaces Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), Joint Area Reviews, Annual Performance Assessment and Social Services Star Ratings from April 2009. The first CAA reports will be published in November 2009.
3.3Who is involved?
HCC, HCC’s partners, the Audit Commission, inspectorates such as OFSTED and the Commission for Social Care Inspection / Care Quality Commission, community-based organisations, service users and residents.
4. Key changes from November 2007 consultation:
4.1 The ‘Area Risk Assessment’ has changed to an ‘Area Assessment’. The term ‘risk’ has been dropped in response to feedback that it carried too many negative connotations and a possibility it may have led to an unwillingness by partnerships to set challenging targets;
4.2 The ‘Organisational Assessment’ combines the ‘Use of Resources’ assessment and a ‘Managing Performance’ theme;
4.3 There is no longer a separate ‘Direction of Travel’ assessment with relevant aspects being incorporated into the ‘Managing Performance’ theme;
4.4 The National Indicator Set will be used as a key evidence source for both the Area and Organisational assessments. Performance against the 198 indicators will be published but a separate narrative report will not be produced; and
4.5The introduction of Red and Green Flags – this area is facing considerable opposition.
5. Details of Proposed Framework
5.1CAA leads have been appointed for each Local Area Agreement (LAA) area to help coordinate local assessments and teams.
The first year of CAA will set a baseline of performance using available evidence including relevant aspects of recent assessments such as CPA, the Joint Area Review, Annual Performance Assessment and the star ratings for Adult Social Care. In future years CAA will concentrate on what has changed and will assess the impact of actions taken to improve performance and outcomes.
5.2The Audit Commission will continually update a shared evidence file comprising:
5.2.1Views of service users including residents, third sector organisations and local businesses in the area, for example, the place survey, Local Involvement Networks, Citizen Advice Bureaux etc;
5.2.2Self-evaluation & local performance management information including monitoring of local priorities, for example area or service self-assessments (based on work being undertaken by IDeA & LGA);
5.2.3National Indicator Set and other nationally available data;
5.2.4Inspection, regulation and audit findings; and
5.2.5Other intelligence, briefings or evidence from other agencies.
Where evidence indicates serious concerns, inspectorates will aim to discuss this with the council and partners straight away. Consideration of this shared evidence, including inspection findings, should enable agreement of scope and focus of the Area and Organisational Assessments and indicate the prospects for future achievement of priorities. Additional investigation, involving any partners where appropriate, will only be undertaken where initial analysis shows there are evidence gaps.
5.3The Audit Commission is exploring how information from others can be used in CAA, for example local MPs, the local business community, Overview & Scrutiny Committee reviews. They are also looking to use external experts and peers, for example, Councillors and Senior Officers, either to provide support and guidance to CAA leads or through ensuring a consistent approach to assessments.
5.4Area Assessment
The Audit Commission state the ‘Area’ being assessed is initially taken to be the area covered by the LAA. However, depending on any local issues or locally agreed targets the area may shrink to cover a neighbourhood or community or expand to regional or Multi-Area Agreement areas as appropriate.
The Area Assessment is a qualitative assessment focusing on the impact local services are having on improving outcomes for citizens, it is not assessing the quality of management or other process arrangements in each locality.
The Area Assessment focuses on three main themes:
5.4.1How well do local priorities express community needs & aspirations?
This theme explores how well we implement our ‘duty to involve’ local people in decision making. For example, how well we engage our communities; whether we understand the needs of vulnerable and marginalised groups and tackle inequality within communities and whether communities are involved in defining and assessing progress against priority outcomes for the area. The effectiveness of partnership working will also beconsidered.
5.4.2How well are the outcomes and improvements needed being delivered?
We will be assessed on our progress against priority areas and ambitions set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy, starting with, but not confined to, the LAA. The Audit Commission will consider performance against issues such as community safety, health and well-being, the environment and local economic strength.
5.4.3What are the prospects for future improvements?
This theme will draw on past and current performance, as well as evidence about the capacity and capability of partners, to deliver future sustainable improvement in priority outcomes.
The Audit Commission state the concept of Red and Green Flags has been introduced to aid narrative reporting. A ‘Red Flag’ would highlight significant concerns about outcomes and performance which are not being adequately tackled in conjunction with our partners. A ‘Green Flag’ would indicate where others may have something to learn from innovative or exceptional practice in the area. Red and Green flags highlighted in the Area Assessment will be linked to the relevant Organisational Assessment to ensure clear accountability.
5.5The Area Assessment will include a summary report providing an overview of:
5.5.1Key priorities identified by the area, including if they address the needs and aspirations of local people and progress made in implementing them;
5.5.2Overall successes and challenges in improving outcomes for local people more widely; and a
5.5.3Summary of prospects and where different or further action is needed.
A more detailed report with links to evidence will also be published.
5.6Organisational Assessment (for Councils and Fire & Rescue Authorities)
The Organisational Assessment focuses on our effectiveness by looking at how well we deliver value for money in the Use of Resources and how well we manage our performance.
5.7The assessment will rely mainly on the shared inspectorate evidence base and knowledge gained from routine dealings with the council and other local partners. It will comment directly on the performance of key local council services such as services provided for Children and Young People and for Adult Social Care. It will also comment on our effectiveness as a community leader and our contribution to local partnership arrangements.
The Organisational Assessment will be based on four scored themes to be reported in a short single report to be published at the same time as the Area Assessment.
5.8Managing Performance incorporates relevant elements of the previous ‘Direction of Travel’. It includes how effective we are at identifying and delivering priority services and wider community outcomes such as the LAA. Our leadership, capacity and capabilityto deliver future improvements will be assessed.
5.9The Use of Resources will be scored across three themes of Managing Finance (including value for money), Governing the Business and Managing Resources.
5.10Inspection Activity
Under CAA, inspection activity is stated as being risk-based and may be necessary where performance and improvement levels are unsatisfactory or where the Audit Commission has identified the service, outcome or service user groups as being subject to significant risk.
As CAA relies on continual evidence gathering, inspection activity could be triggered at any point in the year by emerging findings and reports from Area and Organisational Assessments.
6. HCC’s Preparation for CAA
As indicated in previous reports to the Panel, the CAA requires significant preparation both within the organisation and with partners.
6.1Sarah Pickup, Director ACS, is the overall lead officer for CAA. Jan Hayes-Griffin, Assistant Director (Strategic Planning and Partnerships) will lead on the Area Assessment and Geoff Brown, Head of Performance Improvement, will lead on the Organisational Assessment.
6.2The Local Government Association has outlined a number of steps which we can take to prepare for CAAincluding:
6.2.1Ensure we are on-track to deliver the priorities in the LAA and Sustainable Community Strategy;
6.2.2Ensure effective performance management systems are in place across partnerships which deliver high quality data;
6.2.3Communicate to staff, members and partners the shift from assessing past performance of the council to a forward looking assessment of councils and partners achieving shared priorities; and
6.2.4Ensure we can demonstrate effective engagement with citizens and customers to understand community needs, priorities and deliver services.
6.3Hertfordshire’s initial preparation includes:
6.3.1Briefing a range of groups to raise awareness and understanding of CAA;
6.3.2A programme of work to improve performance management and ensure comprehensive and consistent plans are in place;
6.3.3Commissioning a review of Hertfordshire Forward’s governancejointly with the Audit Commission; and
6.3.4Beginning to look at a performance framework for Hertfordshire Forward.
7. Key points for consultation response
The consultation is open until 20 October and views are being sought from members, SMB and the Performance and Planning Group for incorporation into our response.
The Audit Commission consultation questions are shown below together with some of the initial key points for inclusion in our response.
7.1 Do you broadly agree with our proposals for the overall CAA framework?
7.1.1We broadly agree with the Audit Commission proposals for the overall CAA framework, however, we still have some concerns around the methodology. We are not convinced that the burden of regulation will be reduced as a result.
7.1.2The Organisational Assessment potentially poses a significant increase in the burden of inspection and a duplication of effort for Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue Service which would be treated as a separate organisation by the Audit Commission.
7.1.3The Managing Performance theme is lacking in detail and has the potential to become a substantial piece of annual assessment. Although the scope of the Use of Resources has been slightly reduced, issues we raised in response to the last consultation regarding the expansion of scope and the requirement of auditors to make informed judgements outside the area of their traditional knowledge remain a concern.
7.1.4The proposals suggest the Area Assessment will shrink and expand to cover issues as appropriate. However, we will assume the area covered by the Area Assessment is Hertfordshire.
7.2Are the area assessment and the organisational assessment, as the two key elements of the framework, clearly explained?
7.2.1The Area and Organisational Assessments are clearly explained. However, it is important that local Political choice is taken into account as we cannot improve everything all the time.
7.3Is the link between these two assessments clear?
7.3.1The link between the two assessments is clear.
7.4Do you agree that the three questions and supporting issues proposed for the area assessment are the right ones? If not, please suggest alternative questions and / or issues.
7.4.1We agree with the principle of assessing an area and the three questions adequately cover the areas of the Sustainable Community Strategy, LAA, capability and direction of travel. However there will be elements which are outside our control and it is important that judgements are not simply based on indicators. There are also many factors affecting quality of life that are not included in the 198 national indicators, for example, the number of murders. For both these reasons it is important there is regular dialogue between organisations and inspectors to fully understand the reasons behind performance and the overall situation in an area before a judgement is made.
7.4.2Mapping of geographical areas is becoming increasingly sophisticated and detailed to a very local level. This presents opportunities for shifting effort and scarce resources, through partnerships and agencies, towards identified need. However, if not handled sensitively by all parties there is a risk of areas being seen as ‘problem places’ with an unintended negative impact on those communities.
7.5Do you agree that we should use the green and red flag approach for reporting the area assessment? If not, please suggest an alternative approach.
7.5.1We have serious concerns regarding the proposed use of green and red flagsin reporting the Area Assessment. These colours are over-used and lead to a simplistic view of organisations with the associated bad press. The colour red signifies danger, anger or stop and gives the impression of something failing completely without any of the underlying causes or effects. The media will focus on red flags as areas of danger and individuals may simply add up the number of flags for each council and make their own judgement about performance.
7.6Do you agree that we should have one overall organisational effectiveness judgement, drawn from integrating the managing performance theme and the use of resources themes?
7.6.1We disagree with the proposal for a single scored judgement for organisational effectiveness. We would instead support a similar approach to the Area Assessment and the production of a qualitative narrative report.
7.7Do you agree with our proposals for the key questions and focus for the managing performance theme of the organisational assessment for: a) councils?
b)fire and rescue services?
If not, please suggest alternative questions and / or focus.
7.7.1We agree with the proposals for the key questions and focus for the Managing Performance theme of the Organisational Assessment for both councils and fire and rescue services.
7.8Which of the three options for scoring the organisational assessment should we adopt? If you disagree with all the options, please propose an alternative approach to scoring.
7.8.1We disagree with the proposal for a single scored judgement for organisational effectiveness. We would instead support a similar approach to the Area Assessment and the production of a qualitative narrative report.
7.9Do the proposals provide for an appropriate focus to be given to people in vulnerable circumstances?
7.9.1We support the focus CAA provides on people in vulnerable circumstances. Disadvantage, deprivation and vulnerability were key drivers in establishing our Sustainable Community Strategy and are reflected in our LAA targets.
7.10Do you agree that CAA should evolve over time?
7.10.1We agree that CAA should evolve over time. CAA must be evaluated at an early stage to ensure we do not keep building on a framework that isn’t working.
7.11Do you broadly agree with the way we are proposing to use the National Indicator Set within the CAA framework?
7.11.1Rationalising the national indicators is key and we support in principle the use of the National Indicator Set within the CAA framework.
7.11.2However, given CAA’s focus on assessing progress against local priorities, the Audit Commission needs to be careful that only indicators linked to our local priorities are used in any comparisons of performance between areas or organisations. National indicators should not be used to compare performance in non–priority areas.
7.12 Do you support our proposals to report the assessments as set out in our draft reporting tool ?
If no, please suggest alternative proposals for reporting.
7.12.1We agree with the proposals for reporting the assessments.
7.13 Do you agree with our proposals for peer involvement? If you have suggestions about this, please outline your ideas.
7.13.1In principle we support the proposals for peer involvement but details are lacking.
7.13.2Peer involvement and informal networks are both essential to enable the sharing of best practice. We would advocate peer involvement in a coaching rather than ‘London platform’ type approach.
7.13.3Peers could be involved in assessing the shared evidence and subsequently the focus of any additional investigation which needs to take place.
7.14Do you agree with our approach to self-evaluation?
7.14.1Self-evaluation is a positive tool but the role of self-assessment needs to be clearer. Any self-assessment should be in line with the Sustainable Community Strategy and LAA as they are the identified priorities for the organisation.