1
MCA Improvement Programme
Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland, & Lincolnshire
SUMMARY NOTE
of the
P R O G R A M M E B O A R D M E E T I N G
held on Wednesday, 10th June 2-4pm at Leicestershire County Council
AIM
Receive Mid-Phases 3 and 4 Reports, including management of risks and communications to ensure conclusion of the projects.
Agree the process for further allocations of funding.
Present: Elaine Bayliss; Ann Jackson Paul Redfern; David Jones
Pam Palmer (for Sharon Robson), Adrian Spanswick (for Dawn Leese); Sarah Taylor (for Ruth Lake )
Attendees: Jim Rogers (Lincoln University); Nicky Spencer (Programme Manager)
Apologies: Stephanie Chapman; Ruth Lake, Dawn Leese, Sharon Robson
- Introductions & Welcome
AJ welcomed members to the meeting. Each member introduced themselves. The meeting was recorded for evaluation purposes.
- Summary Note of the Last Meeting (13 April) & matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda
The notes were agreed with the following amendments: date to read 13th April 2015 with references to the venue as being ‘Nottinghamshire County Council’.
There were no matters arising, all issues being covered elsewhere on the agenda.
- Financial Position
AJ presented Enclosure A, the current financial position. AJ expressed concern that, bar the staff exchange, no funds had been drawn down from projects and that itwas responsible to show spend. Reporting back from a national meeting, AJ advised a little more national monies (in the order of £20000) might become available for safeguarding (rather than MCA/DOLS) and the Area also needed to be in a good position to bid and receive further funds.
PB questioned how projects were being funded meanwhile. PP advised on internal logistical processes delaying draw down for the LAL and TP Projects. Board sponsors were reminded that they were agreed to ensure draw down at the April Board.
ACTION – ALL Board sponsors (with project directors) to ensure full draw down by the end of June
- Process for Further Allocation of Funding
NS presented Enclosure B, which proposed a process for allocating remaining funds, based on soliciting new proposals against the existing criteria to be submitted to the Board in August. Given that current calls on the existing funds (including re-run and extend existing projects) would reduce the availability toaround£20-50,000, NS proposed an alternative process: delayingallocation until September when evaluation findings should be available to inform the re-launch of existing projects. This would require the existing Programme structures to run through to Winter to support delivery.
After discussion, the Board AGREED that setting up a bidding process for the possibility of a relatively small fund was not appropriate and AGREED that the alternative option be pursued.
ACTION:
- NS (with AJ & PB approval): circulate final allocation scheme to Board including notion of exit / mainstreaming strategies.
- JR (with AJ): confirm that evaluation findingswould be available for Septemberto inform Board decision-making.
- Phase 3: Project Mid-Phase Reports.
Members discussed Enclosure C, the overview of project-specific midPhase reports. These had been styled tofocus Board attention on any potential areas of concern e.g. deviations and delays from Plan, drawn down of funds exit strategy proposals, risk management and requests for repeat funding. The reports did notcapture progress which had been relayed on the website: and, for the evaluation, commentied that the summary would be useful for the SAB and NS confirmed she would work this up into a communiqué for staff (but including more on progress, events pages etc).
ACTION: NS to produce Communique 2
Members then reviewed each report in turn paying particular attention to the Board recommendations:
- User Exchange
PB advised on the good progress with the user exchange especially since the appointment of the coordinator. Members noted that existing liaison was with Carers, not users of the service.
He advised of an outstanding request to NHS E regarding the process for user and carer consent JR confirmed that he had met with the user group a few weeks earlier and had himself raised the issue of consent. AJ advised that this was in hand and JR agreed to provide University proforma/guidance for adaption.
PB also presented further background and information on the outline proposal to extend the Coordinator Role to address the needs of 14+ transition to adulthood, through the Rainbow Hospice respite toolkit. He confirmed funding would be no more than the £20 000 (in line with that returned to the fund due to the appointment of one coordinator). The Board received the additional information and the proposal with enthusiasm, giving approval IN PRINCIPLE as the focus held great potential for meeting a key area of need. Members requested PB represent (through email) the outline be worked through to full proposal, with clarity around the final product and to do justice to its potential. The proposal should ensure that funding requirement was included - and that there be no distraction from the current Coordinator’s role with in the wider Programme.
ACTION:
-AJ [JR] to confirm consent for use of user materials with JH with immediate effect including University protocols etc
-PB agreed to circulate the full ‘Rainbow Hospice’ proposal to Board members for approval, with final sign on AJ and one other SAB Chair
-PB [JH/NS] to submit via the Programme Team any costs required or extension of existing Coordinator’s role to support the existing Programme through the summer-winter i.e. rerun/extended Projects
- Staff Exchange
The Board AGREED an allocation of £12,000 to extend the exchanges (two per area) - ending July 2016.
With regarding to mainstreaming,
- ST advised that a collective exchange, joining up the City, County and Rutland may be possible. Members noted that whilst the private sector attended but provided no funding, accepting PP’s advice that the exchanges retained a focus on population, not organisation or sector.
- PB confirmed that funding for the Staff Exchanges was an appropriate call for SABs in its role to ensure Workforce development around key safeguarding areas – especially if the evaluation showed, as anticipated, the exchanges to be powerful models for improving practice and enabling people to work across agencies. The evaluation would also need to test improved quality of delivery and integrated working.
- AJ questioned when the evaluation would be able to provide such advice. ST confirmed that only one exchange had been held to date per area. JR advised that projects were only just into delivery.
JR [AJ] to ensure evaluation cover all aspects to inform advice for funding through SABS
ST (and NS) to schedule in extension of 2 exchanges per area – ending July 2016 with an additional £12000 from MCAIP allocation
ST to progress mainstreaming with EB, PB and DJ (for August, in line with Programme plan)
- Leadership at All Levels
NS advised that, as yet, there had been no formal request to extend any elements of this programme. PP confirmed that funding be reserved to re-run the popular ‘hot houses’.
One aspect of the Project required ‘mainstreaming’. The Board agreed that the Pocket Guide would be flawed without updates. They AGREED that Browne Jacobson branding be added to the Pocket Guide products and that they are authorised to share with other clients via their own website provided thatthey agreed to keep the products up to date for a further defined period at their own cost. After this period, reference to ownership by the MCA IP should be removed.
ACTION
-PP/SR to progress branding and updates with Browne Jackobson
-SR (with NS) set aside appropriate funds to rerun defined elements of the Project e.g. hot house events
- Best Interest Assessors
Members noted that Lincolnshire and Leicestershire Training Programmes would formally conclude in July 2016 and overview (monitoring) arrangements would be required, given that the Programme not extended to summer 2016.
A proposal was tabled from Leicester City project that focused on addressing subsidiary issues. Members AGREED the support elements of the proposal (that mirrored proposals from other area proposals) but required more information on the purpose, outputs and outcomes connected with the secondment – including whether it was a cross-county/city role.
ACTION:
- NS[Patrick Orston] to represent proposal
- NS[AJ] to confirm overview (monitoring arrangements) for all BIA Projects that would continue after the life of the Projects
- 5. Targeted Professionals
PP outlined the exception: a positive initial response, followed by continuing delays and then rejection by Leicestershire LMC to take part. Sessions were reallocated, to save costs, of the Leicestershire LMC development sessions to Leadership at All Levels (Hot Houses) & Care Home Managers. The Board AGREED that further (later) dates be offered to West Leicestershire CCG & East Leicestershire & Rutland CCG (or appropriate lead) for potential uptake of GP training delivery – and noted this will require extending the programme timeframe into Autumn.
ACTION
- PP (with AS) to confirm lead agency and arena for Leicestershire GP development sessions to take place
- PP to confirm additional funds required to run the GP sessions [to NS for including in financial schedule]
- Observing governance issues, AJ to discuss with MD the means of registering Board’s disappointment and impact of the LMC Chair’s delayed decision not to support Integras delivery, the delay in development of primary care staff and difficulties now presented in rearranging the schedule.
- DJ to relay SAB concerns with LMC response appropriate bodies.
- Phase 4: Evaluation – Mid-Phase Report
Enclosure E outlining findings to this point was tabled at the Board. The Board noted that neither a mid-Phase report (including the rescheduling of the evaluation phases) was available.
Invited to present the paper, JR advised that delays with Projects were inevitable, due to the complexity of projects and the time needed to set up. As a result, Projects were only just into the delivery phase with few findings to report from the evaluation team. Using an illustration from the User Exchange, he pointed out that involvement of Users was notoriously difficult to achieve and that the Programme was no exception.
Moving the evaluation forward, JR advised that the University expected each project to bring findings and at least one case study to the September conference where learning would be drawn together from each project and capture the stories.JR was asked to ensure that the Projects were all aware of this expectation upon them in good time.
Asked about the literature review (received only in outline at the last Board), JR thought this might be made available for circulation to the Board.
AJ agreed that the Enclosure lacked the positive outcomes that were appearing across the Programme and the sheer hard work had not been captured, feeling this would be the rich part of the evaluation. NS expressed concern that the stages of the LEAP process (as outlined in the Project Outline) were not reflected in the paper nor did it appear they were being followed. In response to concerns about contacts between the evaluation team and the projects, ST confirmed that she would be meeting JR shortly and the Staff Exchange Team had received one contact with the evaluation Team to date.
Members agreed with the Chair that the Evaluation Team need to provide an updated and explicit plan showing what would be achieved and by when - to assure them that the necessary elements in the evaluation are scheduled to deliver in line with the Programme’s needs.
AJ agreed to provide closer management of the evaluation, meeting with the University more regularly, to enable its complete delivery –and also to ensure that everyone on the Programme knew what was being expected of them in good time. JR agreed to discuss the new arrangement around the evaluation with AR outside the Board meeting.
IR highlighted the section in the report referring to input into advocacy and under/post graduate students. NS reminded members of the brief for this Programme,requesting JR also ensurethe evaluation was against just the CNO’s specific objectives [and the specific submission made by the Area] – rather than, as appeared in Enclosure E, the whole MCA/DOLS agenda.
ACTION
AJ agreed to manage the evaluation directly from this point.
JR to:
- send explicit request of expectations of all Project Leaders and the Project Manager to the September event
- circulate literature search to the Board
- provide an updated and explicit plan of what can now be expected from the Evaluation Team by way of deliverables (agaisnt the original plan)
- ensure future evaluation was against the correct programme criteria
- Programme Risk Management (NS)
The Board noted the new format and revised content of the risk register. Due to limited time remaining, AJ asked Board members to raise any immediate concerns with the risk register, after which AJ would work with NS on amendments.
PP advised that the residual risk to E1 should be green. NS agreed to amend in the next version
ACTION: AJ [NS] to review detail, amending to include PP’s comment, and represent to the Board at its next meeting.
- AOB
- Board:Duration of Meetings
Wanting to provide consistent and quality advice to the full range of business and to understand a reasonable level of detail around the Programme (for on-going liason with stakeholders and communication to joint-executives, Boards etc) , members AGREED to extend future meetings to 2.5 hours.
ACTION: NS [Paulina Chockulska] to extend all future meeting times
- Future Meetings
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 12th August from 10am – 12.30 at Everyday Champions, Newark (on site parking).
Subsequent Board meetings:
Wed, 14 Oct 2015: 10am – 12noon County Hall, Leicester(limited onsite visitor parking, on request)
Wed, 9 Dec 2015: 10am – 12noonatEveryday Champions, Newark(onsite parking)
1
Updates available on
FILE: c1609-MCAIP Board 10.06.15 Summary Note.doc