Ealing’s LSP
Report for Executive Board:

Title: LSP Review Update and Proposed LSP Projects 2011

Report from: Policy and Performance
Author: Ann Griffiths / Item number
4

Background

Following the review of Ealing’s LSP in the first six months of 2010, the work of the partnership is shifting increasingly towards active projects to deliver changes for local people that cannot be achieved by any one partner working independently.
In the past few months the Delivery Management Group (DMG), established to deliver these projects, has considered a range of options for potential projects to run through the LSP over the coming years.
This report will take the form of a presentation to LSP Executive setting out three key areas for proposed projects for the LSP to focus on in the coming year, to be managed by the DMG, seeking agreement to take forward detailed scoping and project planning for these projects, and discussions with partners to establish project teams, for final sign off of the detailed plans and beginning of the projects in practice in January 2011.
An outline of the areas to be discussed is attached to this document below by way of introduction. A spreadsheet, setting out the proposed projects and potential workstreams, along with a record of all the other projects considered at this time and reasons for their prioritisation at a lower level that the three areas we are proposing, is attached.
Purpose of report
The presentation to the LSP Executive will:
  • Update LSP Executive on progress with the LSP Review and development of its work programme for the coming year
  • Propose three key projects for focus of the LSP over the coming year, and outline the rationale and anticipated benefits of these
  • Outline next steps and milestones for implementation and further development of the LSP to deliver these projects

Recommendations
It is recommended that LSP Executive:
  • Consider the proposed projects for delivery through the LSP in the coming years in light of the criteria used to prioritise these and the alternatives considered
  • Agree to the detailed scoping and planning of the three projects proposed as priority work for the coming year, and the discussions necessary to establish provisional project teams to deliver these projects, for sign off and practical project start-up in January 2011
  • Recognise the large scale of this work and commit to ensuring sufficient buy-in and resource is available through partner organisations to ensure these projects deliver the benefits possible
  • Provide feedback as to possible participants in projects and considerations that we will need to note in our detailed scoping and planning

Outline Proposals: LSP Projects 2011

Following a review of Ealing’s LSP in the first six months of 2010, the work of the partnership is shifting increasingly towards active projects to deliver changes for local people that cannot be achieved by any one partner working independently.

In the past few months the ‘Delivery Management Group’, established to deliver these projects, has considered a range of options for potential projects to run through the LSP over the coming years.

Projects have been shortlisted and prioritised according to their ability to meet the priorities of the LSP in the coming year – crime, worklessness and poverty, and health – but for the first round of projects are primarily focussed on projects that deliver efficiencies and service effectiveness in a way that contributes to LSP partners’ individual value for money programmes and agendas.

Projects have been selected and prioritised according to their ability to meet specific criteria:

  • Be capable of delivering overall financial savings for one or more partner delivering services in Ealing
  • Contribute to addressing one or more of the priority areas identified by the LSP for attention in 2010/11
  • Cover issues or pursue ideas that no single organisation could achieve alone; that require significant partnership working and joint problem solving to deliver
  • Deliver benefits for local residents and service users in a way that can be (and is proposed to be) measured, for example by delivering service transformation or improving process effectiveness
  • Either:
  • identify and address issues not currently being actioned elsewhere, or
  • pursue ideas or opportunities not currently being actioned through another means, or
  • facilitate the joining up or coordination of work occurring separately across partners, reducing duplication, or
  • add value to existing work by extending or developing current projects further

Our vision for these projects is that they will contribute to the overall value for money agenda for each partner, adding to the work already ongoing within individual services and organisations to provide opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness through working together. They are also targetted at work that will help us improve outcomes on all our priority areas of focus.

LSP Executive are asked to consider a presentation which will set out the rationale for prioritising these projects and the anticipated benefits of them, and are asked to agree to LSP DMG carrying out more detailed work to scope and plan these projects, and to discuss with all stakeholders likely to be involved and relevant to the work, with a view to implementation from January 2011.

Detailed scoping for presentation to LSP Exec in January will then include:

  • a clear business case for the projects, including anticipated costs, resource requirements and anticipated benefits such as efficiency, exploring alternative models of provision, easier access
  • project plans setting out precise timescales, milestones and resourcing requirement
  • proposed methods of measuring the progress, outcomes and benefits of the work
  • proposals for resourcing and project teams, based on engagement with stakeholders
  • clear demonstration of how the projects will interlink and support each other’s delivery, and help respond to the impacts of CSR and other challenges we face
  • applied examples of successful delivery of similar projects and other areas, and the risks associated with failing to take any action on these areas.

We recognise that for many of these areas, some work is already occurring that will help us work better together as partners in the future and achieve wider results.

Work between November and January will involve discussions with those services and partners relevant to the proposals to examine their feasibility, costs and benefits in more detail, and to identify potential project leads, teams and the actions required to put them into practice. This will also include identifying where projects are already established tackling some of these issues and where we can build on these.

A project management spreadsheet has been established to record the main projects considered and progress on those agreed to take forward in more detail. This is attached for reference and consideration, also setting out those projects not prioritised for taking forward at this stage.

The key areas proposed for projects for the LSP in 2011 are:

Identifying high need families in Ealing and considering potential alternative models for the services they receive – incorporating:

  • Review of existing work to identify most prolific service users – including Family Intervention Project
  • Considering other information about what we already know about our highest need areas
  • Incorporating review of existing family based provision, and identifying alternative methods of service delivery such as key workers, family ‘wraparound’ services
  • Considering assessment routes and possible efficiencies in the ways services are accessed and delivered
  • Considering the opportunities for geographically based service provision to target issues; including e.g. alcohol and drug services

Improving partnership collection and use of data and information, including:

  • Considering existing overlaps of data and information held by partners and mapping duplication of collection and use
  • Working towards single databases and locations to host data used by all partners, wherever relevant - examining the business case for a future ‘data observatory’
  • Agreeing areas where information and data could be used in a more effective and tailored way by all partners, through a single system of analysis – e.g. customer insight
  • Reviewing functions currently present across more than one partner organisations, such as analysis capacity, and considering whether efficiencies could be made.

Developing a joint asset strategy across partners, including:

  • Considering existing property and asset plans existing and their goals
  • Identifying opportunities for increasing community ownership and management of assets
  • Considering extending the impact of social enterprises across Ealing, and opportunities offered by mutuals and other methods of service delivery
  • Considering opportunities to link into new ways of delivering services based on geographical areas, or specific families or communities.

We believe that these projects are likely to deliver the greatest benefits for all partners of the opportunities available to us for focus in the coming year. We also believe that these projects are fundamental to being able to establish sustainable and efficient planning, commissioning and delivery of services in the coming years.

There is clear evidence of the benefits reaped in other areas by pursuing such work, set out below. Assuming LSP Executive agrees to our pursuing these projects in more detail, this evidence will be expanded on and Ealing specific benefits and costs will be assessed in detail and presented along with the complete scoping and planning for these projects to LSP Executive in January 2011.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CASE STUDIES

There are many examples available of where other authorities and partnerships have effectively run similar projects, often through ‘Total Place’ type initiatives, to deliver significant improvements and efficiencies locally:

IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING HIGH NEED FAMILIES

Westminster City Council embarked on a project to identify their top 3% most high need families. The Family Recovery Programme’s multi-agency team (including Police, Council and PCT professionals) map circumstances and needs, and provide a single point of contact for families with complex needs. For the first 40 families: 39% of families with a history of anti-social behaviour have reduced their anti-social behaviour and 20 per cent have stopped anti-social behaviour; 50% of children have shown an improvement in their school attendance; and47% report family functioning improving.

In Croydon, Total Place pilots have identified that the 300 most ‘chaotic’ families in the borough could each cost public services around £250,000 per annum. Croydon’s unifed approach to family services has provided innovative solutions to other areas of concern; Croydon estimated that their clusters of targeted preventative provision for older people, pursuing progressive shift from high end expensive services (e.g. residential care) to preventative intervention, with clients an carers involved in service design throughout, has achieved 6% p/a savings over last 3 years and are projecting 5% p/a savings over next 2/3 years[1].

Croydon’s work on Early Years provision identified significant savings opportunities through refocusing prevention work on early years – identifying that the money spent on a young person increases as they get older, but the greatest chance for positive impact is at the start of their life. They are redesigning services based on coordinated early intervention, decommissioning services that create dependency, and increasing shared assessments – with an aim to create a single assessment / passport that a young person can have throughout life. They anticipate annual savings of £8.4m over two years with a further £25m being saved by 2016/17.

Peterborough has similarly identified that it is up to ten times more expensive for Peterborough Council to serve families classified as 'barely coping' than those classified as 'coping' (£6527 v £643 per child) and 76 times more to serve those considered 'chaotic' than 'coping' (£49,425 v £643) per child).[2]

JOINT ASSETS

Total Place pilots have anticipated an average of 5-6% savings on asset spend by managing assets in a more joined-up and strategic manner and ensuring that they are run in the most cost effective way.

Lewisham are establishing a joint asset management board to take a coordinated approach to the £65m public sector running costs locally and the £1.9bn value of public sector assets locally. Their plan is to introduce more co-location wherever possible, rationalisation of estate assets, and joint procurement of facilities and energy management, to cut costs wherever possible. Lewisham are anticipating saving 10-15% of their asset management costs through a more strategic and joined up approach across partners.

As part of the Total Place project in Kent, £5bn of public assets with running costs of £300m were identified; a single asset strategy across the county is expected to deliver £1.1m ongoing revenue savings from rationalising customer services assets, £1.3m savings in running costs of the estate in one area of the County, and net capital receipts of sale of surplus sites estimated at £17m.[3]

SHARED DATA COLLECTION AND USE

Nottingham City Council, working with the local NHS, police, districts and the county council has created an online Local Information System providing access to comprehensive, up-to-date information to neighbourhood level which staff both inside and outside the participating organisations can use to quickly find information they require, and calculate a range of costs and benefits. It saves up to £460,000 a year.[4]

Government commissioned research has valued the efficiencies created by data observatories / Local Information Systems at around £500k a year – significantly above the annual spend on maintaining these systems (maximum £130k pa)[5]. Even in the stages before such systems are established and have wide usage, the increasing sharing and joint analysis of data, and increasing awareness of a single location to store this, generates efficiencies in staff time and reducing duplication.

A conservative estimate suggests that the saving value of LISs is around £140-210 for an average user /year (time saved in obtaining information from other sources), giving a breakeven point of roughly 300-400 users per year for a system with average running costs. Most systems have many more users than this.

LISs / data observatories are established in more than a hundred local and regional areas, including in London, Newham, Lewisham, Barking and Dagenham, Tower Hamlets, Sutton, Enfield and Waltham Forest.

[1]

[2] Manchester City Region and Warrington Total Place Report, February 2010, p. 32.

[3] Total Place Pilot, Kent: Final Report, 5 Feb 2010, 39-41.

[4]

[5]