Implementing personal budgets for children, young people and families

Nic Crosby for In Control, Meera Craston for SQW13th February 2014

2

How to participate today

Nic Crosby, In Control

Nic Crosby has led work on In Control’s Children's Programme since its beginning in 2007, building a network of 46 children's services from scratch.

Prior to leading the Children's Programme, Nic worked at Paradigm leading the DYNAMITE project which focused on individual budgets for young people entering adult services. This work which began in 2005 started well before any government commitment to personal budgets for children and young people. Nic gained invaluable knowledge from working with many services and supporting their very first steps to introduce personal budgets for young people with learning disabilities. Before joining Paradigm, Nic worked with the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities leading a national evaluation of the transition and the new Connexions Services

In Control is a national charity. Our mission is to help create a society where people at risk of being excluded have the support they need to live a good life and where everyone is able to make a valued contribution.

We were the pioneers of self-directed support and for nearly a decade now we’ve supported more than 400 organisations nationally to transform their services and deliver personalisation.

4

Meera Craston

Meera Craston (nee Prabhakar) is a Director at SQW, where she acts as the lead for research and evaluation relating to families with children and young people with additional needs, and personalisation and service integration across the public sector. She has over ten years of experience at SQW, during which she has led research on behalf of DfE, DH, CLG, KIDS and the SE7. Recent projects led by Meera include:

All SQW’s work on Individual Budgets for Families with Disabled Children (DfE)

The ongoing Evaluation of the SEND Green Paper Pathfinder Programme (DfE)

The Evaluation of the SEND Green Paper Support Contracts (DfE) The Evaluation of the Adult Common Assessment Framework

Demonstrator Site Programme (DH)

SQW was founded in 1983 and is one of the UK’s leading providers of social and economic research services. We work with a wide range of public, private and not-for-profit organisations across the UK, including central government departments (such as the Department for Education, Department of Health and Department for Business Innovation and Skills), local authorities, national development agencies and charities (such as the Big Lottery Fund and KIDS). Research and evaluation are at the core of our service offer, and work relating to personalisation and service integration form one of our core areas of expertise.

5

Welcome

Current definitions of personal budgets How personal budgets can be managed Regulations Integration of funding…..the next step The Common Delivery Model – a useful structure to

planning the implementation of personal budgets Learning from the work of SQW and In Control Questions

6

Personal Budgets – one part of the local offer

7

Personal budgets – the challenges of integration

High Needs Block

School/college budget

Base funding

Notional SEN budget

Personal budget

If agreed with school / college

Health provision

Social care provision

8

Personal budgets – four ways to manage

By the local authority

By a provider, or organisation on behalf of the family

By taking the personal budget as a direct payment

A mix of these three options

9

Personal Budgets - regulation

Requests for a personal budget or direct payment The parent or young person may make a request to a local authority for a personal budget, including a direct payment at any time during the period in which—

(a) the draft EHC plan is being prepared in accordance with section 38 of the 2014 Act; or,

(b) an EHC plan is being reviewed or re-assessed under section 44 of the 2014 Act.

Decision to make direct payments Before deciding to make direct payments, the local authority must be satisfied—

(a) that the way in which the person who receives the direct payments proposes to use them to secure the agreed provision is an appropriate way to do so;

(b) that where a parent or nominee is to receive direct payments, that person will act in the best interests of the child or young person when securing the agreed provision;

(c) that the making of direct payments will not have an adverse impact on other services which the local authority provides or arranges for children and young people with an EHC plan for which the authority is responsible; and,

(d) that securing the agreed provision by means of direct payment is compatible with the authority’s efficient use of resources.

10

Personal budgets – health, social care and SEN

High Needs Block

School/college budget

Base funding

Notional SEN budget

Personal budget

If agreed with school / college

Health provision

Social care provision

11

Aim of Support and Aspiration Introducing Personal Budgets

Sets out an approach to planning the implementation of personal budgets Relevant to all agencies – SEN,

health and social care

Draws on: A framework that has been

successfully piloted in local areas Evidence and lessons learnt from

extensive front-line work by SQW and In Control

An introduction to the Common Delivery Model and key learning to date

Meera Craston, Director, SQW

13th February 2014

13

Where did the CDM come from and what is it?

SQW undertook a scoping study for the former DCSF in 2008 To inform the development of the IB pilot programme Reviewed range of existing approaches Recommended the piloting of the IB approach guided by the CDM

The CDM was developed to ‘provide a flexible framework against which the pilot sites could structure their thinking and activities’ IB pilots were asked to trial the CDM

Evaluation found the CDM provided an appropriate and useful guide/framework upon which to base the development of the IB approach Refined the CDM to reflect the learning from the pilots… …and to align with the requirements of the SEN reforms

14

The Common Delivery Model (CDM)

•Element 1: Engagement of wider agencies

•Element 2: Workforce development

•Element 4: Joint commissioning and market development

Organisational engagement and cultural

change•Element

5: Raising awareness with families

•Element 6: Peer support

Engaging and involving families

•Element 7: Integrated planning

•Element 8: Resource allocation and integrated funding

•Element 9: Management of personal budget funds

•Element 10: Development of IT resources

Setting up the infrastructure

•Element 11: Safeguarding and risk management

Safeguarding and risk management

15

Key initial considerations…

Development of Personal budgets

What is the rationale for reconfiguring the current arrangement to include

PBs?

Who should be involved in the development

stage? And how much time will this take?

What services / funding streams would lend themselves to this

approach?

How could the assessment / decision /

provision planning stages for these be reconfigured

to deliver PBs?

Who will deliver and act as the accountable

agency/panel/individual for the offer?

What are the workforce development implications

of this change in approach?

Is this practical and scalable?

What are the associated safeguarding and risk

management implications?

How could the services be costed for inclusion in

a PB?

What has already been done in other areas?

How, when and to whom should a PB be offered?

How could this align with ongoing structural and operational changes?

How flexible are current commissioning

arrangements? Does the local provider market require stimulation?

16

The evolving landscape and key implications…

Referral

Consider whether an assessment is necessary

Coordinated assessment

Consider whether to proceed with EHC plan

Development of EHC action plan

Sign-off

GENERAL PROGRESS TO DATE… Pathfinder areas more advanced than non-pathfinders PBs more commonly considered in silo by individual

agencies and either outside of or at the end of the EHC planning pathway

Common set of resource allocation models being developed/used

No of areas have developed multi-agency resource panels to act as the accountable decision making body

KEY IMPLICATIONS… Requires multi-agency development of PBs across the

age range (0-25 years) Integration of PBs into the wider EHC planning

pathway Specific skill set required for practitioners delivering

PBs Clarity on stage at which resourcing and PBs will be

introduced PBs to form part of the ‘Local Offer’ Scalability of arrangements

…SQW due to undertake thematic research on PBs and wider resourcing of EHC plans (part of SEND Pathfinder

Evaluation) from April 14 onwards

The EHC planning pathway

Consideration of resourcing

including personal budgets

Any questions?

18

Further information and contact details

In Control Children’s Programme & publications:

www.in-control.org.uk/children

In Control Health Programme & publications

www.in-control.org.uk/health

Nic Crosby

Director Children and Young People

In Control

nic.crosby@in-control.org.uk

www.in-control.org.uk

Key SQW reports:

http://www.sqw.co.uk/expertise/personalisation-changing-public-services

Meera Craston

Director

SQW

mcraston@sqw.co.uk

www.sqw.co.uk