www.idea.gov.uk
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
Colette McAuley and Daniel Cleaver
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
© Colette McAuley and Daniel Cleaver. October 2006.
Professor Colette McAuley and Daniel Cleaver. Division
of Social Work, School of Social Sciences, University of
Southampton. This project was commissioned by the
Improvement and Development Agency for local
government (IDeA).
IDeA IDT 1805. Printed by Geoff Neal Litho with
vegetable-based inks on paper made from 100 per cent
chlorine-free pulp from sustainable forests.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
contents
acknowledgements
2
introduction
3
background
3
adopting outcomes-based accountability
1. stages of implementation in each organisation
2. why adopt an outcomes-based
accountability approach?
3. methods of implementation
4. changes within the organisations
cultural shifts
data driven decision making
5. wider involvement of families and communities
5
5
5
8
12
12
13
16
conclusions
17
references
18
appendix 1 – documentary evidence provided
19
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
Colette McAuley and Daniel Cleaver
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 2.
acknowledgements
The researchers would like to acknowledge the assistance
and guidance given by the following individuals:
Jacky Tiotto, Senior National Adviser and Project Lead,
Improvement and Development Agency for local
government (IDeA)
Rob Hutchinson CBE, Adviser to the Improvement and
Development Agency for local government (IDeA).
We would also like to thank the five senior managers who
so generously gave of their time for both the telephone
interviews and the provision of relevant supporting
documentation:
Maxine Bretherton-Budd, County Manager – Children’s
Services Development, Cheshire County Council (referred
to in this report as Cheshire)
Jacqueline Davies, Performance Outcomes Manager, NCH –
The Children’s Charity (referred to in this report as NCH)
Stuart Gallimore, Head of Safeguarding, Portsmouth City
Council (referred to in this report as Portsmouth)
Mike Pinnock, Head of Development and Support, North
Lincolnshire Council (referred to in this report as North
Lincolnshire)
Sara Tough, Senior Manager – Children and Young People,
Change for Children, The Borough of Telford and Wrekin
(referred to in this report as Telford & Wrekin).
The University of Southampton is a leading UK teaching
and research institution with a global reputation for
leading-edge research and scholarship. It is one of the UK’s
top 10 research universities, offering first-rate opportunities
and facilities for study and research across a wide range of
subjects in humanities, health, science and engineering.
The University has around 20,000 students and over 5000
staff. Its annual turnover is in the region of £310 million.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 3.
introduction
Every Child Matters: Change for Children (2004)
unequivocally placed the focus of service planning for
children and families in England on outcomes to be achieved
as opposed to service outputs. An outcomes-based approach
to attaining better results on the well-being of children,
known as Outcomes-Based Accountability, has been
explored in the US [See, for example, Friedman (2001)].
More recently, this thinking has also been introduced to the
UK through senior policy makers who are members of the
UK Initiative [Utting, Rose and Pugh, 2001] who were
convinced of the value of such an approach to deliver
substantial change for children.
Since the introduction of Every Child Matters, over 40
local authorities in the UK have participated in seminars/
training on adopting the Outcomes-Based Accountability
approach to improving outcomes for children and families.
Several authorities and agencies have reported that they
have integrated it into their planning and accountability
procedures. The Improvement and Development Agency
for local government have commissioned this project to
examine the early impact of this approach and the extent
to which it has contributed to changes in culture, planning
and accountability which are likely to bring about better
outcomes for children and families.
background
The earlier UK overview (Utting, Rose and Pugh, 2001)
made the case for a shift in service development where
local people and agencies are engaged together in the
planning process and where the focus is clearly on
achieving better results for children. The authors
argued for an approach based on four key elements:
•
outcomes based accountability: a much clearer
understanding of what overall outcomes are sought
for children, and what quantifiable improvements in
their welfare and well-being would be required to
achieve them (current measures are too often about
process and delivery targets, rather than results).
•
community collaboration: based on the idea that
no single organisation, service or individual should be
expected to shoulder the responsibility for improving the
well-being of children and families. Accountability for
achieving results should be a shared and collaborative
responsibility within a community.
•
participation by individual citizens, families and children:
This requires genuine participation, which is rarely to
be found in examples of what is currently portrayed as
‘public consultation’.
•
innovative financial strategies: Traditional financial
systems often inhibit both community involvement and
much-needed service improvements. Agencies need to
pool resources and to use funds more flexibly to recognise
local priorities.
(Utting, Rose and Pugh, 2001)
Based upon knowledge about the implementation of the
approach in the US and on early findings from projects in
the UK, these authors concluded that:
•
the involvement of local families must be an integral
part of any move towards the kind of results-based
approach to planning.
•
among other tools that need to be in place before
results-based planning could be introduced, there needs
to be a standard set of data for the neighbourhood
concerned with the well-being of children and families.
•
aggregate data at national and regional level would
provide a benchmark against which current performance
and subsequent progress could be measured.
•
an agreed hierarchy of terms is needed so that labels
such as ‘benchmark’, ‘target’ and ‘outcome’ have the
same meaning for all those planning services and
evaluating their effectiveness.
•
capacity building and training for local people will be
important as a means of securing community involvement.
•
systematic training appropriate for work in multi-agency
settings will need to be provided for managers and frontline
staff.
•
rules and regulations may need to be reviewed and revised
to enable the necessary pooling of budgets as well as staff
and data resources.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 4.
The end result, for a relatively small investment in better
information systems and community involvement, could
be a transformation in mainstream services, making them
more acceptable and more effective contributors to the
well-being of children, young people and their families.
(Op cit)
Contemporary children’s policy in the UK is being driven by
an ambitious government change programme in children’s
services, requiring local implementation within a national
framework (Rose, Gray and McAuley, 2006). This framework
aims to improve the outcomes for all children and narrow
the gap between those who do well and those who do
not (HM Government, 2004). Every Child Matters: Change
for Children outlines five outcomes which are considered
crucial to securing well-being in childhood and later life:
•
being healthy
•
staying safe
•
enjoying and achieving
•
making a positive contribution
•
achieving economic well-being.
More recently, the Every Child Matters Outcomes Framework
(DfES, 2005) has been produced to be in line with guidance
on the Inspection of Children’s Services (OFSTED, 2005). It
provides information on how the inspectorates will judge
the contribution of services to improving outcomes.
A major agenda for change such as this provides us with
the opportunity to ask fundamental questions such as what
are the outcomes service users want, how can we achieve
them and how will we know what progress we are making
towards them. Engaging stakeholders in addressing these
questions is seen to be crucial in adopting an outcomesfocused approach. Again, it requires a significant culture
shift involving planned, systemic change (Ball et al, 2004;
Qureshi, 2001).
Outcome-based accountability is an approach which
has been used in over 40 states in the US and in Australia,
Holland, Ireland, Norway and Chile (Friedman, Garnett and
Pinnock, 2005). It is a more disciplined way of thinking and
taking action that can be used to improve outcomes for
children, families and communities. Several local authorities
in the UK have been incorporating the ideas of this approach
into their work over the past couple of years. Within this
approach, the importance of adopting a common language
among partners is stressed to prevent confusion. Outcomes
is the term used to describe the conditions of well-being
desired for children, families or communities. Indicators
are how we measure these conditions and performance
measures are how we know if agencies and programmes
are successful in achieving the outcomes. Outcome-based
accountability uses three common sense performance
measures: How much did we do? How well did we do it?
and Is anyone better off? (Friedman, 2005).
Aware of the fact that several local authorities/
voluntary organisations in England had applied or were
in the process of adopting the ideas of outcomes-based
accountability, the Improvement and Development Agency
for Local Government (IDeA) commissioned this small study
to examine the early impact of this approach and the
extent to which it has contributed to changes in culture,
planning and accountability which are likely to bring
about better outcomes for children and families.
Five organisations were selected by IDeA on the basis
that they were known to be in the process of applying the
ideas of outcomes-based accountability, that they provided
a mix of statutory and voluntary organisations and where
the adoption of the approach was known to be at varying
stages of implementation. These included Cheshire County
Council, North Lincolnshire Council, Portsmouth City Council,
The Borough of Telford and Wrekin and NCH – The Children’s
Charity. The nominated respondent for each organisation was
interviewed by telephone about their progress and experience
of adopting this approach and asked to provide supporting
documentation (a list of which can be found in Appendix 1).
The rest of the report summarises the overarching themes
which emerged i.e. the stages of implementation, why they
decided to adopt this approach, how they attempted to
do it, what changes arose within the organisation and the
extent to which it contributed to the wider involvement
of children and families.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 5.
adopting outcomes-based accountability
2. why adopt an outcomes-based accountability
approach?
1. stages of implementation in each organisation
For these managers, the appeal of an OBA approach was
twofold. Firstly, it provides a common sense way of engaging
agencies to work to a common purpose (improving selected
outcomes for children, families and communities), set
objectives and measure progress over time. Distinguishing
clearly between outputs (effort) and outcomes (effect) was
found to be a particularly helpful aspect of the approach.
Three of the four local authorities [Portsmouth, North
Lincolnshire and Cheshire] reported that they have been
working on an Outcomes-Based Accountability (OBA)
approach to improve service delivery for over two years.
The other local authority [Telford & Wrekin] and the
voluntary organisation [NCH] indicated that they were at
earlier stages of implementation and are still examining
the areas which might best be served by the approach.
All five of the senior managers who participated were keenly
aware of, and in many cases actively contributing to, the
national push towards improving outcomes for children and
families as a result of Every Child Matters and the Children
Act 2004. They had also become aware of the OutcomesBased Accountability approach (also known as Results-Based
Accountability approach) through attendance at seminars
and training events led by Mark Friedman of the Fiscal Policy
Studies Institute (www.results accountability.com). Hearing
of its reported successes in Vermont and Boston (Friedman,
2005) influenced them to pursue this approach in their
own organisations.
All the interviewees considered themselves as champions
of the approach within their organisation. In four cases
[NCH, Cheshire, North Lincolnshire and Telford & Wrekin],
they considered themselves as key members of staff with
responsibility to drive forward the implementation and
wider integration of the OBA approach both within their
organisation and, within three local authorities, between
their organisation and others.
Why wouldn’t having clearer objectives and a common
purpose be useful?. This was really self-evident...
The simple logic demands the idea of evidencing
the effectiveness of the interventions – lets you
know how well it has worked etc.
Head of Development and Support, North Lincolnshire
The simple nature of the process and the concepts
of distinguishing effort from effect...
Senior Manager – Children and Young People, Change for Children,
Telford & Wrekin
Secondly, central to an OBA approach is the involvement
of children, their families and the wider community in
both identifying and working on the selected outcomes.
Service users were seen to have a major contribution to
make. Agencies could consider ‘good’ outcomes for the
community as a whole. Clearly, these managers saw the
potential:
…to use it directly with communities.
County Manager – Children’s Services Development, Cheshire
…[for the] engagement of communities in defining
outcomes and, in particular, existing and prospective users
of services. It also encouraged partners to look at whole
communities… It brought in the idea of prevention.
Head of Development and Support, North Lincolnshire
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 6.
By engaging the public in a meaningful way, interviewees
aimed to foster partnership working both between agencies
and with the community:
Everyone has a role to play and to contribute to
plans which they can be held accountable for. From a
population perspective, we have implemented Change
for Children Boards made up of local partners at an
operational level with voluntary organisations, the private
sector and children/young people and families. These
engage the community to identify their local priorities
which relate to the Children and Young People’s Plan.
We wanted to implement Results-Based Accountability
to help to measure the benefits of these key identified
priorities and the associated workplans.
The example below demonstrates how one organisation
[NCH] is embedding the tenets of the approach into its
strategic thinking:
Extract from Measuring Change – Demonstrating Success, NCH internal document,
October 2006
Senior Manager – Children and Young People, Change for Children,
Telford & Wrekin
In those organisations at the early stages of OBA
development, the approach was seen to fit well with their
existing changes towards an outcomes focus and clarified
thinking around the distinction between outcomes and
indicators of change as well as outcomes at the individual,
group and community levels.
The following example from Telford and Wrekin
demonstrates their existing focus on outcomes and
the cultural change towards multi-agency working:
Extract from Whole System Change, Telford & Wrekin, 2005
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 7.
case study 1: where results accountability thinking
has worked North Lincolnshire Council
This case study is an abbreviated version of a case illustration
in Friedman (2005) and is reproduced with the kind
permission of the author and the contributor, Mike Pinnock.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 8.
3. methods of implementation
The initial introduction of OBA within all the organisations
was reportedly achieved by a small number of key directors
and/or senior managers. The approach was introduced to
these ‘champions’ by direct contact with Mark Friedman
of the Fiscal Policy Studies Institute either at his ‘training
for trainers’ events or at related conferences.
All the initial ‘champions’ within the local authorities, were
then able to convince high level, multi-agency groups such
as Children’s and Young People’s Strategic Partnerships
(CYPSP) and Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) that they
should adopt the OBA approach:
The following example is an extract from the Commission
for Social Care Inspection/ OFSTED Joint Review of Children’s
Social Care Services, Cheshire (OFSTED/CSCI, 2005):
The Council were awarded 3 in all areas which indicates
a service that consistently delivers above the minimum
requirements for children and young people, have some
innovative practice and is increasingly cost-effective whilst
making contributions to wider outcomes for the community.
It was initially supported by the director. It resonated with
him and he was passionate about it. He got the support
of the CYPSP in terms of thinking through and adopting
an Outcomes-Based Approach. This coincided with their
decision to become a Pathfinder Children’s Trust and it
was embedded, from the top down, into their model.
The Strategic Management Group were also key. This
included colleagues from health, police, education, youth
service and also elected members, who were being
introduced to the model and then championed it.
Head of Safeguarding, Portsmouth
Extract from Annual Performance Assessment of Cheshire County Council’s Education
and Children’s Social Care Services, CSCI/OFSTED, 2005
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 9.
Once high level groups were ‘signed-up’, wider
participation was actively encouraged. Champions were
identified and encouraged to cascade the knowledge out
to their staff. This took the form of local events for senior
staff, seminars with Mark Friedman and the introduction of
the approach to local managers and practitioners. Gaining
wider participation was driven by training events and the
actual use of the OBA approach and the demonstrable
results produced:
I went down to a 12 person Mark Friedman seminar
and came back evangelical about that. I came back and
tested the approach by inviting all the organisations to
send a senior representative (30 in total) to a 1 day event
held locally. This became a group of champions in our
authority. Out of the 30, 26 were on board immediately.
The other 4 have now become enthusiastic too.
County Manager – Children’s Services Development, Cheshire
These high level groups try to identify specific areas of
concern (hot-spots) within the community and identify the
desired outcomes for each area. The nature of this OBA
approach is an iterative one – issues are described, desired
outcomes agreed, and indicators of change are identified.
Actions are then planned and delivered whilst progress is
assessed on the indicators and required changes to the
action plans are identified. This approach constantly feeds
back changes into plans both at the strategic level (for
example, the single Child and Young People’s Plan) and into
individual project plans. As part of this approach, ‘Turning
the Curve’ exercises have been developed (Results-Based
Accountability, 2001). This involves establishing a baseline or
trend for a set of particular indicators. The effectiveness of
any work against the overall aim is then assessed by
changes to the trend (or curve) over time.
From the bottom up, local managers and practitioners
used it to target particular hotspots eg. child safety
(road traffic accidents), absence of public play areas,
teenage drinking, increasing youth nuisance and youth
crime (people sat down and remodelled services taking
this approach for this area). We are regularly using
Turning the Curve to problem solve situations. Lots
of staff know about Turning the Curve (if not OBA).
Head teachers, deputy heads, police, social care and
community officers used them [Turning the Curve
exercises] on [improving] attendance in schools...
to engage parents and families. It continues as a
good planning tool and our ‘best practice’
approach to take.
Head of Safeguarding, Portsmouth
The OBA approach, and ‘Turning the Curve’ exercises
(Results-Based Accountability, 2001) can be used to
drive improved outcomes across a range of areas from
a strategic level to individual, highly targeted projects.
An essential step in the process of implementation is its
incorporation into future plans. An interesting example
of fusion between the government’s Every Child Matters
agenda and the OBA approach appeared in the single
Children and Young People’s Strategic Plan in Cheshire.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 10.
The Children and Young People’s Strategic Plan [Cheshire]
takes the five overarching outcomes from Every Child
Matters and indicates their intention to use OBA to test
the success of the plan, and to annually refresh the plan
in light of progress and changes to their priorities:
Extract from Children’s and Young People’s Strategic Plan, Cheshire, 2006
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 11.
case study 2: where results accountability thinking has
worked Vermont, USA
This case study is an abbreviated version of a case
illustration in Friedman (2005) and is reproduced
with the kind permission of the author.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 12.
4. changes within the organisations
The interviewees reported a number of changes within
their organisation which took place during the use of their
OBA approach. Whilst attributing these changes directly,
and solely, to the introduction of OBA thinking is difficult,
all the interviewees considered that their OBA work has,
at least, contributed to these changes.
The changes within organisations fall into two broad
categories: cultural shifts; and data driven decision
making, each of which is discussed in detail below.
changes within the organisations – cultural shifts
The managers reported that the multi-agency focus of the
OBA approach contributed to the shift in their organisation’s
culture towards a shared ownership of the problem. It also
assisted with the willingness to pool resources to identify
ways of addressing the issues raised.
Achieving the support of strategic planners across agencies
was seen to be crucial to effect change:
Significant support from the Strategic Partnership...
allows the necessary changes to be made. We have
5 champions (Health, Social Care, Police, Surestart,
Education Welfare) who have been in place for 12 months
working on an Outcomes-Based approach in general.
Senior Manager – Children and Young People, Change for Children,
Telford & Wrekin
The following example shows the multi-agency working
and joint commissioning arrangements in one authority
[Portsmouth]:
There is a now a willingness to accept that your problem may
be my problem as well and I can help you by changing the
way I work. There is also a much greater awareness that
money is short and we can collectively generate 10 per
cent changes by each changing by 1 per cent.
Head of Safeguarding, Portsmouth
The simplicity of the language and logical process involved
in OBA, alongside the clearly demonstrable results offered,
was also said to have lead to a greater sense of shared
responsibilities:
It is easy to get all agencies to own and develop the CYP
Plan. It has action plans in Turning the Curve language
and has contributions from a range of agencies.
Head of Safeguarding, Portsmouth
Extract from Children and Young People Plan 2006/07 – 2008/09, Portsmouth, 2006
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 13.
changes within the organisations – data driven
decision making
As discussed previously, OBA requires that performance
be measured against the initial, agreed outcomes. For
each desired outcome, indicators (or proxy measures) are
established and agreed. An indicator is a specific and directly
measurable piece of information which, when combined
with other indicators, aims to give an idea of the progress
towards the desired outcome. Tools have been developed
in some of the organisations to assist them with monitoring
progress.
To illustrate, the following is an extract from the ‘Turning
the Curve Toolkit’ used in Portsmouth. This clearly shows
the overarching area of work Community Outcomes:
‘Children and young people grow up having succeeded as
far as they can at school’, and one indicator of progress in
this area – reducing fixed term exclusions. It also includes
the performance measures (indicators) used to directly
measure progress. This example also delineates clearly
between efforts (Outputs) and effects (Outcomes):
Extract from Turning the Curve Toolkit, Portsmouth, 2006
In some of the organisations, gathering and processing the
information has required improvement in their IT systems,
although this was viewed as a sound investment for planning
purposes. For example, one organisation [NCH] is in the
development phase of a new IT infrastructure which will
allow data to be gathered in a systematic and reliable
manner. When this is in place, the management data
on which decisions are based will be generated out of
the system with little or no effort. Similarly, in another
organisation [Telford & Wrekin], a planned replacement IT
system will accommodate the performance measures in use.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 14.
The example below is an extract from a Social Services
Inspectorate report of an inspection of North Lincolnshire
(HM Government, 2002) referring to upgraded software
and the use of outcomes data in their decision making
processes:
Extract from Inspection Of Management And Use Of information in Social Care –
North Lincolnshire Council, HM Government, 2002
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 15.
In three of the organisations, the responsibility of collection
and inputting of data lies with the front line staff associated
with each particular project. This is also the approach which
will be adopted by one further organisation when their IT
systems become operational. The last organisation [Cheshire]
utilises a Central Research and Intelligence unit to perform
these tasks.
It was widely agreed (in 4 of the 5 organisations) that the
task of gathering information created some difficulties,
primarily identified as either capacity issues or problems
with IT systems.
[It was] expensive and painful because of the IT systems
available to Social Care and the lack of interest of the
major software providers.
Head of Development and Support, North Lincolnshire
These are one part of a wider set of issues around
the greater use of data and IT systems across all local
authorities. There are a number of competing agendas
directing IT development and the use of information within
authorities (for example, the Child Index, the Common
Assessment Framework, the Integrated Children’s System).
All these systems will most likely require improved
practitioner use of IT and new or improved IT products.
The outcomes information which is gathered is only as
useful as the level of sophistication of its analysis. At the
most basic level, the overall indicator information needs
to be produced to show progress over time. This has been
(or is in the process of being) done in all organisations
interviewed. More sophisticated analysis, such as breaking
down the results by geography (postcode, ward etc), is
reportedly being carried out in two of the organisations
whilst another (NCH) indicated that they are in the process
of developing a new IT system capable of producing this.
The transparency of the link between decision making and
results has, in two cases [North Lincolnshire and Telford &
Wrekin], meant that agencies and/or projects were better
able to compete for funding of resources. For example:
We were able to provide high quality needs based
information to demonstrate progress over time and
areas of weakness. This meant that when monies
were available we could justify our case very well.
Head of Development and Support, North Lincolnshire
The multi-agency core of the OBA projects has resulted in
priorities which are shared between agencies. This has had
the knock-on effect of promoting joint funding for projects
and initiatives:
Work is commissioned jointly with other parties. We have
a Joint Commissioning Unit. There is a Head of Joint
Commissioning (funded through Health, Education and
Social Care) who is managed by the Primary Care Trust.
The team has 4 or 5 managers each of whom lead on
specific areas.
Senior Manager – Children and Young People, Change for Children,
Telford & Wrekin
If there is an area where children and young people
are not getting the best outcomes, a piece of work is
commissioned (say from a University) to understand why.
This gives a firm evidence base for further decisions.
The work would be jointly funded.
Head of Development and Support, North Lincolnshire
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 16.
5. wider involvement of families and communities
As stated previously, the philosophy of the OBA approach
adopted by each of the five organisations was of inclusion
of as wide a range of agencies, service users and the wider
community as possible. Children/young people, their families
and community representatives have been reportedly
engaged, wherever possible, from the outset of any
OBA project undertaken.
The example opposite is taken from a ‘Turning the Curve
Toolkit’ produced by one authority’s Children’s Trust
[Portsmouth]. It demonstrates the high degree of
community engagement and involvement in a local
project to address youth nuisance in playgrounds.
The solution to their problem was identified, by local
parents, as the establishment of a set of ‘Play Champions’.
These were local parents who supervised play and sports
sessions in the local area.
Wider involvement was found to engender a sense of
commitment and ownership of any particular project.
Often, the managers also referred to instances where
children/young people or the community gave creative
solutions to problems which would be not have been
generated from within their organisation:
At the annual [Children’s Trust] conference, people were
invited to highlight their own priorities. This gives new
insights and information. It identifies low cost/no cost
benefits. It also provides ‘wacky ideas’ eg road signs
designed by children.
Head of Safeguarding, Portsmouth
Extract from Turning the Curve Toolkit, Portsmouth, 2006
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 17.
conclusions
We set out to examine the extent to which five organisations
in England had adopted an Outcomes-Based Accountability
approach and the difference it had made. From the evidence
produced, it was clear that this approach has contributed
to enthusiasm about working in different ways to produce
better outcomes for children, families and communities. The
respondents spoke of new partnerships within and across
agencies, a new focus and an overall more unified approach
to their work.
All of the participants were committed to the need to focus
on outcomes (effects) for children and their families rather
than service inputs (efforts). What was also obvious from
these respondents was their increasingly developed view of
the importance of using measures which capture change in
moving towards improved outcomes. Measuring success is
a complex area currently exercising government. In many
ways, these respondents and their organisations appeared
to be in the vanguard of change. The research team and
IDeA are of the view that there would be merit in a formal
extension of the Pathfinder Programme for Children’s Trusts
to include local areas where they are implementing an
Outcomes-Based Accountability approach. They are also in
agreement that a more in-depth study of its impact needs
to be commissioned.
The approach had yielded wider benefits. The transparency
between decision making and outcomes had assisted
with competition for funding of resources. There were
also examples of progress on commissioning, with joint
commissioning arising out of agreed priorities across a
number of agencies presented frequently.
There were issues for workforce planning. All of the
respondents saw the need for ‘changing hearts and
minds’ when involved in whole system change such as
this. Inter-professional learning, with its emphasis on core
modules being offered to all professional staff, has already
shown a high level of success in Telford and Wrekin. Such
investment in frontline staff and their managers seems
crucial to the advancement of new ways of working.
The commitment of all of these organisations to the
involvement of children and families in planning and delivery
of services to improve outcomes was very convincing. There
was clear evidence of these organisations being prepared to
move beyond the rhetoric towards useful approaches of
engagement.
All of the respondents had a remarkably clear understanding
of the importance of gathering data to underpin decision
making. They realised the potential for improved
commissioning and achieving a better understanding of the
reasons behind the trends. The Turning the Curve exercise
seemed to provide a straightforward and practical method
of achieving change at minimal cost which staff at many
levels found helpful.
The five organisations who participated are at different
stages of change. However, it was obvious that all of
them are moving towards better and more systemic
ways of working as well as developing more accurate
awareness of whether services are making a difference to
the lives of children, families and communities. What was
perhaps most impressive was the commitment of these five
‘champions’ and their organisations to the improvement
of children’s lives.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 18.
references
Ball, S., Mudd, J., Oxley, M., Pinnock, M. Qureshi, H.
and Nicholas, E. (2004) Making Outcomes Your Big Idea:
Using Outcomes to Refocus Social Care Practice and
Information. Journal of Integrated Care, 12, 13–19.
CSCI/OFSTED (2005) Annual Performance Assessment
of Cheshire County Council’s Education and Children’s
Social Care Services.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/index.cfm?fuseaction=
viewapa&leaid=875&filetype=pdf&year=2005.
Friedman, M., Garnett, L. and Pinnock, M. (2005) Dude,
Where Are My Outcomes? Partnership Working and
Outcome-Based Accountability in the United kingdom.
In J.Scott and H. Ward (Eds) Safeguarding and Promoting
the Well-Being of Children, Families and Communities.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
HM Government (2002) Inspection Of Management And
Use Of information in Social Care – North Lincolnshire
Council 2002. Department of Health.
HM Government (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for
Children. Department for Education and Skills.
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/
HM Government (2005). Every Child Matters Outcomes
Framework. Department for Education and Skills.
www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/publications/
HM Government (2005) Inspection of Children’s Services:
Key Judgements and Illustrative Evidence. OFSTED.
www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications
Friedman, M. (2001) Results-Based Accountability (RBA)
for Communities and Programs that want to get From
Talk to Action, Fiscal Policy Studies Institute, Santa Fe,
New Mexico.
Friedman, M. (2005) Trying Hard is Not Good Enough.
Fiscal Policy Studies Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Qureshi, H. (Ed) Outcomes in Social Care Practice,
Outcomes in Community Care Practice. Number Seven.
York: Social Policy Research Unit.
Rose. W., Gray, J. and McAuley, C. (2006) Child Welfare
in the UK: Legislation, Policy and Practice. In C.McAuley,
P. Pecora, and W. Rose (2006) Enhancing the Well-Being
of Children and Families Through Effective Interventions:
International Evidence for Practice. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Utting, D., Rose, W. and Pugh, G. (2001) Better Results
for Children. London: NCVCCO.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 19.
appendix 1 – documentary evidence provided
Cheshire County Council
• Using Outcomes Based Accountability to achieve
better outcomes for children and young people,
Cheshire Children and Young People’s Strategic
Partnership and Children’s Services Authority.
•
Cheshire Guardian – Fostering and Adoption Newsletter,
Cheshire County Council, 2006.
•
So What? – case studies demonstrating the active
involvement of Cheshire’s Children and Young People,
Cheshire Children & Young People’s Strategic Partnership.
•
Get Involved – Cheshire Children and Young People’s
Active Involvement Strategy, Cheshire Children and
Young People’s Strategic Partnership.
•
Quality of Life Survey 2005 – Volume 3. Children
and Young People, Cheshire County Council, 2006.
•
•
‘The First Steps’ – Towards a Commissioning Strategy
for Children’s Services, Cheshire’s Children and Young
People’s Strategic Partnership.
Results Based Accountability – 13th May 2005:
Portal Premiership Golf Club Programme, 2005.
•
Cheshire Draft Local Area Agreement, 2006.
•
Cheshire Children And Young People’s Plan – 2006–2009,
Cheshire Children and Young People’s Strategic
Partnership.
NCH – the children’s charity
• Articulation - Youth Arts Weekend, Itinerary and Aims,
2005.
•
About the RESPECT AGENDA - Messages to government.
•
Procedures and Guidance – NCH Aspire.
•
Measuring Change – Demonstrating Success, NCH,
October 2006.
•
The NCH Outcomes Framework Indicators, Draft,
October 2006.
•
National Outcomes and Impact Network –
Case Study: NCH families project, IDEA.
Portsmouth City Council
• ‘Youth Nuisance’ in Buckland, Portsmouth 8 Response
Group – Turning the curve.
•
‘Turning the Curve’ Rapid Response Group Minutes
and discussion, Portsmouth Children’s Trust.
•
CAMHS Grant Spend Plan 2006/07.
•
A Child and Adolescent Mental Health Strategy for
Portsmouth, PowerPoint Slides.
•
City of Portsmouth’s Children and Young People Plan
2006/07–2008/09.
•
Heart of Portsmouth Newsletter, Community
Improvement Partnership.
•
Report to Joint Commissioning Group from Head of
Planning, Performance and Commissioning, June 2006.
•
Turning the Curve Toolkit, Portsmouth Children’s Trust
Development Team, August 2006.
•
Turning the Curve Toolkit, Internal guidance to create
locally relevant action plans.
•
Flip Chart Notes.
•
Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership
Structure and Relationship Map.
•
Results-Based Accountability for Libraries.
•
Results Based Accountability Conference – May 2005,
Attendance List.
•
Meeting Minutes, Teenage Pregnancy/Parent Challenge
Team, December 2005.
Children’s Trust Report Card, Portsmouth LEA, PowerPoint
slides.
•
Fact Sheet – Lessons from the Paulsgrove and Wymering
Pilot, Portsmouth Children’s Trust.
•
Welcome to the Children and Young People’s Plan Action
Planning Event, Portsmouth City Council, PowerPoint
slides, November 2005.
•
Turning the Vision Into Reality, Portsmouth Children’s
Trust, Newsletter.
•
•
Joint Area Review DVD, documentation submitted to
inspectors, September 2006. Contains 2,768 documents
across the following areas:
– Joint Area Review Self Assessment
– Requested Documents
– CPA Self Assessment
– Youth Offending Team Document Submission
– Youth Service Self Assessment
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Page 20.
Portsmouth City Council continued
• Evaluation comments from HoP CIP Priority Action
Planning event Thursday 18th May 2006.
The Borough of Telford and Wrekin
• Terms of Reference, Change for Children Board, 2006.
•
Children and Young People’s Plan, Action Plans.
•
Every Child Matters – Summary of transferability and impact.
•
‘Turning the Curve” Rapid Response Group, Meeting
Minutes, May 2004.
•
Guidance on Domains & Elements, ISA Practitioner’s Toolkit.
•
Outcomes for Children – The Report Card, Portsmouth
Children’s Trust, PowerPoint slides.
•
Every Child Matters, Telford & Wrekins Experience,
The Borough of Telford and Wrekin.
•
Outcomes for Children Report Card – Mapping Local
and National outcomes and Indicators.
•
•
Email correspondence promoting Turning the Curve
training, September 2006.
Needs Analysis – School & Community Clusters, The
Borough of Telford and Wrekin/Telford & Wrekin NHS
Primary Care Trust, April 2006
•
•
Community Profile of child well-being across Portsmouth
– Report Card, Portsmouth Children’s Trust, April 2005.
Change for Children – newsletter, multi-agency newsletter,
November 2005.
•
•
Minutes of Portsmouth 8 Response Group meeting,
June 2005.
Change for Children – newsletter, multi-agency newsletter,
April 2006.
•
•
The Children and Young People’s Plan – A Brief Summary,
Portsmouth Children’s Trust.
Children and Young People’s Plan 2005–2010,
The Borough of Telford and Wrekin,
•
Integrating Children and Young People’s Service in Telford
& Wrekin – A series of Fact sheets, The Borough of Telford
and Wrekin:
– Bullying and Discrimination
– Joint Commissioning
– Common Assessment
– Lead Professional
– Common Service Delivery
– Looked After Children
– Corporate Parenting
– New Youth Offer
– Disabled Children
– NSF
– Equalities
– Outcomes
– Flowchart
– Safeguarding
– Healthy Schools
– School and Community Clusters
– Information sharing
– TAC new
– Involving
– Vision and Governance
– Jigsaw
– Whole System Change
– Joint Commissioning Unit.
North Lincolnshire Council
• Quarterly Performance Review, North Lincolnshire Social
and Housing Services Children and Families Services,
June 2001.
•
Children and Families Quarterly Performance Review,
PowerPoint slides, October – December 2002.
•
Charting Information – Volume 1 in the Voyages in
information and knowledge series, socitm, September
2003.
•
Inspection Of Management And Use Of Information In
Social Care – North Lincolnshire Council, SSI, June 2002.
•
Make Outcomes your Big Idea: Using Outcomes to
Refocus Social Care Practice and Information, Journal
of Integrated Care: volume 12 issue 5, October 2004.
•
A report of the Review of Social Services in North
Lincolnshire Council, September 2000.
•
Community Partnership, North Lincolnshire Strategic
Partnership.
•
Summary of Participation Structures and Activities,
North Lincolnshire Children’s Services, 2005–6.
improving service delivery –
introducing outcomes-based accountability
a research report commissioned for the IDeA ‘better results’ programme
which supports local councils in their focus on improved outcomes
Improvement and Development Agency
Layden House, 76–86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG
phone 020 7296 6600 fax 020 7296 6666
www.idea.gov.uk
IDeA IDT 1805