1. Quality Control & Performance Management Helen Carson - Business Support Carrie Mills - Performance & Data Analyst Yvonne Martin - Commissioning & Partnership Manager 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants1

2. Aims To explain presenters roles within the Commissioning & Partnership teams. To improve participants understanding of the reason and background to the grant quality control & quality assurance systems applied to PIP grants. To provide an opportunity for participants to share experiences. To improve participants ability to submit accurate monitoring returns. 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants2

3. Content ( Part 1) Quality Control/Assurance and Performance management requirements in government contracts What do we have in place now and how that is changing What we are introducing 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants3

4. Quality Control & Quality Assurance Why do we need it? Who does it protect? Because we are answerable to the Public, Government, DfE, Cafcass on spending the public purse Allow us to understand what is being delivered and how we can improve it. The consumer/parents who attend, the courts who order, FCA’s who recommend. Individual Services Providers, the Provider base, the future of the provision 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants4

5. The Revised Separated Parenting Information Programme is a course designed to help parents to. Become clear what their children need most from them, as children of separated parents; and, as part of this, to help them to: Learn the fundamental principles of how to manage conflict and difficulties between themselves and their ex- partners, including applying these principles by planning and imagining positive management behaviour

6. QA-PIP-Grants6 Quality Controls Contact Activity Grants Separated Parents Information Programme Grant application & selection process for delivery April 2011-12 1 Year grant for delivery of programme based on unit cost per person attending, restricted by location and under grant conditions and delivery standards. Quality controls following selection Payment controls Evidence of court order or instruction. Authenticity checks of parties against CMS records. Checks to confirm private law cases. Payment process compliant with financial regulations & grant requirements Programme delivery controls Services user evaluation returns Provider monthly return covering the standards which are identified as relevant for monitoring purposes. Provider self assessment tool Spot check observations Grant requirements controls Annual self audits returns Spot check for authenticity Provider monthly returns Tools Monthly claim form Monthly provider return including service user evaluation Programme Observations self assessment tool (Q2 & Q4) Peer audit tool (authority) Annual self audit on grant requirements (Q3) Review report monthly (authority) Individual services review subject to performance results 03/10/2014

7. QA-PIP-Grants7 Performance Indicator DefinitionTarget KPI 1 Service User Satisfaction The average of all Service User Feedback responses for all ten questions should be 4.1 or above. >= 4.1 3.1 – 4 <= 3 KPI 2 Group Size The percent of group sessions held that had between six and ten service users in attendance. >= 70% 50% - 69.9% <= 49.9% KPI 3 Number of Trainers The percent of groups (with four or more service users in attendance) that were led by two trainers. >=90% 75% - 89.9% <= 74.9% KPI 4 Participant Gender Balance The percent of group sessions that had a gender balance between 40 and 60%. >= 80% 60% - 79.9% <= 59.9% KPI 5 Timeliness The percent of service users that wait three weeks or less between the date that the provider receives the referral and the first date offered by the provider. >= 80% 60% - 79.9% <= 59.9%

8. PIP Peer Assessment Process Seek expressions of interest in role and select services based on experience of PIP delivery and performance management /assessment. Place grants Early March 2012 Consult with selected assessors on allocation of services, and methodology for assessment. Share information with Provider base End of March 2012 C & P Managers test methodology through application with peer assessors services. Undertake bench marking exercise and finalise tools and methodology & assessor allocation of services to assess. End of April 2012 C & P Managers test methodology through application with peer assessors services. Undertake bench marking exercise and finalise tools and methodology & assessor allocation of services to assess. End of April 2012 End of May 2012 Peer assessors undertake one assessment and meet to bench mark & confirms scoring with C&P lead manager. Roll out of assessment of services by peer assessors and feed back to services on performance June to end of September 2012

9. Peer Assessors Laura Ronn, Action for Children Jane Reeds, Relate Denise Ingamells,Eye to Eye Mediation Eileen Pereira,Surrey FMS Jill Valenti,NRS Elizabeth Coe,Action for Children Sheena Adams,CCFM Sandy Cheetham,Action for Children Roni Jones, Relate 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants9

10. 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants10 Areas for assessment are: Facilitators qualification and experience relevant to the programme. Date trained in the materials and number of courses facilitated. Supervision taking place in accordance with the organisation policy. Ability to uses PIP materials to the maximum benefit. Communication with and engagement of participants. Ability to maintain focus on task and manage group behaviour. Managing diversity issues. Management of Safeguarding Issues Raised Facilities provided and suitability of location Pre course process (letter of invite, promotional information, group invited to attend)

11. 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants11 Feed back for services will be provided in the first instance by the assessor in regard to any immediately presenting issues. Within 4 weeks of the assessment visit the Grant Manager will provide a written summary to the services and provide an opportunity for discussion about the rating if required. Amendments to the rating if required will be made in consultation with the service, the assessor, and grant manager.

12. What do we know so far? Quarter 3 information told us services user satisfaction is very strong. 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants12

13. Service user feed back Q3 2011 national +_ I found the support book helpful and informative 84%4.6% I am more aware about how children respond to divorce and separation. 88%9% I am now more aware of the impact conflict can have on children 87%10% I was able to think about and discuss what children need during divorce and separation 91%5% I have gained additional knowledge and skills that will help me as a separated parent 84%12.4% I was able to identify one or more changes that I have made or would like to make 91%5% I’ve thought about how I might develop a business-like relationship with my ex-partner 75%19% I am considering mediation as an alternative to court 25.8%24.2% The trainer was well-prepared and knowledgeable 96.2%1% The trainer treated me fairly, regardless of gender, race, or any other diversity issues 96%0.8%

14. Themes from free text : What were the strong points of the programme? Being able to discuss situations and issues with others in the same circumstances The trainers Learning about communication The focus on the child The DVD Mixed sessions of mums and dads Relaxed and open atmosphere

15. Themes from free text : How to improve the programme. Should be offered earlier in the process – before court (most common theme by far) Needs content geared toward younger children (DVD, scenarios) More and better information prior to the course on the content of the course Consider suitability more carefully – e.g.: DV, time since separation, whether or not the parents had been in a long term relationship “More” – additional sessions, follow up sessions, longer sessions

16. What do we do with that information? Influence policy & practise development Ensure the programme has a future Improve take up of the services 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants16

17. QC & QA Developing process Joint endeavour Making PIP work for parents 03/10/2014QA-PIP-Grants17