1. Audit Commission Presentation Corporate Assessment and Joint Area Review briefing Thurrock Council 2 November 2006 Gary Hammersley and Meena Randhawa

2. Audit Commission Presentation Agenda Overview of CA and JAR How they link together and key differences The teams and who is in them What are we looking for Timeline Self assessments More about the weeks we are here Practical matters AOB

3. Audit Commission Presentation Corporate Assessment Ambition Prioritisation Capacity Performance Management Achievement CPA Category 4 Stars 3 Stars 2 Stars 1 Star 0 Stars Children & young people Social care (adults) Environment CultureHousingBenefits Use of Resources Financial reporting Financial management Financial standing Internal control Value for money Level 1 services Level 2 services Fire* * Fire service assessment – applicable to those 16 councils with responsibility for fire and rescue Direction of travel Improving strongly Improving well Improving adequately Not improving adequately OR Not improving

4. Audit Commission Presentation Corporate Assessment themes What is the Council and its partners trying to achieve? Ambition Prioritisation What is the capacity of the Council, including its work with partners, to deliver what it is trying to achieve? Capacity Performance Management What has been achieved? Achievement – Sustainable communities, including transport – Safer & stronger communities – Healthier communities – Older people – Children and young people (JAR)

5. Audit Commission Presentation Joint Area Review themes Every child matters outcomes: Being healthy Staying safe Enjoying and achieving Making a positive contribution Achieving economic wellbeing Plus: Service management

6. Audit Commission Presentation Service management Four themes same as corporate assessment: Ambition Prioritisation Capacity Performance management Which must include judgements about: Management of resources Value for money Capacity to improve –Council –Area

7. Audit Commission Presentation Our aims To make it one process as much as possible Reduce duplication and repetition where we can If we work together we can jointly manage the process to make it easier and reduce the burden

8. Audit Commission Presentation Connections between the JAR and the CA (1) Joint Area Review Being healthy (1.1 – 1.6) CYP are provided with a safe environment (2.2) Can access a range of recreational facilities (3.6) Participate in decisions and support the community (4.3) Reducing anti-social behaviour by CYP (4.4) Corporate assessment Promoting healthier communities (5.4) Drugs and alcohol (5.3) Accident reduction and making people feel safer (5.3) Ambitions for the local environment (5.2) Building stronger communities (5.3) Reducing anti-social behaviour (5.3)

9. Audit Commission Presentation Connections between the JAR and the CA (2) Joint Area Review Families helped to maximise economic well-being (5.1) YP 11-19 helped to prepare for working life (5.2) Regeneration addresses needs of CYP (5.4) YP have decent housing (5.5) Corporate assessment Sustainable economy and labour market (5.2) Ambitions for local housing market (5.2)

10. Audit Commission Presentation Connections between the JAR and the CA (3) Joint Area Review Service management: Ambition Prioritisation Capacity Performance management For example: Partner organisations know how well they and each other are performing against planned outcomes (6.4.B) Corporate assessment CA Themes: Ambition Prioritisation Capacity Performance management Do the council and partner organisations know how well they and each other are performing against planned outcomes? (4.2)

11. Audit Commission Presentation Differences between JAR and CA Joint Area Review Inspection of AREA Service type inspection – similar to old LEA inspection Bottom up – case tracking, neighbourhood study, analysis of documents and wide variety of outcome measures Interviews with senior staff towards end of process Corporate Assessment Inspection of COUNCIL High level – how whole council is doing Top down – corporate documents, wider range of councillors and senior officers; service info needed and used as examples Briefing from senior staff at beginning of process

12. Audit Commission Presentation Composition of CA team Team leader (AC) – Gary Hammersley Team member (AC) – Sarah Stevens Peer member – Cllr Gareth Barnard (Bracknell Forest) Peer officer – Trevor Pugh – LB of Richmond Joint inspector (0.5) (AC)- Barbara Deacon-Hedges Project Support Officer – David Tilley

13. Audit Commission Presentation Composition of JAR team (variable) Lead Inspector (CSCI) - Meena Randhawa Deputy Lead Inspector (Ofsted)- Kathryn Burdis Team Inspector (Ofsted)- Nick Henwood Team Inspector x 2 (CSCI)- Anna Lis, Helen Nys Team Inspector (ALI)- Nick Gadfield Team Inspector (HC)- Sue Fraser Betts Joint Inspector (0.5) (AC) – Barbara Deacon-Hedges Enhanced Youth Inspector (Ofsted) - Tony Noonan

14. Audit Commission Presentation Role of Joint Inspector Member of both teams Take lead on one area of CA (e.g. older people and healthy communities) Take lead on service management in JAR Ensure relevant evidence from either team is passed over to the other team Facilitate communication and shared/joint working between members from the two teams Participate in both teams’ meetings Contribute to consistency of evidence and judgements across teams

15. Audit Commission Presentation What are we looking for? Guided by KLOEs: CA and JAR CPA – The Harder Test How things are now rather than plans for the future Work with partners User focus Needs of all the community Outcomes for users and citizens, do they recognise the difference? Consistency vs. good isolated examples

16. Audit Commission Presentation Timeline November 2 set up meeting November 28CA self assessment to be returned with docs December 4 JAR self assessment to be returned December 18analysis week – split over 2 weeks due to Xmas Jan 10 initial progress update from analysis week Jan 22 – 2 Febonsite field work weeks (weekly progress update) Feb 5- 16report writing Feb 27consistency panels March 7draft reports to council March 21 re-draft after comments from council April 18 final reports with council April 23 feedback meetings – CA and JAR May 14publication of reports

17. Audit Commission Presentation Self assessments First indication of what area/council is like Use the KLOEs and guidance provided JAR self assessment covers Thurrock and the neighbourhood area so need to think about how it will be compiled ‘Tell the story’ around service delivery Outcome focussed, evidence based User focus Self score Be candid

18. Audit Commission Presentation Analysis week – split over 2 weeks Tour for CA and some JAR members – 8 th Jan Neighbourhood study for JAR – field work week 1 Contextual briefing for CA (some JAR members may attend)18 th Dec pm: –Evidence provided by council/area –Evidence from other sources (reviews/inspections/PIs/PAF/surveys) JAR case file review Opportunities for observation? Progress update at end of second part of analysis week setting out: –Initial views from JAR and CA

19. Audit Commission Presentation On-site weeks Informal morning meetings with CEO and Dir Children's Services Neighbourhood tour for JAR - first day of week 1 Further analysis of documents Interviews Focus groups End of day team meetings to review evidence gathered and test emerging views May cancel some interviews as line of enquiry closed down May ask for others to explore further Progress report at end of each week (interim and final)

20. Audit Commission Presentation Quality Assurance / if there are problems? Both the CA and JAR will be Quality Assured during the inspection Quality Assurance visits will be arranged to meet the Council while we are on site If you have any concerns or queries at any stage please liaise with the team leaders through your managers The Quality Assurance leads are also available if required

21. Audit Commission Presentation Questions?