Social Services Research Group
The Technical Working Group (TWG) met on 10th December and I have summarised a selection of key discussion points below. The full agenda and supporting papers are all available at the following web site: www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/twgpss/twgdec2004agendapapers.htm
Children with Disabilities: DfES are keen to collect additional information on children with disabilities and this is supported by CSSRs. The original proposal was to collect these data via the annual CPR3 return but as this would be quite cumbersome we agreed that a more appropriate vehicle would be the Children in Need survey.
Placement Distance from Home: this issue has been under discussion for some time and whilst there has been agreement in principle, progress has been hampered by definitional problems. DfES has proposed a list of exclusions which have been agreed and it is anticipated that these data will be collected via the 903 return commencing in 2005/06.
Adoption: in response to new requirements contained in the Adoption and Children’s Act due to be implemented in September 2005, we agreed coding changes to come into effect for 2006/07. We also agreed in principle, to additional data items relating to adoption by single sex couples and unmarried couples and adoption breakdown.
Substance Misuse (Children Looked After): data at both local and national level are acknowledged to be very limited and DfES are proposing to strengthen this by additional questions on the OC2 return. This remains a very tricky area both in terms of establishing tight and unambiguous requirements and in terms of the collectability of the data. In principle these data would be collected via the OC2 return and DfES will be bringing further proposals to TWG in March 2005.
Help to Live at Home Indicators: the PAF indicators C29, C30, C31 and C32 are all derived from the RAP “P series” and have probably caused us more angst than any others since their introduction. In policy terms, the case for monitoring the number of people supported in their own homes is critical. We all accept this but there the agreement ends! The biggest problems are caused by the fact that these PI’s fail to take into account the realities of both joint working and the importance of local authority preventative strategies. It is fair to say that neither the DH nor local authority members of the TWG have any easy solutions. In 2004 the DH issued guidance that only care managed services should be included in the RAP tables and we already had considerable evidence that practice amongst local authorities was variable.
In July the ADSS asked CSSR’s to complete a survey investigating the effect of the new guidance emphasising that only care managed clients should be counted in the P2 RAP returns. In particular councils were asked to say what effect applying the guidance would have on the PAF ‘Helped to Live at Home’ indicators C29 - C32.
Eventually 51 authorities (one in three) responded. Of these three quarters said that they were already working to the principle of counting only care managed clients so the guidance made no difference. The effect on the remainder varied from barely measurable to losing half of the people counted for some indicators. On the basis of this evidence TWG concluded that it would not be appropriate to revise the bandings for these PI’s despite the fact that some CSSR’s would see their performance deteriorate on paper. As part of the RAP return for 2004/05, we agreed to include several additional questions that will enable DH to better assess the impact of their latest guidance. In the meantime we continue to seek better ways of defining, collecting and reporting in this crucial area.
Dealing with Local Authority Queries: over the past two years in particular, many more CSSRs have raised queries with both DH and DfES, and have become more involved in debates about developing returns, performance indicators etc. Whilst this is a very welcome development it has not been effectively coordinated and has led to a situation whereby different CSSR’s may be genuinely operating on differing guidance!
SSRG members may be aware that Nick Miller from Norfolk County Council has been seconded to CSCI and he presented a paper to TWG both outlining the problem and proposing a solution. Nick sees the problems as:
Nick also proposed a way forward:
“A single website is set up which has a searchable database with links to all current (and ideally past) guidance on the main returns, DIS etc. This site will also contain all FAQ material and responses to queries from CSSRs, BRMs etc (see below). The expectation is that all enquirers should use this data source in the first instance.”
This approach was welcomed by TWG and we are hoping that the resources will be made available to implement the proposal.
I will not bore you with too many details (these are available on the website) but it is important to note that TWG has agreed that all DH/DfES returns will be subject to a 3 year review. In 2005/06 the following returns will be formally reviewed:
As always, the local authority representatives on TWG will continue to work to try to ensure that the annual returns are proportionate, sensible and achievable - there is still a sense that far too many data are collected and at a level of detail that is not always easy to justify. You probably already know the saying but for those who don’t:
“Weighing the pig more frequently does not make it any fatter!”
Terry Davies Worcestershire County Council 01905 76912. Email: tdavies@worcestershire.gov.uk
Register for e-mail alerts here
Content copyright SSRG 2004-2011
Maintained and supported by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE).