VOICES Business Plan Review

Business Plan Review

Local celebrities Jonty Sergeant and Emil Franchi of Signal Radio present Expert Citizens with qualification certificates in November 2015

2016-17 to

2017-18

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW

1 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW

Business Plan Review Contents Fulfilling lives: Supporting people with multiple needs

3

Project effectiveness

3

Theory of Change

3

Effectiveness

3

What we will start doing

8

What we will stop doing

13

What we will continue doing

15

Delivery

17

Delivery Structure

17

Equalities Considerations

19

Leadership

21

Key successes and challenges

21

Priorities for Systems Change

26

Engagement

28

Budget and Risk Register

30

Budget

30

Risk register

30

Appendix 1 – VOICES Budget

31

Appendix 2 – Risk Register

36

Appendix 3 – SWOT Analysis

39

Appendix 4 – Service Delivery Ambition & Planning

40

Appendix 5 – User Involvement Ambition & Planning

41

Appendix 6 – Partnership Ambition & Planning

42

Appendix 7 – Systems Change Ambition & Planning

43

Appendix 8 – Equality Action Plan

44

2 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Fulfilling lives: Supporting people with multiple needs

Business Plan Review 2016-17 to 2017-18 The purpose of this review is to take stock of where you are, and remembering that this is a test and learn programme with clear ambitious outcomes, propose how you will continue to deliver your project.

When answering the questions below please consider how you are working towards and/or achieving the three main aims of the programme;   

People with multiple and complex needs are able to manage their lives better through access to more person centred and co-ordinated services.

Services are more tailored and better connected and will empower users to fully take part in effective service design and delivery.

Shared learning and the improved measurement of outcomes for people with multiple and complex needs will demonstrate the impact of service models to key stakeholders.

Project effectiveness Please provide a revised Theory of Change in a format of your choosing to be either no more than 1000 words, or diagrammatically no more than one side of A3 (1000 words or addendum)

Theory of Change The original theory of change, as set out in the submitted project plan, focused how change would be “People Powered” and the tools needed to measure that change. While that rendering remains relevant, our revised theory of change adds value. We aim to be more explicit.

Table 1 shows a logic model theory of change for our intended systemic impact as well as for the intended personal impact. This is “what” we aim to achieve and highlights the objectives of the Fulfilling Lives project.

Figure 1 shows a schematic rendering of our theory of change. It is intended to show the top-down and ground-up aspects of systems change, communications, and simplified infrastructural relationships. This is “how” we intend to achieve our objectives for systemic change in our local context.

Effectiveness VOICES and Expert Citizens developed via a wide range of relevant local partner organisations. The process itself involved a great degree of co-production between those stakeholders including people with lived-experience of multiple needs.

Our independent evaluation of the implementation phase notes that the first 18-months have been successful in establishing VOICES and Expert Citizens as part of the local infrastructure. Each area of the work plan has seen progress.

Service Delivery Service delivery has achieved engagement for people with multiple needs previously excluded from services. Our local evaluator described the feedback from our customers as being effusive in their

3 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW praise of Service Co-ordinators. The evaluator identified their flexibility, personal and practical approach, persistence, and non-judgemental attitude as contributing to that positive relationship.

The local evaluator described Service Co-ordinators’ work in engaging people that were otherwise excluded from services as excellent. Many of the people with multiple needs that VOICES works with have no services to coordinate when they are introduced to the project. There is often an initial period where Service Co-ordinators provide for a person’s immediate needs through intensive support. This has created a tension where observers, e.g. staff at other support services, interpret this activity – as well as the accompanying assertive advocacy for access to services – as support rather than co-ordination. While this dynamic is difficult to avoid, it is important to maintain the very positive working relationships with partner services.

Therefore, it will be worthwhile putting some communications resources in to clarifying the role and remit of Service Co-ordinators for all stakeholders as we go in to year 3.

The evaluation was clear that VOICES is targeting the intended customer group. Problems faced by customers include severe and enduring mental ill-health, abuse histories, serious offending histories, homelessness, addiction, and a lack of positive relationships from an early age as well as perceived or actual exclusion from the services they need. At this relatively early stage of the project, our view is that the original assumptions about caseloads were inaccurate due to our experience of the intensity of co-ordination service required at the beginning of engagement. The evaluation notes that stakeholders expressed concern about increasing the caseloads to the target level.

Stakeholders’ fear that an increased caseload would present a risk to the established effectiveness of the service.

Therefore, we propose to revise the caseload profiles over the life of the project maintaining an average of seven per Service Co-ordinator for years three and four. However, the caseload should be reviewed again as the impact of the project in relation to systems change grows locally as we go in to the second half of the project.

Expert Citizens Expert Citizens have established their governance infrastructure, brand, and a high local profile successfully. The group is approached for comment by local media on related issues and has regularly featured in the press. There is strong leadership of the group from the Chair and Vice-Chair with a wider group of people contributing to specific work streams and shared objectives on a daily basis. The coordinating group is meeting regularly (at least fortnightly) and shares office space with VOICES enabling very close working. However, while being closely supported the group is maintaining its independence as a key partner. Stakeholder feedback about Expert Citizens involvement in the project is very positive.

“All too often in past agencies have paid lip service to groups of service users but this has a very different feel – user voice is central.” (Stakeholder)

Our local evaluation of the implementation phase notes that several stakeholders commented on the impact that Expert Citizens’ participation has achieved. Particularly, in terms of the tone and atmosphere of meetings and forums in relation to multiple needs. As well as the insight of livedexperience, stakeholder felt that Expert Citizens encouraged focus and empathy.

4 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW “The mere fact that someone is there changes the dynamics of the group – you can’t behave like a bunch of professionals who are ticking all the boxes. You have to focus on outcomes.” (Stakeholder)

Expert Citizens’ evaluation of services is an element of their work that is emerging strongly. Branded as “Insight”, Expert Citizens evaluate services against specific service standards (set out as the Golden Ticket standards). These were co-produced with people of lived-experience in the bidding stage of Fulfilling Lives. Expert Citizens and VOICES have developed the standards further in the implementation phase. We see “Insight” as a good way to both drive and evaluate systems change at the front line while increasing the profile of Expert Citizens. The recent Expert Citizens Insight Conference was attended by close to 200 people and featured the “Insight Awards” which recognised practitioners that were implementing Golden Ticket service standards in five categories.

Therefore, we will continue to develop and implement “Insight” in years three and four. We also see Insight as a potential saleable product to enable the sustainability of Expert Citizens as a legacy of VOICES and Fulfilling Lives. To that end, we propose to establish Expert Citizens as a Community Interest Company and include funding in our revised budget for the new organisation to employ up to two people.

Systems Change VOICES and Expert Citizens are at an advanced stage of developing a jointly authored Multiple Needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent. This sets out eight specific objectives for systems change in Stoke-onTrent that would transform the approach to multiple needs in the City. Our Charter is based on feedback from stakeholders as well as the operational experience of VOICES about systemic bottlenecks and barriers. We will publish the document, seeking strategic level engagement and implementation of the Charter, via a high-level round table of key stakeholders early in year three.

Governance for systems change The governance arrangements for the project have been effective at the level of the Project Board throughout implementation. However, initial feedback from the Big Lottery about the unwieldy nature of the various standing sub-groups has proved to be correct. A rapidly changing strategic environment and a large number of initiatives in the City have had an impact on the ability of key people to attend the sub-groups. Servicing the groups has also proved to be demanding for the management team while overlapping in content with each other and the Project Board.

Therefore, we propose to change the governance arrangements from March 2016 to have a wider Project Board featuring all the partners as well as other key agencies at a senior level. Sub-groups will be of a task-and-finish style and focus on delivery of the objectives set out in our Charter for Multiple Needs.

5 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Table 1: Logic Model Rendering for Systemic and Personal Impacts - Theory of Change IMPACT

Systemic Impact People in Stoke-on-Trent benefit from services that are more tailored and better connected and that empower users to co-produce service design and delivery leading to:  reduced demand at accident and emergency services  reduced hospital admissions  reduced rough sleeping and begging  reduced arrests, crime, and antisocial behaviour  improved value for money  class leading services against which others benchmark Systemic Outcomes People in Stoke-on-Trent benefit from shared learning and improved measurement of outcomes that demonstrate the impact of service models leading to:  services that are well-coordinated and work across functional, organisational, and sectoral boundaries  policies, systems, and services that are co-produced with and work for people that have lived experience of multiple needs  empowerment of users as co-producers of services  local agencies that lead change through co-production Systemic Changes (top down changes set out on the next page) People with multiple needs in Stoke-on-Trent benefit from:  a specific multi-agency strategy that is implemented actively  a local approach to Housing First  easy and simultaneous access to mental health and substance misuse services  well-planned hospital and prison discharge (including suitable housing)  being empowered as co-producers of the policies, processes, systems, and services that they need  partnerships that allocate specific resources to the delivery of the strategic and systems results, outcomes, and impacts

Personal Impact People with multiple needs benefit from being able to manage their lives better through access to more person-centred and co-ordinated services leading to:  empowerment of people with multiple needs  living a more fulfilled life  improved employability  improved resilience and self-care skills  positive social networks  a recovery community and informal peer support Personal Outcomes People with multiple needs benefit from:  stable housing, finances, and relationships  making a positive net contribution to the community  a positive outlook for the future  social resilience and coping strategies  opportunities for training, personal development, and volunteering

ACTIVITIES

Activities to Promote Systemic Changes People with multiple needs benefit from:  a listening, learning, and leading partnership  an active meaningful multi-agency partnership: o vision expressed clearly o a specific Multiple Needs Charter for Systems Change o governance and project management to get there o board members as multiple needs ambassadors and leaders in their organisations o clear meaningful links influencing commissioning o strategic planning linked to existing infrastructure o information systems and sharing (CRM, etc.) o service operations open to assertive advocacy for change o learning and evaluation  Communities of Practice  Expert Citizens and Insight  Shared learning opportunities as set out in a prospectus, including o solution-focused approaches to service delivery o asset-based approaches to care and support o psychologically informed practice, systems, and environments  Communications, including: o reports, plans, strategies, workshops o infographics o newsletters, social media, traditional media (radio, TV, print) o conferences, events, and awards o story-telling and case studies

Activities to Promote Personal Changes People with multiple needs benefit from:  co-ordination of care and support packages, housing, and finances in to a multi-agency plan, including; e.g. o clear multi-agency working o meaningful activity (e.g. art, clubs, gym, etc., through five-ways to wellbeing) o access to family and friendships o access to a personal budget o fast access to services and welfare benefits o fast access to housing with appropriate support o help with immediate needs and living conditions  physical and mental health  clothing  food  shelter  assertive advocacy for customers  assertive outreach  asset-based, solution-focused, and psychologically informed practice

INPUTS

Inputs to Promote Systemic Changes  People, including o VOICES staff and volunteers, including  Service Co-ordinators, Systems Brokers, Service Manager  Community Development Co-ordinators, Community Development Manager  Learning and Evaluation Manager  Media and Communications Co-ordinator  Expert Citizens  Project Director o VOICES Board Members o Partner staff and volunteers o Wider service management, staff, and volunteers o Other local leaders, including commissioners o Strategic infrastructure; e.g. Health & Wellbeing Board, Co-operative Working Board, etc.  Finances, including o VOICES - Big Lottery Fund o Other relevant change programmes  Management, staff, and volunteer training, coaching, and development  Information systems, policies, processes, tools; e.g. CRM

Inputs to Promote Personal Changes  People, including o VOICES staff and volunteers, including  Systems Brokers  Service Co-ordinators  Service Manager  Community Development Co-ordinators  Community Development Manager  Volunteers (including Peer Mentors) o Partner staff and volunteers o Wider services staff and volunteers  Finances, including o Personal budgets o Benefits claimed o Other financial resources, e.g. bond scheme  Staff and volunteer training, coaching, and development  Information systems, policies, processes, tools; e.g. CRM

OUTCOMES

RESULTS

6 of 44

Personal Changes People with multiple needs benefit from improved:  health and well-being  improved relationships  hope and confidence  self-care and self-esteem  improved or more stable financial incomes  access to and engagement in services  more stable housing

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Year 3 & 4 Figure 1: S c h e m a t i c R e n d e r i n g - T h e o r y o f C h a n g e TOP DOWN – SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN STOKE-ON-TRENT A MULTIPLE NEEDS STRATEGY

HOUSING FIRST FOR MULTIPLE NEEDS

COORDINATED MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE MISUSE SERVICES

COPRODUCTION OF SERVICES WITH EXPERT CITIZENS

FAIR ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE NEEDS

LOCAL PROTOCOLS FOR HOMELESS HOSPITAL & PRISON DISCHARGE

IMPROVE HOW VULNERABILITY IS DEFINED IN ALL SERVICES

INDICATORS SUPPORT PRIMARY CARE PROFESSIONALS EFFECTIVELY



VOICES GOVERNANCE

STOKE-ON-TRENT CITY GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

  

STRATEGIC PLANNING

LEARNING AND EVALUATION

  

SERVICE OPERATIONS

GROUND UP – SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE

Key communications / messages

Ground up pressure for change 7 of 44

Top down pressure for change

           

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW What we will start doing Please explain how your project will continue, specifically covering what you will start doing and the reasons why (750 words)

Systems Change The first two years of the project have focused on implementation and identifying the most significant bottlenecks and blockages that affect people with multiple needs. This began with the establishment of the partnership, delivery team, and Expert Citizens.

Our ambitions for systems change in Stoke-on-Trent are high. We recognise that some of these changes will require an extension of the reach of the project in to the most senior echelons of partners across the City. There will need to be a greater degree of commitment than hitherto, including the allocation of specific resources to achieving change. To achieve this, the partnership will need to flex its governance arrangement so that there are more ambassadors for VOICES in the relevant decision-making forums.

Top down approach An evaluation report, secondary research, operational experience, conferences, and workshops have established eight specific systems changes for Stoke-on-Trent to focus on in relation to people with multiple needs.

We are setting out these objectives and summarising the case for change in “Right time, right place: A multiple needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent” (to see a late version of the developing draft click this hyperlink for a private viewing: issuu.com/voicesofstoke).

The eight objectives are as follows:        

Invest in a specific multi-agency strategy for multiple needs Development of a local approach to Housing First Simultaneous access to drug and alcohol services Inclusive access to relevant services Co-producing services with the people that use them Implementing hospital and prison discharge protocols Implementing the impact of the Care Act and new homeless vulnerability tests Supporting primary care professionals more effectively

By March of 2016, we aim to convene a round table meeting of relevant senior leaders from the Local Authority, Health, Criminal Justice, and Third Sector service families from within and without the VOICES partnership. Expert Citizens will be central to the meeting. The aim of the meeting will be to secure a commitment to establishing project groups for each objective with a specific senior leader to oversee progress. The revised budget headings include lines targeted at resourcing these initiatives.

In order to oversee this shift of emphasis, the governance arrangements for VOICES will change. The Project Board will expand and rebrand (as a Partnership Board) to have a seat for all of the partner organisations, particularly commissioners, as well as the potential for input from other relevant leaders.

8 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW In the implementation phase, the Project Board was supported by a series of standing committees.

We propose that these will disband. Instead, task and finish style groups will focus on specific systems change work streams, chaired by an allocated lead officer from a partner organisation (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 for an illustration of the changes). We also propose to resource each work stream through the flexed budget with partner organisations continuing to contribute in-kind and potentially with other resources too. The Partnership Board will be relaunched. As many of the board members will be new, the relaunch will emphasise the role of board members as ambassadors and representatives of VOICES and Expert Citizens in all the forums that they attend.

Ground-up approach Based on our learning from the mobilisation phase of the project and the recent evaluation, we propose some changes to the team establishment. It is clear from stakeholders that some clarification is need of the Service Co-ordinator and Senior Practitioner role. We have also experienced significant staff turnover in the delivery team. The original job descriptions and salaries were based on those of a traditional “support worker”.

However, in practice the role has developed and carries significantly more responsibility and autonomy than that expected of a traditional support worker. This includes working exclusively with people experiencing multiple needs, a greater degree of outreach, and more responsibility for cash handling, increased multi-agency influencing, and operational leadership. We have benchmarked the roles against other similar positions from other Fulfilling Lives projects nationally.

As a result, we have produced revised job descriptions for these roles to reflect the work done as well as desired outcomes more effectively. In making these changes, the title of Senior Practitioner would change to System Broker. Both roles have been set at one salary grade higher than that originally submitted to the Big Lottery Fund indicatively pending a formal evaluation.

These changes reflect that the roles have developed since the inception of the project positively.

Service Co-ordinators and Senior Practitioners play an increasing part in promoting cultural and systems change at the front-line. This is through both their day-to-day advocacy, e.g. tenaciously seeking access to services that people need, maintaining their access and coordinating services around the individual, as well as through active participation in reflective joint learning via Communities’ of Practice.

See Figure 4 for proposed revisions to the staffing structure.

Expert Citizens, Peer Mentors, and other volunteers Volunteers, particularly those with lived experience, will remain central to leading VOICES and Expert Citizens. Expert Citizens have developed a high profile and a number of work streams that will help to establish a sustainable legacy beyond VOICES. We propose to establish Expert Citizens as a Community Interest Company and kick start their development with a new budget heading to allow the organisation to employ up to two officers for the life of the VOICES project. This will give Expert Citizens and VOICES time to develop independent funding streams further. Expert Citizens have already secured funding for day-rate based consultancy. This proposal follows feedback from stakeholders as well as Expert Citizens. Examples of potential revenue generating activities include:  

 

Insight service evaluations Consultancy and public speaking

9 of 44

Peer Mentoring brokerage Funding raising activities

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Again, based on our learning from the mobilisation phase we propose to make changes to the structure of the team in relation to engagement. Initial project assumptions focused on engagement of volunteers as a primary concern. However, in experience we have found that the recruitment and training of suitable volunteers has been relatively straightforward.

Instead, with the exception of the twenty or so very active Expert Citizens, we have struggled to develop agency-based groups across the partnership.

Therefore, rather than the establishment, engagement, and maintenance of agency-based groups, we are proposing to adopt a community development approach. This would be asset-based and seek to empower existing recovery communities across the City in to a movement for change. To support this process, our proposal includes that the relevant job descriptions and titles are changed to emphasise community development. The Engagement Manager role will become a Community Development Manager and the Peer Mentor Co-ordinator roles will become Community Development Co-ordinators. These will then work alongside Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s Policy and Community Engagement unit to ensure that people with multiple needs are involved, specifically and directly, in changes that affect them. Council officials have contributed to the development of the revised job descriptions and the Assistant Director is keen to facilitate this joint working.

Communications Stakeholders highlighted the need to make more out of communications from the project at a recent partner workshop. As we now have 12-months of operational data held in the CRM, we are in a position to report on the evaluation of outcomes and other data. Stakeholders also highlighted the need to continually communicate, relaunch, and clarify some key aspects of the project such as the Golden Ticket.

Therefore, we propose to flex the budget to enable us to recruit a Communications and Media Coordinator. The role would include authoring and editing the Newsletter, case studies, producing infographics, maintaining social media, the website, organising events, ensuring we maximise opportunities for key messages, maintaining media relations, and maintaining branding consistency.

See Figure 4 for proposed revisions to the staffing structure.

10 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Figure 2: Structure of original governance groups

Friends of VOICES

Service Liaison

Project Board

Engagement

Expert Citizens

Learning & Evaluation

Commissioners Group

Under the original governance arrangements, the Project Board comprised the Chair of each sub-group, plus two Expert Citizens, the CEO of Brighter Futures, and a Chairperson – plus co-opted advisory members (non-voting). In practice, this has narrowed participation in the partnership rather than extended it. The commissioners group in particular has been attended poorly as have others groups to a lesser extent.

Figure 3: Proposed new structure of governance arrangements

Partnership Board

Expert Citizens

Existing City Governance Infrastructure

Charter Task & Finish Groups

Communities’ of Practice

Under the proposed Governance arrangements, the project board will be rebranded as the Partnership Board. The board membership will expand to include senior representatives, e.g. Director or Assistant Director, from all partners. It will also include co-opted advisory members as required. Stakeholders have also identified a need for improved communications. Therefore, we propose to employ a communications officer and establish a communications group. This will oversee the collation and dissemination of learning from the project including statistical data, case studies, and events as well as co-ordinate systems change through the wider governance arrangements of the City. The task and finish groups will establish and disband to oversee the delivery of specific work streams associated with the delivery of the objectives set out in the multiple needs charter.

11 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Figure 4: Revised staffing structure

12 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW What we will stop doing Please explain how your project will continue, specifically covering what you will stop doing and the reasons why (750 words):

Governance As covered earlier, a wider Partnership Board will replace the Project Board and the sub-groups will disband. Although the infrastructure has been effective for the mobilisation phase, a wider governance board including senior representatives from all the partners will be better placed to lead the delivery of systems change.

Communications Language It is clear from feedback that some stakeholders have perceived VOICES as either being too critical of their work or otherwise as a potential new threat in a shrinking marketplace. While the project has been careful with language in many respects, we do need to remain mindful that our language remains inclusive, engaging, and motivating; i.e. the language of partnership. We should not be afraid of our role as a critical friend. However, our approach to highlighting areas for favourable systems change should prefer “showing” to “telling” by using case studies and other evidence-based techniques.

Meetings While meetings are a key means of communication, stakeholders have expressed a view that time in strategic meetings has been lost to – sometimes – repetitive information giving. While the reformation of the governance arrangements may prevent this, we will stop using strategic meetings as an opportunity for general messaging and instead focus on decisions and actions. We believe the addition of a communications and media co-ordinator will increase our capacity in that area significantly.

Team structure We will replace the Engagement Manager and Peer Mentor Co-ordinators posts with Community Development Manager and Co-ordinator positions respectively.1 The reasons are set out previously.

The proposed changes are illustrated in Figure 4.

Capacity Stakeholders have expressed concern about increasing the caseload to the original profile set out in the project plan. Operational experience tells us that a period of intense activity is required with customers to engage them. Staff leaving the operational team have also pointed to the demanding nature of the work as a reason and have often left to similar work with customer groups perceived as less demanding.

The intensity of the role sometimes includes meeting customer’s immediate care and support needs while beginning the process of co-ordination; i.e. advocating for access to the appropriate services.

We believe that the original project plan underestimated the degree of inertia associated with improving the opportunity for people with multiple needs to gain and maintain access to services for people with multiple needs. While Service Co-ordinators have been extremely successful in gaining 1

Subject to consultation with affected staff

13 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW access and preventing subsequent exclusion, this have often involved intensive work with the services involved. This includes, for example, triggering and following (sometimes convoluted and defensive) appeals processes.

Therefore, we intend to reduce the target maximum caseload to 63, which is a ratio of 1:7 for Service Co-ordinators. As the project develops, we would revisit this ratio with a view to increasing the caseload, as access to services should become easier. Specifically, we will review this in year four with any changes to increase the caseload implemented from year five.

14 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW What we will continue doing Please explain how your project will continue, specifically covering what you will continue doing and the reasons why (750 words):

Expert Citizens We will continue to place Expert Citizens at the forefront of the project as leaders and co-producers in every aspect of what we do. We will also continue working to ensure that Expert Citizens are a sustainable legacy of VOICES for the City beyond Fulfilling Lives.

Service Co-ordination Service co-ordination has proved to be a success with case study evidence demonstrating positive outcomes for customers. Feedback from customers has been extremely positive about the role although the project needs to be mindful of ensuring that there is an exit strategy to a recovery community to avoid dependency. Service Co-ordinators are also ideally placed to identify what works well and what can be even better in the systems that affect people with multiple needs.

Therefore, we will continue to implement and develop the service co-ordination role and associated process while sharing our learning throughout the partnership.

Personalised Budgets Service Co-ordinators have found that personal budgets are a key tool in enabling engagement and access to services. We will continue to adopt a flexible approach to the use of personal budgets and share learning within and beyond the partnership.

Communities of Practice Communities of Practice have been an extremely positive forum for reflective practice and learning.

They have enabled a focus on joint learning with an independent facilitator. Participants have a direct link to the front-line and can implement some learning immediately to promote cultural change. However, the Communities of Practice are also producing recommendations for wider systems change.

Multiple Needs Expert Panel For the last six-months, a multi-agency panel has supported VOICES and Expert Citizens to select people with multiple needs for the caseload. This process has proved to be an extremely valuable forum for beginning the process of co-ordinating services for individuals. In some cases, the panel has agreed a plan of action for an individual that has avoided their need for service coordination through VOICES. In others, services have made commitments at the meeting, e.g. access to housing, that have then been the starting point of the person’s service co-ordination plan once engaged in VOICES. This has given Service Co-ordinators a head start and has worked well.

The Golden Ticket, Insight Evaluations, and the Insight Awards We will continue to implement the Golden Ticket through a relaunch and communication about the commitments of the partnership. Expert Citizens will continue to implement their evaluation of services against the standards. These help to establish both the Golden Ticket concept and the principle of Expert Citizens as a valuable asset to services. Expert Citizens and VOICES recently organised and delivered the “Insight Awards”.

Nearly 200 people attended the awards, which recognised people’s good practice in relation to multiple needs in five categories. In the wake of the awards, a great deal of positive feedback was received from stakeholders about the concept. One significant provider of health services issued a

15 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW press release praising the success of their staff in the awards programme. Around 8,000 people viewed coverage of the awards on social media. The categories and stories behind the awards reinforced the key messages of the programme including the Golden Ticket.

We were delighted that significant organisations recognised the value of the awards and praised their staff behaviour publicly. This creates a space for organic cultural systems change through imitation. Darren Murinas, Chair of Expert Citizens, reinforced this at the awards with a speech highlighting that front-line workers did not always need permission to do things differently.

The Insight Awards this year were a proof of concept. Nominations were made by VOICES Service Co-ordinators and shortlisted by Expert Citizens. Next year we will seek to spark a ‘big conversation’ about what good practice looks like for people with multiple needs by inviting nominations to the categories from across the sector. Expert Citizens will continue to shortlist the nominations and select the winners with an explicit link to the Golden Ticket standards.

1,001 Lives and Case Studies While producing the volume and quality of case studies for 1,001 lives has proved to be more of a challenge than anticipated, we intend to continue to keep storytelling at the heart of our case for change. We have found case studies particularly powerful in terms of highlighting the current the conditions of systems affecting people with multiple needs.

The Customer Relationship Management System (In-Form) VOICES has commissioned In-Form (based on the Salesforce platform) as the CRM system for the project. The first phase of implementation has been successful with Service Co-ordinators using the system to manage their caseload and elements of information sharing. We have also consulted partners about the feasibility of using the system to share information across organisations. A number of partners have indicated their interest in participating in a pilot as a phase 2 of the system rollout. We see an IT platform as central to the ability of organisations to implement the Golden Ticket principle of “tell your story once” locally. We are actively looking at ways to implement the Golden Ticket via a technology solution such as the use of QR codes that can be scanned by services to access people’s records. Of course, issues of security and data protection will be significant considerations.

Peer Mentoring We have been successful in recruiting and training a significant number of peer mentors. Currently, c. 25% of customer have an active relationship with a peer mentor. We aim to work with Expert Citizens to develop peer mentor brokerage in to a specific product offer for a CIC social enterprise.

The remodelled role of Community Development Co-ordinator will lead on peer mentoring as well as working alongside existing organisations and recovery communities to develop this opportunity.

Service Co-ordinators report that customers with an active peer mentor value the relationship.

However, it has often proved difficult in the first instance for customers to appreciate what a peer mentor could offer and many decline the opportunity.

Local Evaluation and the Learning Programme Now that the project has been running with customers for 12-months we can begin to evaluate the impact for customers and support the business case for systemic change. This will include development of the social return on investment model and cost-benefit in the coming months.

16 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Delivery Delivery Structure Please confirm what changes, if any, will be made to the delivery structure including front line resources, back office staffing and delivery partners/contracts, including the reasons why (750 words):

Summary of proposed changes to the staffing structure As indicated in some of the contextual narrative for previous sections, we propose to amend the staffing structure and some of the underpinning job descriptions. The Project Director, Service Manager, Learning & Evaluation Manager, Administrator, and Administration Assistant positions are unchanged. Figure 4 on page 12 provides a structure chart for the new staffing establishment highlighting the changes. However, here we will describe the changes and reasons for change against each post.

Community Development Manager & Co-ordinators A Community Development Manager post replaces the Engagement Manager position. Community Development Co-ordinator positions replace the three Peer Mentor Co-ordinator posts. We have amended the job titles and descriptions to reflect both our operational experience as well as our longer-term ambition of establishing Expert Citizens as a sustainable legacy of VOICES. To be successful in that aim, a self-managing community needs to be organised including a leadership and communications infrastructure with succession planning. This different objective requires different skills than merely seeking to engage people in VOICES. Instead, as community organisers, the aim will be to empower people with multiple needs to develop and deploy their own assets and capabilities in the interest of their community. We also aim to establish the Expert Citizens C.I.C. as a Peer Mentor brokerage service and to develop skills in the wider community that will enable that to take place.

We are working with Stoke-on-Trent City Council so that the VOICES community development team can work alongside colleagues in the City’s Engagement and Policy unit, which is part of the Chief Executive’s Directorate. This will bring multiple needs specifically in to the heart of the City’s community engagement planning. City Council colleagues have already contributed to the revisions in the job descriptions and person specifications to help.

System Broker & Service Coordinators Stakeholders have reported some confusion about the role of the Service Co-ordination team and by extension the Senior Practitioners. Initially, some stakeholders saw the team as another ‘support service’ that would take people with multiple needs off their caseload entirely. Others felt that the team delivered too much support and ought to focus on a more hands-off coordination and brokerage approach.

Our experience has been that for most of our customers an initially period of immediate support is required. This is for two reasons. First, many of our customers are not merely disengaged from services they are excluded and often in the midst of crisis. Therefore, in some instances we have rendered food, clothing, and shelter as a first step. Secondly, making a rapid difference for someone builds trust and rapport swiftly. This then enables us to involve the person in assertive advocacy to access and then co-ordinate services.

17 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW These posts were modelled originally on traditional support work job descriptions and person specifications. Therefore, we are changing these to reflect how the jobs have developed. We also recognise that the original job descriptions and person specifications understated the responsibilities. We have experienced significant turnover in these positions. Therefore, we are reevaluating the roles, which have been set (indicatively) at one grade higher than planned budgeted.

The revised financial plan reflects this assumption.

Communications and Media Co-ordinator Stakeholders have reported that communication with partners could be more regular and accessible.

Communication in the set-up phase of VOICES been successful in that the project has become well known and established rapidly. We have few specific human resources allocated to communications. However, as we move in to the systems change phase of the project, this aspect of our work will become even more important.

Therefore, we propose to introduce a new role of Communications and Media Co-ordinator to the staffing establishment. This post will take responsibility for all aspects of the project’s communications including collating, authoring, and editing case studies or blogs (including multimedia), authoring the newsletter, press releases, branding, website and social media, events, and publications.

Local Evaluation There are no planned changes to the Local Evaluation including the agreements underpinning it.

18 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Equalities Considerations Please describe any equalities considerations and how these will be implemented in relation to your equality and diversity plan (750 words):

Summary We have summarised the key considerations for VOICES customers from the beginning of the project below. We propose no changes to our original equality action plan. This can be found in the appendices at page 44.

Gender Our original estimate for the gender balance of the VOICES customer group was that c. 75% would be male. In practice, there has been more demand from female customers than expected. We plan no significant change in our activities in this area.

Figure 5: Current customers by gender (57)

Figure 6: All customers by gender (69)

Age The age distribution profile of VOICES customers is close to expected. More than nine out of ten customers are between 25 and 55. We have fewer younger people than may have been expected.

Stoke-on-Trent boasts a large and successful YMCA that focuses on young people which is likely to both deal with demand and act to prevent multiple needs. Although we plan for no significant changes to our activity in this area, we will investigate the reasons that there are fewer younger people as VOICES customers than we might expect.

Figure 7: Current customers by age (57)

Figure 8: All customers by age (69)

19 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Ethnicity Again, the ethnicity profile for VOICES customers is close to what we would expect. Stoke-on-Trent reported a population of 88.6% white in the 2011 census. At 91% of 69 customers, we are close to that figure. However, the City has little infrastructure representing ethnic minorities for VOICES to work with. We have received feedback, via colleagues at the local CAB, that the specific inclusion of domestic abuse as a ‘multiple need’ would be beneficial. Although we propose no significant changes to our activity in this area, we will continue to be vigilant in identifying and building on community assets for ethnic minorities experiencing multiple needs.

Figure 9: Current customers by ethnicity (57)

Figure 10: All customers by ethnicity (69)

Disability The incidence of disability in the general population of Stoke-on-Trent stood at c. 23% according to the 2011 census. Our current figures for disability declared at referral to VOICES are similar to the general population. However, based on clients in other services with a high proportion of people with multiple needs, we expected a higher proportion of people declaring themselves as disabled.

For example, at Brighter Futures this balance is reversed with around two thirds declaring a disability. Our understanding is that this is likely to be because we have recorded the information on entry to the VOICES project without later reviewing the status with the customer. Although at this stage we do not propose any significant change to our activity in this area, we will ask Service Coordinators to regularly review this status with the customer and amend it on the CRM system where necessary.

Figure 11: Current customers by disability (57)

Figure 12: All customers by disability (69)

20 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Leadership Key successes and challenges Please provide details of your partnership’s key successes and challenges to date and explain how your partnership will respond to and build on this (750 words):

Successes Rapid implementation VOICES and Expert Citizens have established a high local profile quickly. We have a wide range of key relationships including referral routes from across sectors. Expert Citizens remain central to the governance and operations of the project. The capacity and capability of the group is growing and Expert Citizens are becoming part of the local infrastructure. For example, the Local Authority have invited Expert Citizens to meet in the New Year to discuss people with lived experience evaluating Council services through the Insight Programme.

Insight Programme VOICES have supported Expert Citizens to develop an evaluation framework for services working with people that have multiple needs. Expert Citizen Evaluators use appreciative enquiry techniques to assess services against the framework. This follows a specific training programme and pilot of the framework with two services. Services receive a report from Expert Citizens highlight their current level of attainment and making recommendations for improvement.

Insight evaluations include the observations of Expert Citizen Evaluators, e.g.

“There’s clear evidence that staff respond to customers’ individual needs and they provide flexibility in current and on-going support” (Insight Evaluator)

Evaluators also interview customers of the services and report their findings, e.g.

“Two customers have said that they did not get to have one-to-ones with their key worker. On visits to the customer’s property, it was often to see both tenants at the same time for a short period. This made the customer feel like there was no one to have confidential conversations with. This would also make it difficult for the customer if they wished to disclose something to their key worker.”

(Insight Evaluator)

Expert Citizen Conference and Insight Awards Our project plan included an annual conference. We decided that this would be an effective way to increase the local profile of Expert Citizens to further our ambition for a lasting legacy. Expert Citizens and VOICES planned and delivered the conference jointly. Nearly 200 people attended and contributed to workshops that informed the developing Multiple Needs Charter.

We also took the opportunity to highlight positive local practice, as well as the Insight Programme, through an Insight Awards Ceremony. VOICES Service Coordinators nominated local professionals 21 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW and Expert Citizens shortlisted and selected the winners in five categories (including one for the private sector). Local celebrities from Signal Radio presented the awards. We were delighted that stakeholders received the awards very well. Organisations issued press releases to celebrate the achievement of their staff as well as internal communications. This effectively ‘gives permission’ for other staff to emulate the positive practice and helps to change culture. As a result, we intend to make the conference and awards an annual event and to open nominations for the awards to a wide group of stakeholders to facilitate a ‘big conversation’ about good practice for people with multiple needs. Expert Citizens will continue to be the shortlisting and selection panel.

Extract from North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare Trust press release: ACHIEVEMENTS OF TRUST STAFF RECOGNISED AT AWARDS CONFERENCE Wednesday, 25 November 2015 The learning, leading and welcoming nature of North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust staff has been recognised at a special awards conference.

Trust staff were nominated in several awards at the Insight Conference, held at Kings Hall, Stoke-on-Trent by Expert Citizens, which forms part of the VOICES project supporting people in Stoke-on-Trent with experience of addiction, mental ill-health, offending or homelessness.

Lucy Nicholson, Care Coordinator for the Trust’s Early Intervention service, won the Learning from People Award in recognition of the support she provided to a person with mental health needs who was at risk of homelessness after abandoning their accommodation. Lucy helped the individual to get through their crisis and engage with services.

Figure 13: Lucy Nicholson receives her Insight Award

22 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW

Attendees

Feedback Returned

Needs Met

Increased Knowledge

Increased Confidence

Learning programme The learning programme continues to be well received by attendees. For example in October and November 2015 we organised and ran six learning sessions that were attended by 82 people from voluntary and Local Authority sector.

6

6/6

100%

100%

100%

Preventing Evictions & Exclusions

18

17/18

100%

100%

100%

Housing Allocations

11

8/11

100%

100%

100%

Homelessness Law

14

8/14

100%

100%

100%

New Care Act

15

15/15

100%

100%

100%

Housing Options & Rights

18

14/18

100%

100%

93%

Course Solution Focused Practice

Customers and outcomes Figure 14: Average NDT score for first customer cohort (starts in reporting period three 2014, 45 individuals)

VOICES has provided service coordination support for 69 individuals in total and processed many more referrals. Our first intake of 45 people between October and December 2014 was by far the largest. This group has seen their NDT score drop from an average of 36 (max 47, min 23) to an average of 25 (max 41, min 11) by December 2015. Many of this cohort were street homeless or insecurely housed at the time of referral. VOICES has used personal budgets to secure 23 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW accommodation as a vital platform for accessing other services in a proto-Housing First approach. In most cases, this method has secured engagement in and by services, which is demonstrated via the declining NDT scores. One individual went from being homeless (having been evicted from hostel services serially for quite some time) to accommodated and in to employment in under 12-months.

The accommodation enabled the person to complete alcohol detox successfully, then to briefly take up volunteering as an Expert Citizen, before entering paid employment. For the majority of others progress has been less spectacular although significant. However, we have had some very challenging customers that have progressed and regressed rapidly with an overall positive direction of travel. We will illustrate the range of cases further via summary case studies at our presentation.

We have successfully advocated for most of customers to access services from which they had experienced exclusion.2

Challenges Staff turnover Frontline staff turnover continues to be a challenge. Some of our customers present with challenging behaviour. For example, one sent extremely threatening text messages to a Service Coordinator with very disturbing content that we had to report to the police.

However, to date we have only had to withdraw our direct service delivery on the grounds of risk once. A customer led us to believe that they were in possession of a firearm; we worked with the police and made a child safeguarding referral in relation to the incident. Unfortunately, the person later committed an armed robbery using an imitation firearm.

We have nine current customers with a risk alert flag against their record. These cases often require dual working.

The majority of our customers still also require polite but persistent and assertive advocacy to gain access to the services they need. This is level of intensity is difficult to maintain and is a key factor in our reassessment of the caseload set out in this plan.

Commissioner engagement Initial feedback about the governance arrangements set out in the project plan indicated that they were complex. In practice, this has proved to be the case. Membership of the project board has been too narrow.

Commissioners have faced significant challenges over several years with the impact of austerity simultaneously depleting their numbers while increasing workload. Only one public sector commissioner was a full member of the Project Board. They were expected to represent the wider commissioning community as Chair of the Commissioners’ Liaison Group. However, the Commissioners’ Liaison Group has proved to be unpopular with intermittent attendance.

The changes to the governance arrangements set out this plan are intended to widen the key governance group in to a Partnership Board. Commissioners from the Local Authority and Public Health have indicated that would be in a better position to contribute to VOICES as full members of the Partnership Board rather than sitting on a sub-committee.

2

Such exclusion may have been formal in that a service had enacted a process to exclude. However, exclusion may also have been perceived in that the customer was left with the impression that they had been excluded.

Sometimes, the exclusion was about eligibility criteria or policy (such as dual diagnosis).

24 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Systems change While the original project plan set out an ambitious change agenda, the strategy for the theory of change rested on a transition driven by mutual learning. While the learning programme is clearly helpful, few specific financial resources were allocated to specific systems change projects. Our experience of implementation has highlighted eight priorities that we have set out in the draft Multiple Needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent. To take on the challenge of the cost associated with specific systems change, we have made provisions in the revised budget to support these projects.

For example, we have found that stable housing is a key enabler for engagement in services. While we have been successful though a proto-Housing First model, a multi-agency systems approach will require specific funding. To prove the case for permanent change to a wide audience, we will need to resource the early stages of a full Housing First project.

However, our priorities are set out in more detail below.

25 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Priorities for Systems Change Please detail your partnership's priorities going forward for system change based on your work and learning to date (750 words):

Right time, Right place: A multiple needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent We are in the late stages of developing a multiple needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent. The idea is to secure commitment from key senior figures in the City to take a far more co-ordinated approach to tackling multiple needs. To bring focus to this big conversation, VOICES and Expert Citizens have identified eight specific areas for attention. We will secure agreement to consider each area, allocate resources to support that effort from a flexed VOICES budget, and ask partners to lead allocating specific senior leaders to make the change happen. Each area for consideration in detail has a case for change based on local and national evidence.

Invest in a multi-agency strategy for multiple needs No single agency or service can deliver a solution to multiple needs. This holds true for both individuals and at a systemic level. Effort and cost by one agency often to leads to benefits accruing in another. Conversely, applying no effective effort simply shunts the problem and the cost elsewhere without releasing the benefit. Too often, the negative outcomes for the individuals affected present themselves as increased failure demand in emergency services. To offset this dynamic, both Homeless Link and Lankelly Chase have noted the need for local areas to have a coherent multi-agency approach for people experiencing multiple needs.3 Therefore, a local strategy that shares the risks, costs, and rewards across the local authority, health, and criminal justice service families is likely to be more effective and better value for money.

Develop a local approach to Housing First Our experience is that stable and appropriate housing with the right support is often a key step to someone’s recovery journey. While homeless hostels are a valuable first step for some, others may have histories of vulnerability in such settings. Similarly, some people may make others more vulnerable in communal living arrangements such as a hostel. Placing people directly in to permanent accommodation with a package of care and support has been proved to be an effective approach for some people. A recent evaluation of nine Housing First services in England4 identified significant financial and personal benefit to the approach. VOICES had operated a proto-Housing First model with some customers, that we believe offers consistency with the findings of the national evaluation. Housing First will not always be successful but in many cases demonstrates significant benefits as proven in the pilot areas.

Ensure that services work together on co-occurring mental ill-health and substance misuse Significant proportions of people with multiple needs have a mental health condition that has been diagnosed by a professional (Hard Edges puts the figure at 55%). Many others will have undiagnosed conditions. Challenges faced by people experiencing co-occurring mental ill-health and substance misuse include increased relapse, repeat hospitalisation, and repeat homelessness. In addition, poor physical health, higher prevalence of disability, higher prevalence of personality disorder, and lower quality of life also feature (see Hard Edges from Lankelly Chase).

3

4

“Let’s make the difference: A manifesto to end homelessness”, Homeless Link (2014) “Hard Edges: Mapping severe and multiple disadvantage”, Lankelly Chase (2015) Bretherton & Pleace (2015), “Housing First in England: An Evaluation of Nine Services.”, University of York, Centre for Housing Policy

26 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW People that use services should be leaders in design and commissioning Expert Citizens have developed a high local profile. We will seek to embed Expert Citizens as a key part of the commissioning infrastructure in Stoke-on-Trent. We are working with the Engagement and Policy unit at Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Our aim is to ensure the development of a vibrant and asset-based community of interest for people with multiple needs that is self-sustaining and part of an infrastructure established around principles of co-production.

Ensure fair access to services for people with multiple needs Fair access to services is not merely about the application of eligibility criteria with apparent transparency. It is about Risk assessment is a means of planning for people’s safety and wellbeing with a presumption of inclusion. People with multiple needs often carry a folkloric history with them from service to service that can lead to stigma and exclusion. As a result, service sometimes miss opportunities for engagement and recovery. Co-production with service users of policies for access and exclusion can lead to requirements that are more realistic. For example, where things do go wrong, some services are adopting restorative approaches to justice as an alternative to exclusion.

Implement local hospital and prison discharge protocols for homeless people We understand the pressures facing institutions and the need to discharge people efficiently. There is an appetite among key people from a range of disciplines to come together and address this issue.

Since the decommissioning of a hospital discharge scheme for homeless people, practitioners believe the good practice that had developed has now evaporated. Locally, hospital discharge for homeless people is not supported through the rigorous implementation of a specific and clear protocol as recommended by the Department of Health. While discharge for long-term prisoners regarded as well planned and often co-ordinated, there are reports of particular difficulties for people experiencing short prison terms. People with multiple needs can be caught in a cycle of short prison sentences. Therefore, we will prioritise institutional discharge for systems change.

Review the definitions of vulnerability to reflect recent legal changes The Care Act From April 2015, the Care Act came in to force. The Act seeks to remove many anomalies that treated particular groups of people differently when accessing social care. Social care is now conceptualised as having a much broader function encompassing “care and support” rather than simply “personal care”. It seems likely that many people with multiple needs will qualify for services under the Act, which – importantly – also entitles any adult with an appearance of need to an assessment. We aim to ensure that multiple needs is reference in local guidance and training explicitly.

Supreme Court Ruling – Homelessness In May 2015, the Supreme Court ruled – among other things – that the test of vulnerability in applications for housing under homeless legislation was a comparison with an “ordinary person” rather than an “ordinary homeless person”. People with multiple needs are usually more vulnerable than an “ordinary person” is when homeless and may be owed a housing duty under the legislation.

Support the role of primary care professionals effectively Primary care professionals are often in an influential position. The tools and information made available can make a big difference. Doctors, Nurses, and other primary care professionals need clear and accessible information detailing the local services available to people with, or at risk of developing, multiple needs. Changes wrought through commissioning activity should be communicated effectively and be the subject of consultation with healthcare professionals.

27 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Engagement Please describe how your partnership engages positively and strategically with key external stakeholders for the benefit of the project and its delivery (750 words):

Summary Our recent local evaluation report gave very positive stakeholder feedback about VOICES and Expert Citizens, particularly the delivery and impact of Service Coordination.

Progress has been made by VOICES and Expert Citizens in reaching out to engage with key strategic influencing infrastructure across this City. However, further work remains to secure and embed VOICES in the City’s governance framework, which has been undergoing change and reformation in a number of areas.

We believe that the Multiple Needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent will help to crystallise partners understanding of VOICES and Fulfilling Lives objectives in the context of local strategies. Now that systems change objectives are specific and have the backing of resources through the proposed flexing of the budget, VOICES has much more to bring to the strategic table than service delivery.

Governance The existing Governance arrangements have engaged a wide range of organisations from within and without of the partnership in overseeing the implementation of VOICES and Expert Citizens.

Representatives on the Project Board and it’s sub-groups also reach widely in to the strategic infrastructure of the City where they represent VOICES as well as their own organisations.

Strategic influencing groups VOICES management team members also regularly contribute as members of boards, groups, or committees within the City. Examples include the Mental Health Partnership Board (Chaired by the CCG), the Performance and Commissioning Group (Chaired by the Local Authority and including Public Health – which looks at Housing, Drug and Alcohol Services, Crime and Anti-social Behaviour), and the Rough Sleepers Action Group (a multi-agency group troubleshooting rough sleeping).

Multiple Needs Expert Panel VOICES has established a Multiple Needs Expert Panel that prioritises referrals for the project as a multi-agency group including key people from the Hospital, NOMS, the Police, Housing, and other relevant local services.

Communities of Practice VOICES is running a series of multi-agency Communities of Practice looking at issues related to multiple needs specifically. These lead to recommendations for practitioners (aimed at culture and practice) as well as a Commissioners Briefing (aimed at influencing systems, policies, and service design).

Health and Wellbeing Board The Health and Wellbeing Board for the City has been undergoing a restructure. Many members of the Project Board sit on the emerging sub-structures (which include the Mental Health Partnership Board and the Performance and Commissioning Group) and organisations from the Partnership participate in the Board itself.

28 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Healthwatch VOICES and Expert Citizens are forging a good relationship with local Healthwatch. Expert Citizens have applied to join the local Patients Congress.

Cooperative Working Partnership Board Stoke-on-Trent is benefiting from investment in transformation building on the Government’s Troubled Families programme. The Local Authority has restructured to bring together services such as Housing and Social Care in co-location and a joint planning infrastructure recently. VOICES has met with the Chair of the Cooperative Working Board, the Deputy Chief Fire Officer, and identified good opportunities for joint working.

Expert Citizens Expert Citizens are being sought-out increasingly by partners to take part in consultations and evaluations. Recent examples include a forthcoming planning meeting with the Local Authority to organise evaluations of relevant Council services as part of the Insight project. Commissioners are also seeking customer, Expert Citizen, and VOICES views in relation to service contract evaluations undertaken as part of their contract management.

29 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Budget and Risk Register Please provide an updated budget in the format agreed with your Relationship Manager and an up-to-date risk register, both as addenda (addendum)

Budget See Appendix 1 – VOICES Budget on page 31.

Risk register See Appendix 2 – Risk Register on page 36.

30 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Appendix 1 – VOICES Budget VOICES REVENUE BUDGET COST CENTRE 3700 Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

TOTAL

£ 1,198,136

£ 1,358,568

£ 1,408,762

£ 1,409,510

£ 1,415,231

£ 1,349,791

£ 9,811,829

Management staff

£

167,701

£

172,005

£

176,417

£

180,939

£

185,575

£

190,326

£ 1,371,003

Frontline staff

£

331,198

£

339,870

£

348,758

£

357,869

£

367,208

£

376,780

£ 2,598,153

Administration and Communications staff

£

50,724

£

52,048

£

53,405

£

54,810

£

56,264

£

57,755

SUB-TOTAL

£

549,622

£

563,923

£

578,580

£

593,619

£

609,047

£

624,861

Staff medical scheme

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

8,090

SUB-TOTAL

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

1,139

£

8,090

Clinical supervision (staff and volunteers)

£

6,000

£

6,150

£

6,304

£

6,461

£

6,623

£

5,091

£

43,692

Workforce development (staff & volunteers)

£

10,000

£

10,250

£

10,506

£

10,769

£

11,038

£

8,486

£

74,255

Travel expenses (staff mileage, parking, fares)

£

17,687

£

18,130

£

18,583

£

19,047

£

19,524

£

15,009

£

134,169

Mobile communications (phones/3G - staff)

£

14,207

£

14,562

£

14,926

£

15,299

£

15,681

£

12,055

£

107,217

DBS Checks (staff)

£

246

£

252

£

258

£

265

£

272

£

209

£

1,742

Staff recruitment

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

769

£

10,154

SUB-TOTAL

£

49,140

£

50,343

£

51,577

£

52,841

£

54,137

£

41,618

£

371,228

STAFF & SERVICE COSTS TOTAL

£

599,901

£

615,405

£

631,296

£

647,599

£

664,323

£

667,618

Office rental & service charges

£

30,000

£

30,000

£

35,000

£

35,000

£

35,000

£

35,000

£

256,052

Electricity

£

2,000

£

2,050

£

2,101

£

2,154

£

2,208

£

1,697

£

14,053

Telephone (main office)

£

5,330

£

5,463

£

5,600

£

5,740

£

5,883

£

4,523

£

38,880

DESCRIPTION GRANT INCOME (REVENUE) STAFF & SERVICE COSTS STAFF COSTS (SALARIES INCLUDING ON-COST: NI, PENSION, GIP, DIS)

£

379,985

£ 4,349,142

OTHER STAFF ON COSTS

SERVICE COSTS

£ 4,728,460

GENERAL RUNNING EXPENSES OFFICE RENTAL & RUNNING COSTS

31 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW VOICES REVENUE BUDGET COST CENTRE 3700 DESCRIPTION

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

TOTAL

Cleaning

£

3,588

£

3,677

£

3,769

£

3,863

£

3,960

£

3,044

£

26,320

Renewals, replacements, and maintenance

£

2,000

£

2,050

£

2,101

£

2,154

£

2,208

£

1,697

£

22,599

Council Tax

£

4,186

£

4,291

£

4,398

£

4,508

£

4,621

£

3,552

£

29,640

SUB-TOTAL

£

47,104

£

47,531

£

52,969

£

53,419

£

53,879

£

49,513

£

387,544

Postage, printing, & stationary

£

2,813

£

2,883

£

2,955

£

3,029

£

3,105

£

2,387

£

22,438

Professional fees (HR, legal, consultancy)

£

5,000

£

5,125

£

5,253

£

5,384

£

5,519

£

4,243

£

44,346

Subscriptions & publications

£

820

£

841

£

862

£

883

£

905

£

696

£

6,364

Health & safety

£

1,500

£

1,538

£

1,576

£

1,615

£

1,656

£

1,273

£

14,571

Governance and expenses

£

1,025

£

1,051

£

1,077

£

1,104

£

1,131

£

870

£

5,351

Occupational health

£

750

£

769

£

788

£

808

£

828

£

636

£

5,651

CRM & Outcome Star Licences

£

15,375

£

15,759

£

16,153

£

16,557

£

16,971

£

17,395

£

113,765

Computer support services & consumables

£

8,713

£

8,930

£

9,154

£

9,382

£

9,617

£

7,393

£

81,005

SUB-TOTAL

£

35,995

£

36,895

£

37,817

£

38,763

£

39,732

£

34,893

£

293,491

GENERAL RUNNING EXPENSES TOTAL

£

83,099

£

84,426

£

90,787

£

92,181

£

93,611

£

84,406

£

681,034

Benefit champions

£

49,713

£

50,955

£

52,229

£

53,535

£

25,000

-

£

292,547

Communities of practice

£

5,253

£

5,384

£

5,519

£

5,657

£

5,798

£

4,457

£

34,733

Masterclasses & other learning

£

56,245

£

54,276

£

55,557

£

56,871

£

58,217

£

45,454

£

372,429

116,062

£

89,015

£

49,911

£

699,709

ADMINISTRATION & OTHER RUNNING COSTS

EVALUATION & LEARNING COSTS LEARNING COSTS

SUB-TOTAL

£

111,211

£

110,615

£

113,305

£

£

EVALUATION COSTS Local evaluation contract

£

15,375

£

15,759

£

16,153

£

16,557

£

16,971

£

13,046

£

153,861

Data analysis consultancy

£

2,563

£

2,627

£

2,692

£

2,760

£

2,829

£

2,174

£

18,144

Survey design and on-line subscriptions

£

250

£

250

£

250

£

250

£

250

£

192

£

1,442

Expert Citizen Evaluator & Educator training

£

500

£

513

£

525

£

538

£

552

£

424

£

3,512

SUB-TOTAL

£

18,688

£

19,148

£

19,621

£

20,105

£

20,601

£

15,837

£

176,960

32 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW VOICES REVENUE BUDGET COST CENTRE 3700 DESCRIPTION EVALUATION & LEARNING COSTS TOTAL

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

£

129,899

£

129,763

£

132,926

£

136,167

£

109,617

Website & development costs

£

3,000

£

1,050

£

3,150

£

1,103

£

3,308

Publications and leaflets

£

1,000

£

1,025

£

1,051

£

1,077

£

1,104

Other communications

£

6,000

£

6,150

£

6,304

£

6,461

£

-

£

15,000

£

TOTAL

65,748

£

876,669

-

£

15,634

£

1,131

£

6,888

6,623

£

5,091

£

39,154

-

£

15,000

£

30,000

-

£

24,000

COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING COSTS COMMUNICATIONS COSTS

International multiple needs conference

£

Expert Citizen conference & awards

£

6,000

SUB-TOTAL

£

16,000

Social media subscriptions & development

£

Advertising (e.g. infomercial, local radio, etc)

£

£

-

£

-

£

£

-

£

6,000

£

6,000

£

6,000

£

£

23,225

£

16,504

£

14,641

£

17,034

£

21,223

£

115,676

100

£

103

£

105

£

108

£

110

£

85

£

710

£

2,000

£

2,050

£

2,101

£

2,154

£

2,208

£

1,697

£

15,958

SUB-TOTAL

£

2,100

£

2,153

£

2,206

£

2,261

£

2,318

£

1,782

£

16,668

COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING COSTS TOTAL

£

18,100

£

25,378

£

18,711

£

16,902

£

19,352

£

23,005

£

132,344

Expert Citizens co-ordinating group (inc. website)

£

10,000

£

10,250

£

10,506

£

10,769

£

11,038

£

8,486

£

76,573

Travel expenses (volunteers mileage, parking, fares)

£

8,778

£

9,217

£

9,678

£

10,162

£

10,670

£

8,202

£

68,949

Mobile communications (phones volunteers)

£

1,000

£

1,025

£

1,051

£

1,077

£

1,104

£

849

£

6,105

Volunteer meeting expenses (hotel, subsistence)

£

3,340

£

3,424

£

3,509

£

3,597

£

3,687

£

2,834

£

22,424

DBS checks (volunteers)

£

541

£

555

£

569

£

583

£

597

£

459

£

4,013

Peer mentor recruitment

£

574

£

588

£

603

£

618

£

634

-

£

3,739

Peer mentor training

£

1,000

£

1,025

£

1,051

£

1,077

£

1,104

£

849

£

7,229

SUB-TOTAL

£

25,233

£

26,083

£

26,966

£

27,882

£

28,833

£

21,678

£

189,032

Living creative lives activities (e.g. 1,001 lives)

£

10,000

£

10,250

£

10,506

£

10,769

£

11,038

£

8,486

£

70,919

Social enterprise development costs

£

58,440

£

59,901

£

61,399

£

62,933

£

64,507

£

66,119

£

373,459

MARKETING COSTS

EXPERT CITIZENS & SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT COSTS EXPERT CITIZENS COSTS

£

SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT COSTS

33 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW VOICES REVENUE BUDGET COST CENTRE 3700 DESCRIPTION

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

TOTAL

SUB-TOTAL

£

68,440

£

70,151

£

71,905

£

73,702

£

75,545

£

74,605

£

444,378

EXPERT CITIZENS & SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT COSTS

£

93,673

£

96,234

£

98,871

£

101,584

£

104,378

£

96,283

£

633,411

Training costs

£

5,000

£

5,125

£

5,253

£

5,384

£

5,519

£

4,243

£

30,524

Travel expenses (work placements mileage, parking, fares)

£

2,500

£

2,563

£

2,627

£

2,692

£

2,760

£

2,121

£

15,262

SUB-TOTAL

£

7,500

£

7,688

£

7,880

£

8,077

£

8,279

£

6,364

£

45,787

Career mentor recruitment

£

500

£

513

£

525

£

538

£

552

£

424

£

3,052

Career mentor expenses

£

500

£

513

£

525

£

538

£

552

£

424

£

3,052

SUB-TOTAL

£

1,000

£

1,025

£

1,051

£

1,077

£

1,104

£

849

£

6,105

EMPLOYMENT & PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT COSTS TOTAL

£

8,500

£

8,713

£

8,930

£

9,154

£

9,382

£

7,213

£

51,892

Individual budgets

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

48,750

£

458,325

SUB-TOTAL

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

48,750

£

458,325

INDIVIDUAL BUDGET COSTS TOTAL

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

65,000

£

48,750

£

458,325

CRM Project Management

£

17,400

£

17,835

£

18,281

£

18,738

£

19,206

£

14,765

£

106,225

SUB-TOTAL

£

17,400

£

17,835

£

18,281

£

18,738

£

19,206

£

14,765

£

106,225

35,000

£

195,000

£

238,125

£

215,928

£

193,711

£

138,055

EMPLOYMENT, SKILLS & PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT COSTS EMPLOYMENT & SKILLS TRAINING COSTS

PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT COSTS

INDIVIDUAL BUDGET COSTS INDIVIDUAL BUDGET COSTS

MOBILISATION & SPECIFIC SYSTEMS CHANGE COSTS MOBILISATION COSTS

SPECIFIC SYSTEMS CHANGE COSTS (MAPPING & GAPPING / IMPLEMENTATION) Systems change projects summary (Multiple Needs Charter)

£

34 of 44

£ 1,015,819

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW VOICES REVENUE BUDGET COST CENTRE 3700 DESCRIPTION

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

TOTAL

CRM system development (reporting functionality, etc.)

£

6,000

£

6,000

£

6,000

£

5,000

£

5,000

£

2,500

£

30,500

SUB-TOTAL

£

41,000

£

201,000

£

244,125

£

220,928

£

198,711

£

140,555

£ 1,046,319

MOBILISATION & SYSTEMS CHANGE COSTS TOTAL

£

58,400

£

218,835

£

262,406

£

239,666

£

217,918

£

155,320

£ 1,152,544

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

£ 1,056,572

£ 1,243,753

£ 1,308,927

£ 1,308,254

£ 1,283,581

£ 1,148,343

£ 8,714,679

Apportioned overheads under FCR

£

143,758

£

147,352

£

151,036

£

154,812

£

158,682

£

162,649

£ 1,195,372

Project management (mobilisation, year 1)

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

SUB-TOTAL

£

143,758

£

147,352

£

151,036

£

154,812

£

158,682

£

162,649

£ 1,245,372

OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL

£

143,758

£

147,352

£

151,036

£

154,812

£

158,682

£

162,649

£ 1,245,372

VOICES REVENUE BUDGET TOTAL

£ 1,200,330

£ 1,391,105

£ 1,459,963

£ 1,463,066

£ 1,442,263

£ 1,310,992

£ 9,960,051

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

OVERHEAD COSTS OVERHEAD COSTS £

50,000

VOICES CAPITAL (COST CENTRE 3700) DESCRIPTION

TOTAL

GRANT INCOME (CAPITAL)

£

6,000

£

4,000

£

4,000

£

4,000

£

3,000

£

1,500

£

39,890

Computer hardware & software

£

3,000

£

3,000

£

3,000

£

3,000

£

2,000

£

1,000

£

32,390

Leasehold improvements

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

£

-

Office equipment

£

3,000

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

1,000

£

500

£

7,500

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET TOTAL

£

6,000

£

4,000

£

4,000

£

4,000

£

3,000

£

1,500

£

39,890

GRAND TOTAL REVENUE & CAPITAL

£ 1,206,330

£ 1,395,105

35 of 44

£ 1,463,963

£ 1,467,066

£ 1,445,263

£ 1,312,492

£ 9,999,941

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Appendix 2 – Risk Register Risk No.

Description of risk

Potential impact of risk

Pre mitigation Probability

Pre Pre Mitigation strategy mitigation mitigation Impact Rating

Primary controls

Progress Responsibility estimate

Post mitigation Probability

Post mitigation Impact

Post mitigation Rating

1

Expert Citizens is not established as a sustainable legacy of VOICES

Progress is lost and the voice of people with lived experience of multiple needs continues to be excluded

4

5

20

Implementation of the VOICES project plan and Expert Citizens business plan

Asset-based community development, establishment of Expert Citizens as a CIC, development of products and services Expert Citizens can monetise

25%

Andy Meakin

2

5

10

2

Insufficient life stories for 1,001 lives project

Project unable to deliver its objectives and evidence the case for change

4

4

16

Provide the right equipment, training, resources, and support

Regular deadline for submission, encouraging wide variety of stories, using media of the authors choice

25%

Ben Wilson

3

4

12

3

High staff turnover, sickness rates, or loss of key staff

Project unable to deliver its objectives

4

4

16

Ensure that staff have the right tools, training, motivation, and rewards

Good working environment, competitive terms and conditions, delivered through the business plan review

50%

Andy Meakin

2

4

8

4

High turnover of volunteers, Expert Citizens, or Peer Mentors

Project unable to deliver its objectives

4

4

16

Provide a motivating vision Asset-based communtiy and high quality support development, good working environment, good communication, resources, and assetbased approach

50%

Ben Wilson

2

4

8

5

CRM implementation is problematic

Data stored is inaccurate and doesn’t contribute to sharing learning or the achievement of project objectives

4

4

16

Ensure that dedicated project management resources are available

Good project management, good communications, adequate resourcing of the CRM, working in partnership

30%

Andy Meakin

2

4

8

6

City leaders do not accept or implement the plans or recommendations emerging from the multiple needs Charter

Systemic change does not take place

3

5

15

Ensure partners are fully on-board with the case for change

Multiple Needs Charter for Stoke-on-Trent is evidence-based and sensitive to diplomatic concerns

50%

Andy Meakin

2

5

10

36 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Risk No.

Description of risk

Potential impact of risk

Pre mitigation Probability

Pre Pre Mitigation strategy mitigation mitigation Impact Rating

Primary controls

Progress Responsibility estimate

Post mitigation Probability

Post mitigation Impact

Post mitigation Rating

7

Project governance is ineffective

Project unable to manage risks, deliver its objectives, and evidence the case for change

3

5

15

Ensure that governance arrangements reflect the whole partnership with sufficient seniority and experience

Regular review of the governance arrangements, deliver changes proposed in the business plan

50%

Andy Meakin

2

5

10

8

Performance of the project not as expected; e.g. customer numbers, etc.

Expectations of partner organisations and the Big Lottery are not met

4

3

12

Agree and maintain key performance indicators

Governance, reporting, transparency, renegotiation

75%

Andy Meakin

3

3

9

9

VOICES is unable to secure sufficient access to accommodation for the customer group

Customers are unable to access the wider services they need due to lack of stable housing

3

4

12

Deliver Housing First style approach to securing accommodation

Use of the personal budget, prioritisation of Housing First as a systemic change for the City

30%

Bruno Ornelas

2

4

8

10

Front-line staff do not accept or buy-in to the Golden Ticket as a passport to services

Customers are unable to access the services they need quickly

3

4

12

Effective communications with a positive message

Implementation of the communications plan, implementation of Insight service evaluations, implementation of the CRM

50%

Bruno Ornelas

2

4

8

11

Learning prospectus proves Leaders, managers, frontto be unpopular or line staff, volunteers, etc., ineffective do not understand solution-focused or assetbased approaches, failing to tackle stigma and discrimination

3

4

12

Effective communications and consultation in relation to the content of the learning prospectus

Implementation of the communications plan, effective consultation with partners, evaluation of learning opportunities

50%

Sharon Sharman

2

4

8

12

Communications prove to be ineffective

Key messages of the project are lost, systems change isn't implemented

3

4

12

Implement the communications plan, identify and take ad-hoc opportunities for communicating our key messages

Communications plan, managers and staff take opportunities to deliver key messages

25%

Ben Wilson

2

4

8

13

Negative publicity; e.g. social media channels are used in ways other than intended

Potential for damage to the project from negative publicity

3

4

12

Implement the communications plan

Regular communications meetings, active monitoring of social media posts

75%

Andy Meakin

1

4

4

37 of 44

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Risk No.

Description of risk

Potential impact of risk

Pre mitigation Probability

Pre Pre Mitigation strategy mitigation mitigation Impact Rating

Primary controls

Progress Responsibility estimate

Post mitigation Probability

Post mitigation Impact

Post mitigation Rating

14

Unable to attract a high profile Chair for VOICES at end of current tenure

Influence of VOICES in the City is reduced

3

4

12

Use of partner and other networks to actively recruit to the position of Chair

Informal search, formal advertising, consideration of benefits to the role

50%

Andy Meakin

1

4

4

15

Budget cannot be reprofiled to reflect changing circumstances, operational experience, and learning

VOICES and Expert Citizens is unable to flex and adapt to implement learning from the project for maximum benefit

3

4

12

Maintaining effective and trusting working relationship with the Big Lottery

Regular reporting, conversations, communications, transparency, integrety

75%

Andy Meakin

1

4

4

16

Funding is not renewed at the bi-annual review

The project must be decommissioned and stop

2

5

10

Maintain focus on systems change, evidence base, reporting, and demonstrating a difference for customers

Regular reporting, conversations, communications, transparency, integrety

75%

Andy Meakin

1

5

5

17

International conference scheduled for 2017/18 attracts insufficent interest

Wasted time and effort, reputational damage

3

3

9

Work with national organisations to give a wider appeal to the conference

Use of networks to 25% target relevant organisations with an international appeal that can help showcase the work of VOICES (e.g.

Homeless Link)

Andy Meakin

2

3

6

18

National reporting for the evaluation and Big Lottery monitoring proves to be more onerous than anticipated

Time and effort collecting and reporting data detracts from project implementation

3

3

9

Maintain an information management plan

Maintain the budget in a single format, keep the CRM up to date, maintain close working relationship with CFE and Big Lottery

50%

Sharon Sharman

2

3

6

19

VOICES is unable to complete the mapping and gapping exercise with sufficient clarity

Partners are not clear about what the current system look like and the areas for action

3

3

9

Delivery through the Local Evaluation commission

Contract management of the Local Evaluation

25%

Sharon Sharman

2

3

6

38 of 44

BUSINESS PLANNING DAY 2nd November 2015

Appendix 3 – SWOT Analysis STRENGTHS               

      

Expert Citizens (inc. lived experience, strong branding, level of involvement, and leadership) Raising awareness of multiple needs customer group Outcomes for customers Information sharing by gaining consent Relationship with partner organisations Clear ‘introduction’ / referral system Golden Ticket concept Good will of partnership Making a difference for customers VOICES is easy to contact Robust review mechanisms Willingness to engage with the most complex customers Funding independent of traditional commissioning routes Flexibility and ability to deploy resources Availability of clinical supervision for staff and volunteers

OPPORTUNITIES            

WEAKNESSES



Demand outstrips supply People not sufficiently informed about the programme; e.g. service co-ordination / Golden Ticket Lack of ownership by partner organisations at senior levels and board Communication with partners; e.g. regularity and accessibility Engagement of customers with peer mentors and vice versa Some unclear about the role of Service Co-ordinators Some unclear about the vision – which needs to be collective o E.g. systems change, peer mentoring, Golden Ticket & Insight, co-production Engagement of commissioners

THREATS               

Expert Citizens ready to be involved as co-producers; e.g. in emerging homeless strategy Increasing awareness means increased understanding and reduced stigma Generating learning that can be regularly shared Other partnerships are opportunities for learning too Link with Cooperative Working Project through the Council Customer Relationship Management – extending to partner organisations Aligning objectives of partner organisations Austerity may mean partners are open to new ideas Business planning process an opportunity to change (e.g. job descriptions, etc.)

Coherence of VOICES with the Hardship Commission findings; e.g. unclaimed benefits Emerging data; e.g. on impact – good resource that needs to be analysed and deployed VOICES linking operational experience to strategic change; e.g. Communities of Practice

39 of 44

Impact of austerity on Local Government leading to cuts / deteriorating operating environment Risk that shrinking supported housing and floating support services leads to extra demand VOICES being seen as ‘just another service’ – displacing other services Risk of defaulting to ‘support work’ because its ‘easier’ Availability of appropriate housing Potential of creating dependency (customers and partners) Risk that systems come to rely on VOICES rather than change Risk of partner disengagement Risk that if caseloads too high will reduce the intensity, quality, and impact of the service Risk of fatigue – consultation, change, etc., staff, customers, and partners Drug and alcohol services do not appear as a priority for public health New services, e.g. Lifeline (drug treatment), will need time to establish Welfare benefit reform – e.g. Universal Credit and PIPs Staff and volunteer turnover – losing expertise and burnout Advocacy a potential threat to partner relationships

BUSINESS PLANNING DAY 2nd November 2015

Appendix 4 – Service Delivery Ambition & Planning AMBITION       

        

To create a clear pathway through services from the start Develop a Service Co-ordination best practice guide for benchmarking Secure a sustainable legacy beyond 2022 Create a recovery community of Expert Citizens and Peer Mentors Clear vision for service delivery – e.g. via relaunch Increase efficiency and communication “Support, Advocate, Coordinate” – strapline for service delivery?

START DOING           

CONTINUE DOING Flexibility Assertive advocacy – encouraging new and existing partners to work with multiple needs Meeting immediate needs while services are engaged then coordinated – switch to co-ordination Emphasising the link between advocacy and changing systems through cultural shift Increase communication around the Service Co-ordinator role Withdrawing from support and emphasising co-ordination once appropriate services are engaged Increase the number of usable case studies Review caseloads and ratios – maintaining intensity Make more use of multi-agency meetings

STOP DOING 

Sharing learning with other service re co-ordination Review of job descriptions – SC’s / PMC’s / Engagement Manager Review and relaunch of the Golden Ticket / Insight Relaunch of Communities of Practice Review what “advocacy” means for the partnership Gaining face-to-face between matched peer mentors and customers at earliest opportunity Set clear agenda for systems change – begin with vision and establish timescales, plans, etc.

Increase dialogue Customers as part of user involvement Increase instances of colocation for Service Co-ordinators Increase the uptake of Peer Mentor opportunities by Customers Develop a clear “Exit” or “Step down” process

40 of 44

Using critical language in relation to other services

BUSINESS PLANNING DAY 2nd November 2015

Appendix 5 – User Involvement Ambition & Planning AMBITION    

 

Expert Citizens to become a sustainable part of Stoke’s infrastructure Co-production of services involving Expert Citizens and others with lived experience Case studies are embedded in the process of learning and change A City-wide approach to customer involvement / co-production (common principles, e.g. examples of “ambassadors” from a wide range of services and organisations)

START DOING        

CONTINUE DOING

    

Empowering Expert Citizens and customers to help shape the way services are provided Influencing service delivery change directly through advocacy (involving service users in decisions about them) Telling customer and Expert Citizen stories through case studies (inc. video, audio, etc.)

Communicating activity and impact more effectively Wide engagement of volunteers (with lived experience or without) at all levels of VOICES Developing better links between Service Co-ordination and Peer Mentoring functions to be more effective Listening and acting on customers views

STOP DOING 

Resourcing Expert Citizens more effectively Develop more clarity with partners around mutual planning horizons Constructive challenge of policy Empowering people in other agencies to challenge policy Using customer views / stories more in work around systems change Wider engagement of people with different types of lived experience; e.g. carers, family, professionals Education about co-production, generating a common understanding, and clarity of meaning Challenging tokenism and jargon



41 of 44

Consider whether the Engagement Sub-group is the best vehicle for governance or is a more delivery focus better Perpetuating jargon

BUSINESS PLANNING DAY 2nd November 2015

Appendix 6 – Partnership Ambition & Planning AMBITION      

  

Secure a high-profile Chair, independent of Brighter Futures Partners across Stoke-on-Trent understand VOICES more clearly Partners commit to systems change for multiple needs Partnership share ownership of the project – interprets results and adapts policies, processes, etc.

Secure commissioner engagement on the project board More person-centred approach to services

START DOING       

CONTINUE DOING

         

Review and relaunch Communities of Practice Engage with existing strategic forums Targeting key individuals for a VOICES / Expert Citizens “grand tour” to raise awareness and showcase then involve Illustrating case for change through case studies Recruiting partners Multiple Needs Expert Panel Learning programme and prospectus development Telling people’s stories creatively; e.g. more Forum Theatre Attempts to engage Public Health and Clinical Health community Communicate, educate, share Selling successes – increase this Developing the key areas of Systems Change in to a “Charter” To treat the project as “evolving”

STOP DOING  

Identify and deliver new ways for us to engage with commissioners Target newly commissioned drug and alcohol services to join the partnership Create a log of meetings and initiatives for VOICES to get involved in and plan more effectively Sharing learning more Sharing outcomes more Engage partners in the use of the CRM Be clear about the vision as well as responsibilities / rewards for partners



42 of 44

VOICES being considered as just another Brighter Futures project Having so many information giving meetings – revise the sub-groups and governance arrangements now that the implementation phase is complete Thinking we have all the answers – this is hard, because it’s hard

BUSINESS PLANNING DAY 2nd November 2015

Appendix 7 – Systems Change Ambition & Planning AMBITION    

CONTINUE DOING     

Expert Citizens to become a sustainable part of Stoke’s infrastructure Co-production of services involving Expert Citizens and others with lived experience Case studies are embedded in the process of learning and change A City-wide approach to customer involvement / co-production (common principles, e.g. examples of “ambassadors” from a wide range of services and organisations)

       

START DOING                  

Emphasising the link between advocacy and changing systems through cultural shift Increase the number of usable case studies Make more use of multi-agency meetings Empowering Expert Citizens and customers to help shape the way services are provided Influencing service delivery change directly through advocacy (involving service users in decisions about them) Communicating activity and impact more effectively Review and relaunch Communities of Practice Engage with existing strategic forums Illustrating case for change through case studies Learning programme and prospectus development Telling people’s stories creatively; e.g. more Forum Theatre Attempts to engage Public Health and Clinical Health community Developing the key areas of Systems Change in to a “Charter”

STOP DOING     

To create a clear pathway through services from the start Create a recovery community of Expert Citizens and Peer Mentors Review and relaunch of the Golden Ticket / Insight Relaunch of Communities of Practice Set clear agenda for systems change – begin with vision and establish timescales, plans, etc.

Identify fragmented processes Resourcing Expert Citizens more effectively Empowering people in other agencies to challenge policy Using customer views / stories more in work around systems change Education about co-production, generating a common understanding, and clarity of meaning Secure a high-profile Chair, independent of Brighter Futures Partners commit to systems change for multiple needs Partnership share ownership of the project – interprets results and adapts policies, processes, etc.

Secure commissioner engagement on the project board Sharing learning more Sharing outcomes more Engage partners in the use of the CRM Be clear about the vision as well as responsibilities / rewards for partners

43 of 44

Using critical language in relation to other services Using strategic meetings for information giving Perpetuating jargon VOICES being considered as just another Brighter Futures project Thinking we have all the answers – this is hard, because it’s hard

BUSINESS PLAN REVIEW Appendix 8 – Equality Action Plan We propose no changes to the original equality action plan. This is set out below.

Table 2: Equality action plan

Ref

Description and intended outcome

Who

When

1.0

Conduct regular equalities monitoring, analysis, and action planning and present the results through the project’s governance arrangements The intended outcome is that access to the service and outcomes within the service are distributed equitably so that no section of the community has a less favourable experience than another

Learning and Evaluation Manager

Annually

2.0

Advertise staff and volunteering opportunities widely to encourage applications from all sections of the community The intended outcome is that people with relevant skills and experience from all sections of the community want to work with us and volunteer towards the objectives of Fulfilling Lives

Director

All vacancies

3.0

All staff and volunteers will receive equality and diversity training The intended outcome is that staff understand issues of equality and diversity, are able to identify and report potential issues, and work with in the values of both the Fulfilling Lives partnership and Brighter Futures

Managers

All new staff and volunteers recruited

4.0

Our equality impact assessment and action plan will be refreshed in the light of our equality and diversity monitoring information and reporting The intended outcomes are:  that we are able to take effective action that is evidence-based to minimise the risk of a less favourable experience for any section of the community  that we are able to appropriately adjust or stop any activity if it is identified as in any way discriminatory or unlawful in terms of customer access, service, or outcomes

Learning and Evaluation Manager

Annually

5.0

We will work through our partnership networks using reasonable endeavours to identify reference groups that can help us to better understand the needs of minority ethnic and religious communities The intended outcome is that we can draw on the experience of reference groups, in all phases of delivery, to ensure that our project activity does not unconsciously discriminate against, or provide a less favourable experience for, any section of the community

Community Development Manager

Development and review of project activity

44 of 44