Hampshire County Council

Item 2

Best Value Review Panel (Social Services)

21 March 2001

Transport Best Value Review - Outcome Report

Report of the Director of Social Services

Contact: David Marshall, ext 5226 / Jane Graham, ext 7211

    

Page Numbers

1.

  

Summary

2

2.

 

The Service Under Review

5

 

2.1

Aims of the Service

  
 

2.2

Objectives of the Service

  
 

2.3

Links to the County Council's Corporate Aims

  
 

2.4

Service Policies

  
 

2.5

Summary of Existing Services and Delivery Methods

  
 

2.6

Transport Activities - Roles and Responsibilities

  
 

2.7

Costs of the Service

  
       

3.

  

The Review Process

11

 

3.1

Review Team

  
 

3.2

Review Methodology

  
 

3.3

Review Costs

  
       

4.

  

Review Findings

14

 

4.1

Consult

  
 

4.2

Compare

  
 

4.3

Challenge

  
 

4.4

Competition

  
 

4.5

How Good is the Service?

  
 

4.6

Sustainability

  
 

4.7

Crime and Disorder

  
 

4.8

E-Government

  
 

4.9

Equalities

  
       

5.

  

Members Input

23

6.

  

Lessons Learned

23

7.

  

Conclusions

24

8.

 

Options and Summary Recommendations

24

  

Appendices

  
 

A

Action Plan

 
 

B

Project Brief

 
 

C

Transport Costs 1999 / 2000

  
 

D

Transport Procedure - 7/99

  

1 Summary

1.1 The Present Transport Service

1.1.1 The overall aim of the department's current transport service is to ensure that service users are able to attend day services, access facilities in the community and where applicable access educational, medical, social and recreational facilities.

In addition ad hoc transport requirements are frequently necessary in, for example, the case of ensuring that accommodated children attend court appearances.

1.1.2 From a gross annual revenue budget of £225 million approximately £3 million or 6.75% is spent departmentally on current transport arrangements.

1.1.3 The service has 3 key objectives:-

    · To ensure that service users and staff reach their destination in comfort, safety and in the most cost effective and time efficient manner

    · That transportation should meet all relevant legislation and guidance and at the same time respect individuals' personal needs

    · In line with the department's environmental policy and the Corporate Strategy, all transport is to be provided in a manner which minimises harmful environmental factors, by ensuring that only journeys which are essential in order to carry out the business of the County Council are undertaken and vehicles are maintained to a satisfactory standard.

1.1.4 Transport is currently made available via a mixed economy of provision as follows:-

users/carers own transport

public transport

community transport schemes

contract vehicles

spot hire

voluntary drivers

by staff using their own vehicles

health

1.1.5 Traditionally the department has recognised that its transport service plays an invaluable role in helping some people avoid social isolation and exclusion. Indeed, without accessible transport many vulnerable adults would remain at home isolated from wider society. In such circumstances this may place additional demands on carers. For these people the transport service plays an important monitoring and supporting role for both service users and carers. Additionally transport plays a significant part in enabling the department to carry out its responsibilities to accommodated children and their need to access education and maintain contact with birth families.

Section 2 (1) (d) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 places a duty on Local Authorities to `provide facilities for assistance to and from home to participate in any service provided by the local authority under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948'.

Although the Government has not set out specific performance indicators for transport services it has set out a number of key indicators that, in part at least, require efficient and appropriate transport. In this regard, the transport service plays an important role in helping the department to achieve its targets for eg:

1.2 Current Performance

Although early analysis of service user consultation indicates a high level of satisfaction with the standard of transport currently on offer the review revealed areas of strength/weakness as follows:-

1.2.1 Leadership

There is little evidence of clear leadership at senior/HQ level and no one individual who is able to take a lead role.

At Area level a variety of local measures are deployed to manage and provide for transport needs, effected by such influences as management culture, budget and workload pressures and the level of local experience/inexperience of transport matters.

This absence of overall leadership has led to the whole subject of becoming an `add on' with little clear direction or consistency with transport policy and strategic planning within the rest of the County Council.

Whilst local arrangements have the strength of being able to respond flexibly to local demand they do not necessarily underpin strong links with the strategic aims of the authority in terms of policy and environmental issues. Neither do they encourage the pooling and sharing of facilities across the county thereby encouraging maximum accessibility and equity. Good practice can often go unshared.

1.2.2 Performance and Resource Information

1.2.3 Eligibility

Concern was forthcoming from the physical disability review in Year 1 that there might well be too strong a direct link between service provision and automatic arrangement of transport. This view was independently supported by a recent report to the Department's Management Team. The inherent danger here is to the independence of service users.

1.2.4 Charging

Whilst ad hoc consideration has been given to charging at an Area level, in the absence of a strategic lead no recent consideration had been given to the question of charging for transport which seemed surprising in the light of pressures on the department's budget.

2 The Service Under Review

2.1 Aims of the Service

2.2 Objectives

2.3 Links to the Corporate Aims

2.4 Service Policies

2.5 Summary of Existing Services and Delivery Methods

2.6 Transport Activities - Roles and Responsibilities

2.7 The Cost of the Service

3 The Review Process

3.1 The Review Team

3.1.1 The project brief for the Social Services review of transport was agreed by the Best Value Panel on 26 July. The team conducting the work comprised the following:-

    · Review Leader, David Marshall, Lead Officer, Best Value

    · Project Manager, Jane Graham, Capital Resources Officer

    · Peter Hutcheson, County Councillor

    · Sue Stewart, Service Manager, Children & Families, Eastleigh/Romsey

    · Richard Bambridge, Staff Representative

    · Terry Rath, Education

    · Peter King, County Surveyor's Department, Passenger Transport Group

    · Martin Robertson, County Surveyor's Department, Passenger Transport Group

    · June Armstrong, County Surveyor's Department, Passenger Transport Group

    · Tricia Knight, County Surveyor's Department, Passenger Transport Group

3.2 Review Methodology

3.2.1 The core members met on the basis of one meeting per month minimum, with further meetings arranged to augment the process as required. In all the group will have met on ten occasions by the end of December 2000.

3.3 Review Costs

3.3.1 The total cost of the review (to the end of December 2000) is as below. Wherever possible review costs were kept to a minimum by such strategies as using in-house meeting facilities, catering and facilitation. This approach, dictated in large measure by the absence of a review budget, has had its negative as well as positive effect. The total estimated cost is shown below:-

3.3.2 These costs have been met from existing Social Services HQ budgets. In addition to the time and expense incurred, the involvement of staff in the review has had an opportunity cost in terms of the impact on their other duties.

4 Review Findings

4.1 Consult

4.1.1 As has already been indicated surveys were conducted during October with service users and their carers, staff and voluntary drivers. The feedback from a survey concerned with safety, comfort, timing and length of journey, service users and their immediate carers indicated a high level of satisfaction with current provision. At the same time the completed questionnaires showed little indication that people were concerned with who provided transport or indeed how it was managed, providing they had a contact point in the event of the unexpected.

4.1.2 Older people seem to see their journey as part of the days events but were keen to have the consistency of a regular driver.

4.1.3 The physical disability team indicated some concern that their actual service and transport should not be so closely linked that over dependency results.

4.1.4 Staff commented frequently on the absence of clear eligibility criteria for the provision of transport and on the variety of arrangements which existed across the seven areas. Care Managers were anxious to ensure that future transport arrangements continue to allow for those small social care type tasks, such as seeing frail people into their homes, making sure their heating is on and reporting concerns for health and welfare.

4.1.5 Voluntary drivers reported some level of dissatisfaction with their training and financial arrangements, feeling that they should be recompensed to the same level as home carers.

4.1.6 Young people accommodated by the department cited `over friendly' taxi drivers as one of their key concerns.

4.2 Compare

4.2.1 Comparison work was sought with arrangements in eight comparitor authorities, Cheshire, Kent, Essex, Surrey, West Sussex, Worcestershire, Lancashire and Hertfordshire. The choice was based on compatibility of transport characteristics.

4.2.2 Also included were the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton with whom the County Council still does a large amount of business. The review team also felt that it might be informative to test for major change in transport management and provision within the cities since local government re-organisation.

4.2.3 Postal and telephone surveys / follow up were the methods for comparison. Time did not allow for site visits as was hoped in the project brief.

4.2.4 Of the eight authorities canvassed, six responses were received. We spend £3 million per annum which is at a mid point with other authorities who spend between £2.2 and £5 million.

4.2.5 The relatively short period of time between the re-organisation of local Government in Hampshire and the survey revealed little significant change in policy and practice within Portsmouth and Southampton.

4.2.6 Members may feel, as did the review team, that whilst these comparisons are helpful as a start, an ability to give greater consideration to issues of quality standards would have assisted to a greater degree. Time factors made this impossible.

4.2.7 Comparisons were undertaken between 3 Day Services for Adults with a Learning Disability regarding the method of transport provision to and from the day service.

The costs together with the advantages and disadvantages where collated and compared. The key findings were as below

New Forest Day Service - 143 Service Users

Staff costs per hour

Driver - £5.94

(including on-costs)

Care Assistant - £5.94

 

Day Service Officer - £9.59

 

Senior Day Service Officer - £12.56

 

Agency Driver - £6.75

 

Escort - £5.54

   

4.2.8 There are two other areas of transport provision which should be explored further. First the use of the Direct Payment Scheme, which by allowing service users to purchase their own transport would encourage independence. This could include the use of a one off direct payment, which could be used for example, to cover the cost of a `buddy scheme', where service users are accompanied for a number of journeys when using either public or private transport to gain skills/confidence to travel alone. Second, where service users are currently being transported by a costly taxi journey, the option of a payment to a carer should be considered. Currently foster carers are able to claim 34.2 pence per mile to transport children to school, where a child is not entitled to transport from the Education Department, this system should be expanded to all client groups.

4.3 Challenge

4.3.1 Need for a transport service.

4.3.2 General acceptance exists that for some people, probably those in Category 1, it would be impossible for them to avail themselves of services in the community without transport. People in this category do not generally own vehicles, have limited access to vehicles and would not be able to use public transport.

4.3.3 In addition it was recognised by the Challenge Group that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 local authorities have a statutory duty to arrange or provide a transport service. The Children Act 1989 also encourages authorities to provide services to children in need which include general support and transport.

4.3.4 How the service is delivered

4.4 Compete

4.4.1 Currently commercial operators on the County Council's approved list, tender to provide services. Community Transport schemes, with the historical exception of Basingstoke, are not included on that approved list.

4.4.2 Community transport providers are excluded due to the need to tender on a like for like basis. They receive grant aid from the County Council towards the purchase of vehicles and employment of staff, whilst private operators manifestly do not.

4.4.3 Basingstoke Voluntary Transport Group is included by default due to a past need to provide specific transport at a time when no alternative was available.

4.4.4 In the future community transport schemes could well be included on the approved list via a formula which is currently being devised.

4.4.5 Unexplored areas of potential competition include

    · Examination of the degree to which the de-regulation of bus services has potential for bus companies to provide for the more specialist requirement of Social Services.

    · The degree to which non-emergency patient transport services might be similarly interested in tendering.

4.5 How good is the service?

Strengths

    · Feedback from both staff and service users was generally positive.

    · The department's expenditure was towards the lower end of the scale of costs compared to the other comparator authorities who returned questionnaires.

    · Vehicles leased from HTM are of a high quality and compare well in terms of lease costs to the private sector. Vehicles are well maintained and are replaced on average every six or seven years.

    · A number of community transport initiatives have recently been developed.

    · Local arrangements make use of a variety of transport methods and are able to ensure that personal and social care needs are met, which is highly valued.

4.6 Sustainability

4.7 Crime and Disorder

4.7.1 The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the County Council to work in local community safe partnerships, developing priorities and targets for crime reduction.

4.8 E-Government

4.8.1 E-government requires that public services provide the public and partner agencies with improved direct electronic access to information products.

4.9 Equalities

4.9.1 Hampshire County Council operates an equal opportunities policy which applies not only to direct employed staff but also where private operators are appointed via the contract process.

5 Member Input

6 Lessons learnt

6.1 The key lessons to emerge from this review process were as follows:

7 Conclusions

7.1 An analysis of user satisfaction questionnaires reveals a high level of satisfaction amongst service users and their carers for present transport delivery. The same overall response was received from voluntary drivers.

7.2 Staff particularly in the Children and Families and Mental Health sectors have expressed concern regarding both organisation (e.g. its time consuming nature) and provision (e.g. the boundary issues between Education and Social services over home to school transport). A perceived lack of transport within Mental Health services has led to a significant degree of transportation between home and services being carried out by staff. These views were obtained from questionnaires sent to staff and managers and through seeking the views of the review leader for Mental Health contracted and provided services.

7.3 Voluntary drivers schemes were highly valued but a need was identified to ensure that purchased and in-house schemes are of equal quality and are organised as effectively as possible on either a local or centralised basis.

7.4 As a counter balance to these views the challenge process and direct work of the transport review team highlighted the following weaknesses concerned with the management of the departments current arrangements.

7.5 The challenge team met for two extensive periods of discussion and whilst fully supportive of the need to underpin social service provision with effective transport arrangements, it was never the less critical of a non-specialist department spending valuable time on the organisation of such provision. Encouragement was given to the exploration of a more corporate approach to future organisation. Private sector representatives in the challenge team were in no doubt that the necessary quality and flexibility could be ensured through tight contracting arrangements.

7.6 As far as the review team is concerned the overall picture which emerges is of a set of arrangements, which whilst valued are:-

    · poorly co-ordinated between Headquarters and Areas

    · not fully understood in terms of costs

    · have no clear eligibility criteria

    · subject to unevaluated variation between Areas

    · are not currently seeking to maximise income and cost effectiveness through a clear charging policy.

7.7 The review team also considers that further comparison work to be carried with the authorities already contacted.

8 Options and Summary Recommendations

8.1 OPTION 1
The current organisation arrangements could be continued and the strongest arguments in favour of this option is that the department would retain maximum local flexibility to respond to local and unexpected need whilst retaining its positive working relationships with Hampshire Transport Management (HTM) and the County Surveyor's Department.

8.2 The continued support of this option would require further work around charging, costs, eligibility and departmental co-ordination and leadership. Additional work would also need to be undertaken to arrive at a clear policy with Education on school transport.

8.3 Arguments against option 1 would centre around whether or not it would ever help us be sure about the most cost effective way or providing for the departments transport needs. Staff time better spent on other professional activities would still be consumed and the county would lose the valuable opportunity to test how more effective corporate organisation could be.

8.4 OPTION 2
The review team is of the opinion that a case exists for testing out what the benefits would be of organising for Social Services transport needs corporately. The time to undertake such a study could not be better as the totality of County Council provision is being reviewed in individual and cross cutting reviews. Anticipated advantages of this option are around economies of scale in purchasing, policy, co-ordination and brokerage.

8.5 Care would need to exercised to ensure that local knowledge and flexibility were not lost and that providers could still respond to emergencies as well as personal and social care needs.

8.6 In recommending option 2 to the Best Value Review Panel, Team Members endorse a pilot approach for a period of 1 year, given the complex matters and inadequacy of information within the department at present. One of the department's Area offices has advised that they would be willing to act as host to such a pilot.

8.7 The review team also endorses the need for a health and safety audit of all transport activities to be undertaken including the development of a generic risk assessment form for transporting service users. This work to be undertaken in conjunction with the department's Health and Safety advisers.

8.8 The action plan will reflect the need to ensure that priorities for E-government, Crime and Disorder, sustainability and Equalities are addressed.