The following Case Studies are examples of projects successfully delivered by Psyched Solutions associates over the past five years. If you would like to know more about any of these, please contact us.
Month 1 – 6: Assessed the service against needs data and workflow, gained feedback from schools, families, officers and partners as part of workflow assessment and gap analysis. Developed pilot structure and budget options to improve workflow and delivery method.
Month 7 – 12: Implemented new model following consultation and budget sign-off with induction, training and workflow support, review monthly metrics and feedback.
Month 12 – 18: Results come through:
• Assessment timeliness performance improved from 23% to 76%
• Annual review metrics improved from 0% - 45%
• EHCP quality improved by 44%
• Phased transfer metrics improved from 34% to 87%
• Interim staff dropped from 85% to 12%
Month 1 – 6: Assessed current available data highlighting extensive gaps and issues due to system, staff, and QA framework weaknesses. Recommendations made to detail historic data with expected norms.
Month 7 – 12: New data projections proposed with improvements taken on board and integrated within panel decision making, reporting and finance assessment.
Month 12 – 18: New commissioning agreements made across the partnership increasing provision locally and reducing HNB spend in year 1 by 2.3m and year 2 by 4.5m. Concurrent improvements in phased transfer data and PfA outcomes highlighted. Improved commissioning arrangements for S< and OT resulted in HNB and school budget savings impacting DSG. Development of new panel process pre EHCP reduced EHCP and growth and reduction in capacity pressures on SEND, EP and Health services by 12%. Pathway of provision developed with Resource Base and mainstream AP increased reducing pressure on special school placements and use of INMS saving £23m over 5-year period.
Month 1 – 6: SEND Transport review following consistent complaints, turnover of staff route planning issues and overspend of 8% - 20% over the last 4 years.
Month 7 – 12: Proposed new policy, workflow and decision-making process, linked to sufficiency and provision development and demand projections. Integrated working between decision making and commissioning teams and piloted new initiatives.
Month 12 – 18: Reduction of budget overspend in year one against a backdrop of rising need. Improved commissioning approach against new policy and process. Reduction in complaints by 24%. Initiatives with special schools and resource bases implemented with early signs of success against outcomes and budget control.
Month 1 – 6: Overview and review of current HNB plan to ascertain focus of issues outside of demand. Partners, stakeholders and all education partners consulted and collaborated with. Following consultation, the plan was part-implemented due to capacity and external factors.
Month 7 – 12: Improved partnership understanding of needs of provision within 3 months of implementation, agreed commissioning needs with school partners and process for new provision agreed. 34 levers of pressure agreed at SEND Executive Board and Joint Commissioning and QA hub. Changes made to data reporting for future board decisions. Formal HNB plan changed with new understanding or pressure and partnership needs.
Month 12 – 18: Procurement and Commissioning process began for new special school, resource base and AP in partnership with school leaders.
Development of inclusive framework for prefunding reducing future need and reducing pressure on HNB. Year one impact £0.5m due to spend, year two impact £3.4m reduction on expected growth. Projected saving of new provision in year set at £5.4m.
Month 1 – 6: Reviewed all services trading with education partners. Developed framework for assessment and clarity of funding streams when partially traded or grant, HNB, or other funding methods. Worked with leaders in key services and customers to develop a timeline for review and key metrics.
Month 7 – 12: Linked to partnership work, reported on “actual” cost of delivery produced with individual workflow and staffing recommendations for each service. Key purpose identified as contribution made by traded or partially traded services to effective interventions for children and schools to meet the needs of CYP, and to meeting statutory duties on children’s services.
Month 12 – 18: Actual service delivery cost agreed for each individual service along with contribution to baseline budget within children's services and corporate support mechanics such as HR, Finance, Procurement and Legal.
Month 1 – 6: All SEND decision making reviewed under agreed framework, including review of quality of outcomes and EHCPs. Collaborated with Virtual School, Parent Carer forum, SEND, Early Years, Inclusion Services, Educational Psychology, Traded Services, Schools, PVI sector, Transport, Admissions, INMS, and partners.
Month 7 – 12: Proposed panel and decision-making process approved at SEND Executive Board, Children's Leadership Board and partnership QA group. Development of reporting system and updates required initiated with QA and Data teams linked with finance.
Month 12 – 18: New panel and decision-making process implemented with two new commissioned dynamic systems, interim reporting solution put in place to assess changes and impact.
Month 1 – 6: Reviewed all relevant service plans and strategies across children’s services, wider council and partnerships against statutory requirements of the DCS and Director of Education.
Month 7 – 12: Developed performance framework with services, initially with 13 senior leaders and then with 85 middle managers. Developed new delivery, structure needs and JDs for all service leaders and integrated some working across services.
Month 12 – 18: Shared new models with schools, partners and families, changed PDR (appraisal) process and performance management approach, succession planning and membership of governance groups.