Service User Feedback Report

2017

© IASSN

IASS outcomes

Service User Feedback and Strategic Influence

November 2017

Published in November 2017 by IASSN All rights reserved

2

Background The Quality Standards for Information, Advice and Support Services1 emphasise the importance of assessing the outcomes of the work done by Information, Advice and Support Services (IASS). One of the key sources of evidence highlighted in the Quality Standards is feedback from service users. Following a period of consultation the IASS Network developed a set of 6 core questions that all IASS were asked to incorporate into their service user feedback questionnaires. A sample questionnaire with 7 additional questions was also made available. The questionnaires are available in formats suitable for parents and for young people – but both include the same 6 core questions. These are available from the IASS Network. With effect from January 2017 all IASS have been invited to participate in the national collection and sharing of data based on ratings given by service users on the 6 core questions. In order to spread the workload the requests to collect data have been phased in across the year. This report summarises the data received in Phases 1, 2 and 3; the report therefore supersedes the reports for the earlier phases. During the year the IASS Network has also begun to collect examples of actual casework in order to be able to illustrate the kind of difference that IASS involvement can make. The casework examples included in this report are amongst the first case studies to be collected. A second key source of evidence highlighted in the Quality Standards is the impact IASS have on policy and practice. This sort of information does not lend itself to straightforward data collection, but the IASS Network has recently started collecting some case study examples where involvement of IASS has resulted in changes in local policy and practice. For the first time some of these case studies are also included in this report. Many thanks to all those IASS that submitted service user feedback data and case studies this year.

Which service users are invited to provide service user feedback? Once a year every IASS is asked to seek feedback on the 6 core questions from the next 50 service users from a given start date. Service users may include parents, children or young people. The 50 service users should be selected on the basis that they are:

1 http://www.iassnetwork.org.uk/documents

3

the first 50 where a period of intervention ends on or after a given start date

and

they have received information, advice and support at Levels 2, 3 or 4 (or their equivalent). Levels are set out in the Intervention Levels for IASS2.

This methodology is intended to ensure that services ask a full cross section of service users for feedback, but also to help manage the workload involved. Services may also seek feedback from all service users and ask a much broader range of questions than the 6 core questions – both of which would be good

2 Intervention Levels for IASS – August 2016. (Available from the IASS Network)

“SENDIASS tell me what I need to hear not necessarily what I want to hear. After a very long journey, supported by SENDIASS my child is in a setting that is meeting her needs. I'm not sure I would have got through the last few years without knowing SENDIASS were on the end of the phone to support me through it. Their support has been invaluable. I am more knowledgeable about processes and am now confident enough to engage in strategic meetings about future education for other children in the city. If everyone was as helpful and reliable as SENDIASS the world would be a much better place.”

CoventrySENDInformation,AdviceandSupportService

Service user: Parent Intervention level: 3 This parent used Coventry SENDIASS periodically over 4 years. Her child had ongoing issues with anxiety. Help was provided at primary and secondary level, to assist with access to SEN Support, during an EHC Needs Assessment and when an EHC plan was drawn up. Largely as a result of her experience of seeking support for children with anxiety problems the parent also became involved in monitoring provision for students with social, emotional and mental health issues through her membership of a consultative group organised by the local authority. At the end of the most recent intervention the parent was asked to complete a service user evaluation. She rated the service provided by Coventry SENDIASS as 4 (the highest rating) on all 6 questions.

4

practice – but at a national level it is only the ratings on the 6 core questions that are collected. IASS may seek feedback through online questionnaires, on paper or over the phone – but the same questions and rating scale must be used whichever method is adopted. All IASS are encouraged to maximize the number of returns they receive and have been given guidance on this3.

How many IASS and service users provided data between 1 January and 29 September 2017? 109 (72%) IASS submitted a return between 1 January and 29 September 2017. 66% of IASS are provided in-house by the local authority, while 33% are outsourced and 1% are a mix of the two. The proportion of services of each 3 Feedback from Service Users; Maximising Returns – December 2016 (Available from the IASS Network)

“The support provided has proved to be invaluable in establishing a fresh start and to enable our son’s needs to be met”

BirminghamSENDIASS

Service user: Parent Intervention level: 3 A student in Year 5 had a diagnosis of ADHD and Attachment Disorder and a history of fixed term exclusions. His parents approached the service because of the risk that the student would be permanently excluded. An Education Health & Care Needs Assessment had previously been declined based on a lack of evidence. The SENDIASS Support Officer provided information and support to the family and worked in partnership with the school and family to establish a managed move. This achieved an inclusive approach to meeting the student’s needs, At the close of the intervention parents rated the service provided by Birmingham SENDIASS as 4 (the highest rating) on all 6 questions.

Children, Young People & Parents

5

type contributing data to this survey – shown below - is broadly in line with the national picture. 5632 service users were invited to provide feedback. 13 IASS included data from more than 50 service users. This included some services covering more than 1 local authority. 38 IASS surveyed fewer than 50 service users, usually because they did not complete sufficient interventions within the specified time period. Where possible IASS were asked to indicate what proportion of the 5632 service users that were invited to provide feedback were parents/carers, children or young people. Some were not able to do so because their record keeping procedures did not allow for this. However the chart below shows the breakdown by service user group where known. Feedback was sought from 3748 parents, 103 young people and 11 children, with 1720 service users being unspecified.

6

DevonInformation,AdviceandSupportServiceService user: Parent Intervention level: 2 A contacted the service about her child, who was attending an independent school but at risk of exclusion. A was highly anxious and not confident that her child’s needs were being properly identified and supported. She requested help with understanding options and making choices, and lacked confidence and trust in the provision made by school. A had difficulty communicating her concerns effectively and concisely, emailng and phoning the school daily. Initaiily A made frequent contact with DIAS, and we endeavoured to answer her queries. However we also sought to build her knowledge around what the SEND Code of Practice says about the graduated response, and to increase her skills by modelling how to communicate effectively. We supported her in preparation for a meeting with school so that it was focussed on the outcomes of her child, their views and aspirations.At the close of intervention A rated the service provided by DIAS as 4 (the highest rating) on all 6 questions.

“DIAShelpedbybreakingdownthequestions/problemsintomanageablechunks,talkingthroughhowtoasktherightquestionsinmeetingpreparationandsendingmetherightinfoe.g.onexclusion.ThedocumentguidetheysentonpreparingforameetingandwhattodoinitwasveryhelpfulWe'vechangedthewholeapproachofourprimaryschooltoourson(andtootherSENstudents).Soit'smadeacompletedifferencetotheirfuture.Wegotallouroutcomeseventhroughthereweresomeverytrickysituations.Weworkedwiththeschoolandhadnorows,wecanaskalotnowofaschoolandgetit.It'ssoamazingthatit'savailable(DIAS)anditworks!”

7

2710 service users provided ratings against the 6 core questions. The overall return rate is therefore 48.1%. 33 IASS achieved very high return rates of over 75%. 19 IASS had low return rates - below 25%.

8

KirkleesInformation,Advice andSupportServiceService user: Parent Intervention level: 3 Following the permanent exclusion of an 8 Year old with SEND from school his parent wanted help to challenge the school’s decision. KIAS met with the parent and requested all the paperwork and his school records. KIAS found that the child was identified in school has having difficulties with cognition and learning, social, emotional & mental health and communication and interaction. There was clear evidence in his record to show that he had had these difficulties since nursery and had entered school on an Individual Education Plan (IEP). School continued with IEP's and reviewed these 4 times before moving him onto SEN Support and a My Support plan. The school had not involved Speech and Language Therapy, Educational Psychology or the Pupil Referral Unit nor had they requested an EHC Needs Assessment despite having 4 My Support plans. KIAS prepared a case for the Governors’ Disciplinary Committee Meeting and also represented the parent at the meeting. The outcome was that the Governing Body overturned the decision and he was reinstated back into school. The PRU are now working with school to request an EHC Needs Assessment. At the end of the intervention the parent rated KIAS as 4 on all 6 questions.

“Brilliantserviceprovided.IwishIhadknownaboutthisserviceearliertogetthehelprequired.WilldefinitelyuseagainifIneedhelpandrecommendtoanyonethatislookingforadvice.”

9

SupportiveParents coveringBristol,NorthSomerset andSouthGloucestershireService user: Parent Intervention level: 4 M was in year 4, 8 years old with a genetic condition and Autism. He was struggling with anxiety, making friendships, focussing in class, adequate cognitive achievement and was receiving a high level of support from the Learning Support Assistant. An EHC Needs Assessment had been refused two years earlier and the family had applied again, as he was due to transfer. They were worried he would not cope in a large mainstream school and wanted placement in a small special school suited to his needs. M’s parent asked for help with providing evidence and going through the process. We were able to provide independent support through the EHC Needs Assessment but the local authority decided not to issue an EHC Plan. M’s parent rang us very distressed and needing more support and advice. The Supportive Parents represenative made two home visits to go through the assessment paperwork with the parent. It became clear that some of the evidence put forward from professionals was absent from the paperwork considered by the SEN Panel, including evidence supporting the move to a smaller school. We advised the parent that she could seek mediation and if she decided not to pursue this avenue then to ask for a mediation certificate. We supported her to download the SEND Tribunal application form and forwarded details of information about legal aid and Tribunal notes for parents. We then supported the parent to complete the appeal form and made suggestions for further evidence which could be gathered from the current school to support the appeal. With this help she was able to complete the tasks needed and visited several small special schools to identify which one might be suitable for her son. In the event the local authority conceded before the hearing and M was given an EHC plan which acknowledged his needs and identified appropriate SEN provision for the future. M is now reported to be settling in well as his parent’s choice of school. At the close of intervention parents rated the service provided by Supportive Parents as 4 on all 6 questions.

“I am eternally grateful to Supportive Parents - i know I would have failed my son without their support. I am also well aware that I am only part way through the journey with my son and I am reassured/relieved to know Supportive Parents are there for support in the future.”

10

Summary for 1/1/17 to 29/9/17 Based on 2710 returns from service users

Q1 How easy was it to get in touch with us?

90.8% of respondents rated the IASS positively. 2.8% gave a negative rating. The Mean Rating was 3.5 (where the maximum is 4).

Q2 How helpful was the information, advice and support we gave you?

94.5% of respondents rated the IASS positively. 1.8% gave a negative rating. The Mean Rating was 3.7 (where the maximum is 4).

11

NorthLincolnshireSENDIASSService user: Parent Intervention level: 3 The family requested help from North Lincolnshire SENDIASS after moving to the area. Their daughter had a diagnosis of ASC, and moderate to severe learning difficulties. However she did not have an EHC plan and had not been attending the school she had been on roll at in her previous local authority for a significant amount of time. North Lincolnshire SENDIASS supported the family with their request for an EHC Needs Assessment, helping to ensure that the young person's needs were properly assessed and understood and to guide the family to access services. When the draft EHC plan was issued SENDIASS helped the family to make an informed choice and express their preference for the school that they felt would meet their daughter’s needs. At the end of the intervention parents rated the service provided by North Lincolnshire SENDIASS as 4 (the highest rating) on all 6 questions.

“Mydaughterisadifferentgirlnow.Sheisenjoyinghereducationandcurrentlytransitioningnicely,meetingnewfriendsandfeelingthatsheactuallyhasachanceofanormallifeandtobeacceptedwithintoday’ssociety.Sheisnowsociallyincludedandgainingconfidencewithinsmallsettings,shelearningtoacceptherdisabilityasshebeenplacedwithinthecorrectschoolsettingtomeetherneeds,ThisserviceisinvaluabletoparentsandchildrenthathavenocommunicationorknowledgeofhowtodealwiththeSENLA,theserviceensuresthatitisinformativeandcurrentwithintoday’slegislation,communicationisalwaysopenandtransparent.Itisagodsendtospeaktoindividualsthatactuallyknowwhattheyaredoing,itisimpartialandveryprofessionalanditmakesachangetoactuallyspeaktoprofessionalsthatknowwhattheyaretalkingabouttomoveyoungpeopleforward.ThisisoneofthemostinvaluableserviceswhichtheLAfundsanditneedstocontinueespeciallytosupportparents.”

12

Q3 How neutral, fair and unbiased do you think we were?

95.2% of respondents rated the IASS positively. 1.7% gave a negative rating. The Mean rating was 3.7 (where the maximum is 4).

Q4 What difference do you think our information, advice or support made for you?

89.3% of respondents rated the IASS positively. 3.9% gave a negative rating. The Mean rating was 3.4 (where the maximum is 4).

13

PlymouthInformation,AdviceandSupportforSENDService user: Young Person Intervention level: 3 This piece of casework took over a year to complete, and was carried out with a young person without the direct intervention of her family beyond the initial enquiry. Plymouth Information, Advice and Support for SEND first received a request for support from this young person's mother after a visit that the family had undertaken to a specialist residential setting which needed the young person to have an EHC plan in order to fund her course. Her Statement of Special Educational Need had finished at age 16 and she was then 21. The IASS worked together on a letter requesting an EHC Needs Assessment to send to the local authority, together with supporting evidence of her disablity and learning difficulties. After this, the young person took charge of her own development and felt empowered to use her own voice in meetings and on paper, with support. However, the educational aspects of the evidence were very out of date as it had been some years since her last course: since then she has been NEET. The letter was received with interest but the local authority had a problem when it came to identifying her current need and what level of learning would be progression for her which would likely to lead to employment. Plymouth IASS supported the young person with visits to providers, re-integration specialists, employment support groups and the Department of Work and Pensions. It became clear that the only place to help her to move on was her preferred setting. The thinking that she went through over this time also prompted her to do some pre-employment training which gave an opportunity to more clearly identify her current learning needs, and to work with the Guide Dog group to support her move to independence.When the intervention was closed the young personrated the service provided by Plymouth Information, Advice and Support for SEND as 4 on all 6 questions.

“Thankyouforeverything–Iwouldn'tofdoneitwithoutyou-I'mpackedalreadyandmixedemotionsthisweekbutIknowIwillbefine”

14

Q5 Overall how satisfied are you with the service we gave?

94.5% of respondents were positively satisfied with their IASS. 2.6% gave a negative rating. The Mean rating was 3.6 (where the maximum is 4).

6 How likely is it you would recommend the service to others?

96.3% of respondents would positively recommend their IASS to others. 2.2% gave a negative rating. The Mean rating was 3.7 (where the maximum is 4).

15

Additional analysis Services that wish to benchmark their service user assessment rating against national figures can compare their mean rating for each question against the national averages quoted above. In addition it is possible to calculate the extent to which each service achieved its maximum potential score. For each service user surveyed the maximum possible score is 4 x 6 = 24 (as the maximum rating on any question is 4 and there are 6

TowerHamletsYoungPeoples’ AdviceCentre

Service user: Young person Intervention level: 3 A 16 year old with communication difficulties was referred to the SEND Young People’s Advice Centre by a CAMHS worker. The young person was at an alternative educational provision but not making any progress. Staff at the provision had not seen any information about the young person’s needs and his Statement of Special Educational Need had lapsed. It was felt by staff at the provision that the young person was not on an appropriate course. The SEND Young People’s Development Officer worked with the young person to find out what his interests were and helped to identify some courses and extracurricular activities that might be appropriate. The Young Persons’ Worker supported the young person to put in a request for an EHC Needs Assessment. They also arranged placement visits for the young person and went with them to look at the different placements. Once the young person had identified which course they would like to do the Young Persons’ Worker worked with the SENCO at that placement and staff in the SEN team to help put an EHC plan in place. Staff from the new provision said the young person was doing extremely well on their course and the young person and their family were very pleased with the outcome. The young person was asked for feedback and rated ease of access to the service as 3, and gave a rating of 4 in response to each of the other questions.

“ThankyouIlikewhereIamnowandamlearningalotmoreandhavingfun”

16

questions in total). The maximum possible core for a service that surveys 50 service users and achieves the average return rate of 48% (24 service users) would therefore be 24 x 24 = 576. If the service actually achieved a total score of 550 this would represent 95.5% of its maximum possible score. This year the mean maximum possible score was 91.9%. 38% of participating services achieved 95% or more of their maximum possible score. 33% achieved between 90 and 94.9% of their maximum possible score and 29% achieved less than 90% of their maximum possible score – though only 2 were below 75%.

WorcestershireSENDIASSService user: Parent Intervention level: 3 D had received diagnosis of ASD at age 3, a Statement at 8, and was placed in a mainstream autism base at primary, middle and high school. This provision had worked well until Year 10, when he became unwell with severe depression and psychosis, and was also diagnosed with Tourette's. D was unable to return to school in Year 10, but went back in Year 11 on a very reduced timetable. School and the family felt the placement had broken down and requested transfer to a specialist college via his conversion review. Following contact from the parent, Worcestershire SENDIASS met with the parent and school to gather information and offer advice on the process. Initally the local authority named a local college. The parent then lodged an appeal and SENDIASS supported at a mediation meeting. Following mediation, the local authority gathered more information from medical professionals and agreed to fund the specialist college placement. At the close of intervention the parent rated the service as 4 on all 6 questions.

“Brilliantservice,thankyou”

17

Strategic influence The role of IASS is not limited to individual casework, although this does account for the majority of staff time. IASS also has a role to play in influencing and challenging local policy and practice. This may be through empowering parents, children and young people to participate and to make their voices heard. Indeed some of the casework case studies included in this report illustrate how parents have subsequently gone on to join local authority consultative groups or have worked with their child’s school to change practice for other children with SEND. Recently the IASS Network has begun to collate case studies of strategic influence and this section includes some examples that have been provided by a range of IASS. They are intended to illustrate some of the ways in which IASS can help to ‘make a difference’ at the policy and practice level.

StaffordshireSENDFamilyPartnershipFollowing the implementation of the 2014 Children and Families Act, Staffordshire established a SEND Transformation Programme to consider the implications of the SEND reforms and review current practices and systems. Staffordshire SEND Family Partnership have been proactively involved in the programme from the outset. The most critical role and function is ensuring that the voice of parents and carers is heard and incorporated in service review, design and delivery. The service has proactively engaged with all key stakeholders to get a clear grasp and understanding of the various components and requirements and has made suggestions / recommendations in respect of how best to engage and capture this voice. As a result, Staffordshire now has an active and engaged Parent Carer Forum that is contributing to the Transformation Programme in its entirety. The forum arrange and minute regular parent meetings (with clear terms of reference and an independently nominated parent chair), contact and engage other parents and to gain their views, and present this information / feedback in an effective manner. The forum support parents to attend and actively contribute to meetings, which are also attended by a host of key stakeholders. Stakeholders participating in this programme have commented how powerful and, on occasions, emotive they have found the feedback from parents / carers directly or through this service on their behalf. The role of the Staffordshire SEND Family Partnership has been to support the development and growth of the parent carer forum and to demonstrate a commitment to meaningful engagement and co-production

“Theintegrityanddevotiontotheir(StaffordshireSENDFamilyPartnership)workhasbeeninstrumentalininspiringparentsandcarerstobepartofthisgroup(theParentCarerForum).Confidencetodowhatwecantomakeachangehasbeensupportedbyourlocalteam,whohaveimmenseknowledgeamddedication.”ParentCarerForummember

18

SENDIASSLeicesterCity The IASS worked closely with the Special Education Service to consider how best parent/carer and young peoples views could be captured. It was suggested by the IASS that an Independent Supporter based within SENDIASS Leicester or a SENDIASS officer could attend the local authority identified Introductory Meeting with the parent/carer and/or young person to capture their views and plan for their participation in the assessment process if the parent/carer or young person wanted the support. The IASS therefore became an integral part of the statutory assessment process and worked to ensure all service users are aware of the whole process, the law, timescales etc. The IASS also provided parental feedback on the local authority processes (e.g. our co-production meeting) enabling them to be refined further in order to support parental involvement. For example, parents, children and young people's experience of using the local authority’s proforma to collect the views of children and young people and their parents as part of an EHC Needs Assessment was amended due to the direct input of SENDIASS Leicester, resulting in it being more user friendly and thorough.

“Leicester City SENDIASS has played an important and influential role in the local authority’s SEND pathfinder work in developing our principles and values as well as practice and policy in response to the SEND reforms. This helped to ensure that children and young people and their parents were placed at the centre of our new processes. In particular, colleagues from the team have helped us to develop our disagreement resolution and mediation information as part of the Local Offer as well as the proforma for collecting the views of children and young people and their parents as part of the EHC Needs Assessment. While maintaining their impartial and independent role, SENDIASS have acted as an integral part of the statutory assessment process as part of introductory meetings held with parents to collect their views and plan for their participation in the assessment process. The service also effectively signposts parents and young people requesting mediation. Leicester City SENDIASS has also provided constructive challenge for our EHC plan writing practice following best practice guidance and has provided important parental feedback on our processes (e.g. our co-production meeting) enabling us to further develop our meetings to support parental involvement. The LA is currently receiving positive feedback from parents about their involvement and participation in the EHC Needs Assessment process and the LA attributes this to the work of the SENDIASS team amongst others.” Head of Special Education and Educational Psychology

19

DurhamSENDIASSThroughout 2016 Durham SENDIASS had expressed concerns to the local authority that the nature and scope of the calls into the SENDIAS service were changing and that the SENDIASS team had major concerns about children and families needs not being addressed. The vast majority of calls concerned children's mental health, heightened anxiety, ASC and autistic characteristics. Despite a whole host of available services, strategies and interventions that schools and settings can call upon, concerns about children struggling to cope in various settings were overwhelmingly the key themes of calls for support. The local authority requested further evidence, and Durham SENDIASS subsequently monitored all incoming calls. A record was made of each caller's child's key SEND, the main reason for the call and the duration, and an analysis was made at the end of each term. This information was then presented to SEND and Accountability Group Meetings, chaired by the Head of SEND and Inclusion, where the SENDIASS manager talked through the report and the concerns in further detail. This is now done on a termly basis so that the local authority can see the 'patterns and trends' in parental support needs.

“The data (provided by Durham SENDIASS) has been extremely influential in enabling Durham local authority officers to understand where the shortfalls in support are and which cohorts of children have unmet need or needs that are proving hard to meet. Durham's Autism review has just been completed and an Action Plan is being agreed. The information provided by the SENDIASS team has been factored into the findings and firmly taken into account in the longer term planning. The termly information of ‘call type’ by Durham SENDIASS has been an essential insight into the pressure points of the Local Area provision as experienced by parents and carers. This has prompted the Local Area to conduct a review of Autism provision. In addition the information has provided a voice for parents within the review and has been triangulated with further feedback from Children and Young People with SEND and their parents with locally held information. This has enabled County Durham to create a concise set of outcomes and recommendations for change". Head of SEND and Inclusion

20

Commentary Over the last 18 months all IASS have been asked to adopt a series of 6 cpre questions as part of their standard service evaluation. This means that, for first time, we have been able to collect data at a national level and individual IASS will be able to benchmark their results against other services. Over 70% of IAS services have contributed data this year with feedback from more than 2700 service users. Overall 48% of service users that were asked to provide feedback did so. We are very grateful to all service users who took the time to provide feedback. It is notable that 95% or more of respondents are happy with the service that they received and would recommend their IASS to others. 95% considered that the information, advice and support they received was both helpful and neutral, fair and unbiased. 91% reported that their IASS was easy to contact and 89% that the intervention made by IASS had made a difference. The case studies included in this report provide some more detailed examples. Dissatisfaction rates are below 3% for all questions except “What difference do you think our information, advice and support made?”, for which 3.9% of respondents gave a rating of 0 or 1. In part this is explained by service users reporting that the issue they sought help with had not been resolved (e.g. they remained unhappy with the level of SEND Support provided by school, or with the local authority’s decision not to issue an EHC plan), even though they had found the IASS support helpful and would recommend the service to others. Nevertheless all IASS should consider how best to respond to low ratings and what may need to be done to improve the service on offer. At a local level IASS can compare their own ratings against these national averages and set their own targets for improving return rates and overall ratings. They should also be able to analyse more detailed comments from service users. While casework remains a core activity for IAS services there is a wider role for them to play in informing and developing local policy and practice. Indeed effective casework should empower parents, children and young people to participate in decision making, challenge poor practice and contribute to service development. However IAS services themselves have an important role to play in supporting and challenging local authorities and others to deliver effective, relevant and ‘user friendly’ services. This report includes some first examples where SENDIASS have helped to make a difference at a strategic level.

Next steps The IASS Network will:

• inform every IASS of its performance against national averages for service user feedback and will ask services that had low return rates or achieved less

21

than 90% of their maximum possible rating score to consider what action they need to take to improve return rates and/or service user ratings.

• continue to collate case studies that illustrate practice at both a casework and strategic level.

• carry out a further national survey in 2018 and will launch an online facility that will enable all IASS to provide their annual return.

Every IASS should:

• benchmark its return rates and performance on the 6 core questions against other services to ensure that response rates are good, and service user satisfaction levels are very high.

• review any negative feedback and identify whether there are implications for service delivery.

• follow the guidance given in Feedback from Service Users; Maximising Returns – December 2016 in order to secure the highest possible engagement from service users.

• contribute to the next national survey in 2018.

• consider what other information it may need to collect to ensure that service impact in monitored, as set out in The Quality Standards for Information, Advice and Support Services.

Nick Knapman November 2017 IASS contributing service user feedback on 6 core questions in 2017 (Services listed by Local Authority rather than by the name of the IASS)

Service ID Local Authority Name Region

Return received

by 29/9/17

116 Barking & Dagenham London 111 Barnet London Y 39 Barnsley Yorkshire and Humberside Y 24 Bath & NE Somerset South West Y

153 Bedford Borough Eastern 117 Bexley London Y 94 Birmingham West Midlands Y 79 Blackburn with Darwen North West Y 80 Blackpool North West Y

118 Bolton North West 48 Bournemouth South West Y

119 Bracknell Forest South East Y 146 Bradford Yorkshire and Humberside Y

22

86 Brent London 96 Brighton & Hove South East Y

109 Bristol South West Y 98 Bromley London Y

120 Buckinghamshire South East 89 Bury North West Y 3 Calderdale Yorkshire and Humberside Y

60 Cambridgeshire Eastern Y 121 Camden London Y 154 Central Bedfordshire Eastern Y 151 Cheshire East North West Y 152 Cheshire West and Chester North West Y 43 Cornwall South West Y 52 Coventry West Midlands Y 44 Croydon London Y 41 Cumbria North West Y 19 Darlington North East Y

112 Derby City East Midlands Y 54 Derbyshire East Midlands Y 12 Devon South West Y 45 Doncaster Yorkshire and Humberside

103 Dorset South West Y 108 Dudley West Midlands Y 15 Durham North East Y

101 Ealing London 11 East Riding Yorkshire and Humberside Y 85 East Sussex South East 29 Enfield London 95 Essex Eastern Y 20 Gateshead North East Y 76 Gloucestershire South West Y 88 Greenwich London

110 Hackney London Y 63 Halton North West Y 73 Hammersmith & Fulham London 99 Hampshire South East y

123 Haringey London Y 37 Harrow London 28 Hartlepool North East Y 61 Havering London Y 77 Herefordshire West Midlands Y 14 Hertfordshire Eastern Y

100 Hillingdon London 124 Hounslow London Y 50 Isle of Wight South East Y

125 Isles of Scilly South West Y 126 Islington London Y 70 Kensington & Chelsea London

106 Kent South East Y 87 Kingston Upon Hull Yorkshire and Humberside Y

23

21 Kingston-upon-Thames London Y 127 Kirklees Yorkshire and Humberside Y 102 Knowsley North West 128 Lambeth London Y 81 Lancashire North West Y 58 Leeds Yorkshire and Humberside Y 62 Leicester City East Midlands Y 10 Leicestershire East Midlands

129 Lewisham London Y 32 Lincolnshire East Midlands Y 36 Liverpool North West 35 Luton Eastern Y 31 Manchester North West Y 83 Medway South East 30 Merton London

130 Middlesbrough North East Y 74 Milton Keynes South East Y 92 NE Lincolnshire Yorkshire and Humberside Y

131 Newcastle-upon-Tyne North East Y 115 Newham London

6 Norfolk Eastern Y 132 North Lincolnshire Yorkshire and Humberside Y 105 North Somerset South West Y 68 North Tyneside North East Y 51 North Yorkshire Yorkshire and Humberside Y 53 Northamptonshire East Midlands 27 Northumberland North East Y

113 Nottingham East Midlands Y 114 Nottinghamshire East Midlands Y 91 Oldham North West Y 13 Oxfordshire South East Y

139 Peterborough Eastern 75 Plymouth South West Y 7 Poole South West Y

17 Portsmouth South East Y 4 Reading South East Y

134 Redbridge London 135 Redcar and Cleveland North East 136 Richmond-Upon-Thames London 137 Rochdale North West 82 Rotherham Yorkshire and Humberside Y 56 Rutland East Midlands 38 Salford North West Y 18 Sandwell West Midlands Y

107 Sefton North West 1 Sheffield Yorkshire and Humberside

140 Shropshire West Midlands Y 47 Slough South East Y 93 Solihull West Midlands Y 66 Somerset South West

24

104 South Gloucestershire South West Y 78 South Tyneside North East Y

133 Southampton South East Y 97 Southend Eastern Y

138 Southwark London 142 St. Helens North West Y 16 Staffordshire West Midlands Y 23 Stockport North West Y

143 Stockton-on-Tees North East Y 90 Stoke-on-Trent West Midlands Y 42 Suffolk Eastern Y 8 Sunderland North East Y

33 Surrey South East 25 Sutton London 9 Swindon South West

71 Tameside North West Y 141 Telford & Wrekin West Midlands 64 Thurrock Eastern Y 57 Torbay South West Y

144 Tower Hamlets London Y 34 Trafford North West Y 69 Wakefield Yorkshire and Humberside Y 46 Walsall West Midlands

145 Waltham Forest London Y 2 Wandsworth London Y

67 Warrington North West 84 Warwickshire West Midlands

150 West Berkshire South East Y 5 West Sussex South East Y

147 Westminster London 55 Wigan North West 49 Wiltshire South West Y 40 Windsor & Maidenhead South East

148 Wirral North West 149 Wokingham South East Y 22 Wolverhampton West Midlands Y 59 Worcestershire West Midlands Y 65 York Yorkshire and Humberside Y

N.B. Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire are covered by Supportive Parents. Nottinghamshire and Nottingham are a combined service.

Council for Disabled Children is hosted by the National Children’s Bureau. NCB is a registered charity No. 258825. Reg in England and and Wales No. 952717

© IASSN