You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Social Policy » Signposts Agency Resource

Signposts Agency Resource

This essay will examine the operations of Signposts and look at how it fits within the broader context of the social and health care sector, delving into its positioning in the area it services, and related factors. Examining varied policies that impact on its operational aspects in terms of policies and legislation, along with looking at Signposts management structure and funding arrangements to gain a perspective on MARCs.

Signposts is a Multi Agency Resource Centre (MARC) whose mission statement states that it exists to “… empower the community” (signposts.org.uk,). Its aim is “to relieve the poverty and promote the benefits of the inhabitants of Lancashire and Cumbria with particular reference to those in the area known as the West End of Morecambe, without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, age, race or of political, religious or other opinions” (signposts.org.uk,). Signposts works within Lancashire and Cumbria providing services for vulnerable people. Signposts enables the furthering of community services for overflow situations at a fee, through its full time and volunteer staff for a broad array of areas (signposts.org.uk).

Background

MARCs is an integrated service that brings “…together a range of services, usually under one roof, whose practitioners then work in a multi-agency way to deliver integrated support to children and families” (Every Child Matters Change for Children, 2008). MARCs are agencies that are founded to provide services, aiding local communities in designed areas, and as such are not competitive in that they operate in distinct communities. As a charity, Signposts has the conferred power to raise funds as well as “… to invite and receive contributions …” within the limitations of “… not undertaking any substantial permanent trading activities outwith its charitable objectives …” (signposts.org.uk.).

In terms of its operations, Signposts is significant in that it services a broad area, provides a large range of services, and has distinct and comprehensive service categories and links. The agency represents “… a collaborative project to meet the needs of the West End of Morecambe”, and was conceived to meet the difficulties as represented by the area's low demographic profile (signposts.org.uk,). Signposts has the support of the “Private Housing Services (City Council), Priority Services NHS Trust; Youth and Community Service (County Council); Council for Voluntary Service; and Morecambe and Heysham Citizens Advice Bureau…”.

Signposts is not in direct competition with other agencies in its area as its status and size distinguish it as a dominant agency. However, as a charity it does compete with other charitable organisations for donations and funds. The agency utilises a strong foundation of alliances that Leathard (1994, pp. 67-78) suggests is an important aspect of inter-professional working. The foundation for the creation of Signposts was the needs of the West End of Morecambe as identified in a series of reports that included the 1. “Lancaster District Poverty Profile” of April 1994, as conducted by the “City of Lancaster Economic Development Service”, 2. “Public Health in Lancaster (1993)” as researched by the “Morecambe Bay Health Consortium”, as well as a host of other reports (signposts.org.uk.).

Policies and modernisation

The agency has various policies that govern and provide guidance on their operations. One such example is represented by the National Service Framework (2008), (NSF) with policies set by the National Health Service (2008). The NSFs are devised “…to address variations in standards of care and to achieve greater consistency in the availability and quality of services by putting in place mechanisms which will enable the best care to be provided to all” (NSFs, 2008).

Another area that impacted on the organisation was the “Green Paper - Every Child Matters” (Chief Secretary to the Treasury, 2003) Accountability and Integration were cited as key issues that require leadership management and involvement from the top of the agency to make it work throughout service delivery. This helps to eliminate what the Department of Health (2000) called a blame culture. Multi-faceted agencies foster a team working environment approach that requires strong management leadership (Martin, 2002, p. 129). The delicate nature of the health and or mental well being of some service users can hang in the balance as a result of poor service delivery, which was pointed out in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry (Carnwell and Buchanan, 2005, p 166).

Another example of the foregoing are Local Area Agreements, which are responsible for setting priorities for local areas that are agreed to “… between central government and a local area (the local authority and Local Strategic Partnership) and other key partners at the local level” (Communities and Local Government, 2008).

The agencies policies work on low intervention; thus prohibiting student's intervention they are therefore unable to work at a high level. Interventions that require further work are referred to other statutory agencies. The agency however, has good working relationships with an array of other agencies.

Part of the modernisation and joined up working process requires regular monitoring and review (everychildmatters.gov.uk, 2008). This entails ensuring “… that integrated working is routinely monitored …” as a means “… to identify whether it is delivering the intended benefits” (everychildmatters.gov.uk, 2008).

The agencies operational system, is part of the complex modernisation agenda (Modernising Government White Paper, 1999) this includes clarity of vision and purpose, the definition of roles, human resources, partnership agreements, appropriate referral systems, information exchange, and exit strategies. The importance of setting forth all of these parameters with definitions and understandings as well as guidelines and explanations is an important part of ensuring uniform understandings. According to the HM Treasury Report of 2005 (HM Treasury, 2008) it indicates there is substantial evidence "community involvement in public service delivery can lead to better outcomes".

In 1997 ‘New Labour' came to government pushing the emphasis on better working relationships between other agencies, the aim was to work alongside local government to enable all young people to reach their full potential. This has continued to develop over the years the most recent government policies stressing the importance of alliance between agencies is the White paper ‘Every Child Matters' (2003) Marlow and Pitts (1998) refer to multi agency relations as..

“The coming together of various agencies, in relation to a given problem, without this significantly affecting or transforming the work they do. The same tasks are conducted in co - operation with others” (1998, pg 117)

Multi agency working was demonstrated within the agency to over come communication barriers allowing information to be universally shared. One area of concern was the information technology (IT) with a lack of equipment and space, however, a new IT management system was put in place. Student working within the agency spent more time on uploading information resulting in less service user input.

Collaboration, mixed methods, coordination and challenge thus represent the backbone of the community care system that Loxley (1997, pp. 102.112) advises requires a strong policy context to makes the system work. The foregoing can help to remove anxiety in the inter-agency approach which requires communication at all levels to set forth clear understandings (Woodhouse and Pengelly, 1991, pp. 23-25).

Management Structure

Signposts employs in its operational management structure. Stanley and Manthorpe (2004, p. 172) inform us that fragmentation and the lack of coordination in community based services can inhibit the delivery of services.

Therefore, the management structure in such an operation is the key to the foregoing operational success. The structure for Signposts is illustrated by the following (signposts.org.uk, 2006):

The top down structure shows a two way feed in terms of information flow. This structural and operational arrangement keeps management on top of developments as being conducted and performed by its primarily volunteer staff that makes them feel that they are contributing to the agency not only in the services they render, but in terms of helping to shape policy and recommendations as a result of the feedback loop information flow. The organisational structure aids in guarding against what Farrel et al (2001, pp. 283-285) refer to as the communication and performance dangers of informal roles that can be a problem in charitable organisations.

The growth of the agency has brought building management into the operational mode as the services are now consolidated in the Lancaster District as well as Preston (signposts.org.uk,). Management works closely with its all-important volunteers through action plans for each area of work that delivers the following services (signposts.org.uk,):

Volunteers are trained and recruited by the staff team whose success in training has resulted in highly favourable replies by respondents to the agency's survey overwhelmingly indicated that they felt safe accessing the agency's services, 46 out of 50 with 4 no answers, and 47 replying yes to if the agency met their needs, with just one indicating a maybe, and 2 with no answer (signposts.org.uk,). However, in reality the organizations was poorly managed some of the volunteers were unsuitable, poorly trained staff were constantly bullied and lived in fear of losing their loosing jobs. Therefore staff turnover was deemed high creating poor working relationships.

Funding

In 2008 the Local Area Agreements are positioned as a single pot for all funding (Communities and Local Government, 2008). The foregoing change has been introduced to prevent the duplication of efforts as well as waste (Improvement and Development Agency, 2008). Funding for specific targets has been discontinued and special project and or assessment funding, if justified, can still be financed through other governmental grant applications. MARC funding through the Local Area Agreements are targeted for specific themes. The Local Area Agreement represents a three-year arrangement whereby the LAA sets forth how local priorities will be accomplished, and the foregoing “… is negotiated between the local strategic partnership (LSP) and the regional Government Office (GO)” (Improvement and Development Agency, 2008). Other funding arrangements for Signposts consists of the

• Lancaster City Council,

• Lancashire County Council

• Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust

These are the core funders with additional funding with smaller contribution from others Additional funding also is provided by the Hadfield Trust, Sport for All, PAYP via Connexions, and earned income, that represents services as performed by the agency under contractual and fee arrangements (signposts.org.uk,).

In addition to the foregoing and the three year funding schedules, Signposts also utilises a yearly funding schedule that includes charitable donations as well as bids for service performance and grants (signposts.org.uk,). Yearly funding includes the Children's Fund and the Big Lottery Fund, along with the Community Fund (signposts.org.uk,). As a charitable organisation Signposts also holds funding drives as well as accepting contributions. However, the majority of funding within the family support came from local Authority sadly funding for the following year could only be secured if certain criteria's were filled. For example the agencies had to run family days, these days had to be linked to the children centers and the families invited had to have a child 5 or under to qualify.

Funding is the core lifeline of the agency, which it explains as being “… based on the realisation that … (they) … operate in a transition period between traditional grant making and the move towards commissioning of services and competitive tendering” (signposts.org.uk,). The foregoing means that Signposts has to organise the work and it performs to enable the agency to be funded by grants and or loans, as well as being “… spot purchased or block purchased on a unit cost basis or via competitive tendering” (signposts.org.uk,). The yearly and or three year funding schedules are augmented by the aforemented, along with donations, fund drives as well as the generation of added income through room rentals, operational services such as students, along with other placements that the agency indicates in its Trustee's Report as areas that “… are beginning to represent considerable sums of money …” that the agency is reinvesting to support other areas, and to serve as funds to underwrite new developments (signposts.org.uk).

According to the agency's 2007-year end financial report, Signposts posted incoming resources of £400,049, and expended £363,558 (signposts.org.uk,)

Human Resources

Signpost management of employees and the terms of employment were in ones opinion not clear, although staff worked flexible hours, and appeared to have regular supervisions were by managers and employees were able to discuss arising issues addressing both strengths and weaknesses. However, on occasions management would take this opportunity to bully others.

How social workers maintain their professional role in organisations

This is achieved by working according to policy and guidelines under “The National Occupational Standards for Social work” However the agency had no clear role for Social work as such.

Professionals are expected to work within boundaries set by the agency underpinned by the……………….. One could argue that the service offered is a cheap alternative to public services,

The purpose of the preceding has been to illustrate the impact of policy areas, frameworks and legislation that impact upon MARCs.

Bibliography 424

Carnwell, R., Buchanan, J, (2005) Effective Practice in Health and Social Care: A Partnership Approach. Open University Press. Maidenhead, United Kingdom

Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2003) Green Paper - Every Child Matters. London Stationary Office. Publication 5860

Communities and Local Government, (2008) Local Area Agreements. Accessed on 1 May 2008 from http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/localareaagreements/

Department of Health (2000) No Secrets: Guidance on Developing and Implementing Multi-Agency Policies and Procedures to Protect Vulnerable Adults from Abuse. Department of Health. London, United Kingdom

Every Child Matters Change for Children (2008) About integrated services. Accessed on 27 April 2008 from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/multiagencyworking/integratedservices/

Everychildmatters.gov.uk (2008) Success Factors in multi-agency working. Accessed on 29 April 2008 from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/multiagencyworking/successfactors/

Farrell, M., Schmitt, M., Heinemann, G. (2001) Informal roles and the states of interdisciplinary team development. Vol. 15, No. 30. Journal of Interprofessional Care

Hardy, B.,Turrell, A., Wistow, G. (1992) Innovations in Community Care Management. Aldershot. Avebury, United Kingdom

HM Treasury (2008) Departmental Report Cm 6540. Accessed on 1 May 2005 from http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm65/6540/6540.pdf

Everychildmatters.gov.uk (2008) Success Factors in multi-agency working. Accessed on 29 April 2008 from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/multiagencyworking/successfactors/

Hudson, B. (2002) Interprofessionality in health and social care: the Achilles' heel of partnership. Vol. 16. Journal of Interprofessional Care

Improvement and Development Agency (2008) Introduction to local area agreements. Accessed on 1 May 2008 from http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=6908743

Leathard, A. (1994) Going Inter-professional Working Together for Health and Welfare. Routledge. London, United Kingdom

Leathard, A. (2003) Interprofessional Collaboration: From Policy to Practice in Health and Social Care. Brunner-Routledge. London, United Kingdom

Loxley, A. (1997) Collaboration in Health and Welfare: Working with Difference. Kingsley. London, United Kingdom

Marlow, A. and Pitts, J. (1998) Planning Safer Communities. Russell House Paylor Probation Journal.1998; 45: 175-176

Marshall, M., Preston, M, Scott, E., Wincott, P. (1979) Teamwork For and Against: An Appraisal of Multi-disciplinary Practice. British Association of Social Workers. London, United Kingdom

Martin, V. (2002) Managing Projects in Health and Social Care. Routledge. London, United Kingdom

National Health Service (2008) Home Page. Accessed on 30 April 2008 from http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx

NSF (2008) NSFs. Accessed on 30 April 2008 from http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=334&pid=929

Overtveit, J. (1990) Cooperation in Primary Health Care. Brunel Institute of Organisation and Social Studies. Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Owens, P., Carriers, J., Horder, J. (1995) Interprofessional Issues in Community and Primary Health Care. Macmillan. Basingstroke, United Kingdom

Signposts.org.uk Signposts Services. Accessed on 27 April 2008 from http://www.signposts.org.uk/SignpostsServices.htm

Southill, K. Mackay, L., Webb, C (1995) Interprofessional Relations in Health Care. Arnold. London, United Kingdom.

Stanley, N., Manthorpe, J. (2004) The Age of Inquiry: Learning and Blaming in Health and Social Care. Routledge. London, United Kingdom

Woodhouse, D., Pengelly, P. (1991) Anxiety and the Dynamics of Collaboration. Aberdeen University Press. Aberdeen,

Need an essay? You can buy essay help from us today!

Please rate the quality of this essay:

Thanks for your rating :)

Good

Neutral

Poor

Request the removal of this essay.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: