Integrated Social Needs Transport

Paul Lucas

Operational Service Planning Manager

How did ISNT start?

•Social Exclusion Unit – “Making the Connections” report

•Audit Commission suite of reports :

Non-emergency patient transport

Social Services transport

Special Educational Needs Transport

•Best Value Review

• What was the review’s objective?• “to enhance social inclusion by providing better, more

integrated and more cost-effective transport services to those people with special or social needs irrespective of the nature of the service originator, so that these people

can travel where they need to go at the time that they need

to be there.” or• “The provision of appropriate transport from where the client is now to where they want to be at the time when they

need it.”

What did we find?

•572 vehicles in Greater Manchester

•31 separate agencies involved in provision

•2m+ journeys made annually

•Population aged 60+ will increase from 511k to 579k by 2021

•Annual provision cost is in excess of £40m

DestinationsMost common destinations

Hospitals or welfare centres

7%

Social Services day centre or

club24%

Leisure outings15%

School or college

17%

Work destinations

7%

Shopping destinations

12%

Home (private dwellings)

13%

GPs5%

Other lessons we learned :- Health service costs of “Did not attends”

Community Transport operators potential

contribution

Pilot schemes

Comparative authorities

IT technology

Futures workshop

COSTS OF “DID NOT ATTENDS” AND OTHER LOCAL COSTS

• Audit Commission 2001 : £900m

• University of East London: £300m (DNA in England)

• GMPTE BVR: £50M in Greater Manchester

• Local Authority taxi budgets ******• Rates vary: 5% to 15% (Ulster Hospital, Belfast Study)

• Transport factors: Between 10% to 69%

• Norwich University Hospital stated that if 10% was transport related

this would represent locally:

• 3,033 DNA at a cost of £197,000 per year

Major influences…..

• Role of GMPTE– Social Exclusion role– Co-ordinator role– Market making

• Other stakeholders– Users– “Commissioners”– Providers– Other deliveries eg

consultants

• Role of Government– Legislation– Funding

• Other major considerations– Working practices– Cost model– Independence agenda– Mainstreaming of SEN

pupils– Local delivery of health

services– Driver qualification

COMPARISON OF CORE AND SPARE CAPACITIES

020406080

100120

1 2 3 4 5

Provider

Per

cen

tag

e

Spare

Core

• Work already ongoing– Manchester pilot project

– Sharing of premises

– Sharing of work

– Stakeholder engagement

– Call Centres

– It comparison

– Trust Fund

GMPTA ISNT Best Value ReviewGMPTA ISNT Best Value ReviewGMPTA ISNT Best Value ReviewGMPTA ISNT Best Value Review

Greater ManchesterONE STOP SHOP

CALL CENTRE

MobilityAuthorities

CommunityTransport

Generic DRTService

Providers

Social DRTService

Providers

Other FlexibleTransport.Service

Providers

Generic DRTService Users

Special DRTService Users

Administration /Public

Organisations

Associations /User Groups

Activity Centres

Agency Operators

Tra

nsp

ort E

nd-U

sers

Tran

spo

rt Service P

rovid

ers

- GMATL- District Vehicles

-GMAS

- Shared Taxi-Car Sharing-Arranged -Passenger-Transport

Mobili

ty A

uthorit

ies

- Shopping centres- Employment, ...

- Hospitals, ...

- Charities, ...- Voluntary Assoc., ...- Communities, ...

GMATLTaxi Cabs

Elderly People ...

-

- Health services, ...- Social services, ...- ...

Information on Low Floor Buses

Bus informationTicket informationGeneral Enquiries

      

   

INTEGRATED SOCIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTPresent Customer access lines

Retail Day Centre

Hospital Education

Community Transport

R & RSocial

ServicesPTS LEA

Private Sector

Customer

One-stop shop

INTEGRATED SOCIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTProposed customer access process

Retail Day Centre

Hospital Education

Community Transport

R & RSocial

ServicesPTS LEA

Private Sector

Customer