EPA Submitted Documents

1. Project Purpose

This Terms of Reference (ToR) governs Phase 2 of the SWANN SPoR (Spot, Prevent, Observe, Respond) programme at Shropshire Council. Phase 2 has been initiated to design and implement the digital and data infrastructure required to make the SWANN early-intervention pathway functional, measurable and scalable.

Phase 1 of the SWANN programme launched in October 2024 with three commissioned providers (ICE Creates / Live Well Shropshire, British Red Cross, Community Resource). Phase 1 has not performed as intended: professional referrer uptake is near-zero from two of three providers, a significant referral backlog has accumulated, and there is no data infrastructure to evidence demand deflection. Phase 2 exists to address these failures structurally, not symptomatically.

2. Objectives

• Implement an electronic referral form (professional and self-referral) on the Dynamics 365 portal.
• Enable providers to access and update referrals directly in CRM, replacing the email-based feedback process.
• Establish a Power BI monitoring dashboard for contract and quality management.
• Transition the self-referral pathway from soft launch to full public access.
• Improve CRM data capture (signposting recording; next of kin field).
• Assess feasibility of Liquid Logic assessment note (for senior governance decision; not in delivery scope).

3. Scope

In scope:

• All six Phase 2 development priorities (Workstreams A through F as defined above)
• Requirements specification for each workstream
• Governance and project management (RAID log, POAP, weekly meetings)
• Stakeholder engagement with all project team members and provider partners

Explicitly out of scope:

• Operational delivery of Phase 1 referrals (Customer Services and providers)
• Provider contract management and formal performance proceedings
• Implementation and mobilisation of commissioned services
• Liquid Logic integration delivery (separate senior governance decision required)

4. Governance

The Phase 2 project is governed through the SWANN Phase 2 Wednesday weekly meeting series, chaired by Lisa Middleton (Commissioning Officer). The POAP (Plan on a Page) operates as the standing governance document, updated weekly and shared with all team members via SharePoint. The RAID log is the formal risk and decision record, maintained by David Agyei.

Strategic owner: TBC. This is documented as RAID risk R_003. Lisa Middleton holds effective accountability for operational and commissioning decisions within Phase 2. Escalation above commissioning level is currently routed through Steve Humphrey (PMO), pending formal strategic owner confirmation.

5. Roles and Responsibilities

6. Sign-Off

1. Purpose of This Analysis

This cost avoidance analysis has been produced to support the Phase 2 business case and EPA project proposal. It sets out the financial rationale for investing in Phase 2 infrastructure (electronic referral form, dashboard, provider access) in the context of Shropshire Council's financial emergency and its strategic focus on early intervention.

Cost avoidance, rather than direct savings, is the appropriate financial frame for this programme. SWANN's value is what it prevents: formal Care Act assessments, short-term reablement episodes, long-term home care packages and residential placements that would otherwise occur without early community intervention. Phase 2's infrastructure makes this avoidance measurable for the first time.

2. Escalation Pathways and Unit Costs

3. Deflection Rate Evidence

A 20% deflection rate has been used as the baseline assumption. This is the lower end of the range evidenced in NHS England social prescribing evaluation studies (2022/23), which report deflection rates of 20% to 40% across community-based prevention programmes. The 20% figure is deliberately conservative to avoid overstating the case.

A 60% eligible-for-care-package rate is applied to those who avoid escalation. This is based on NHS Digital adult social care data, which shows that approximately 60% of people who receive a formal Care Act assessment go on to receive a care package. The 40% who do not would still benefit from cost avoidance at the assessment stage.

4. Illustrative Calculation

5. Budget Position

Phase 2 requests no additional budget. All development is within existing ICT and commissioning resource. The Dynamics 365 licence is already in place. The CRM team (Kate Hobbs, Katie Done) are absorbing Phase 2 development within existing capacity. There is no new spend. The cost avoidance case therefore represents net value: 390,000 pounds per year from zero additional investment.

6. What Phase 2 Makes Possible (and Phase 1 Could Not Evidence)

Currently, SWANN cannot produce a single report showing how many people were referred, what happened to them, and whether they avoided escalation to statutory services. This is not a reporting problem. It is a data architecture problem. Phase 2 builds the architecture. Once the referral form routes data into CRM, and providers record outcomes in CRM, and the dashboard draws from CRM, the evidence chain is complete. The 390,000 pound figure is illustrative of what will become measurable, not what is currently proven.

7. Five Outstanding Questions for Lisa Middleton

1. What is the actual annual volume of SWANN referrals completed since October 2024?
2. What proportion were professional referrals versus self-referrals?
3. What is the approximate conversion rate from referral to sustained engagement?
4. What is the average number of contacts per referral?
5. Are there any cases where a referrer has reported that SWANN prevented a statutory assessment or care package?

Meeting scheduled: 23 June 2026. Answers will replace proxy assumptions with real Shropshire data.

8. EPA Alignment Note

This document was submitted as part of the EPA project proposal (5 June 2026). It evidences financial management (S3.1), data interpretation (S9.2) and analytical rigor in conditions of genuine uncertainty. The decision to label all assumptions as proxies and identify the specific questions that would make the analysis real is itself evidence of professional standards.

Prepared by David Agyei, Senior Business Analyst, PMO. Draft v0.1, 28 May 2026. Sent to Lisa Middleton for review ahead of the 1 June meeting and submitted with the EPA portfolio.

By September 2026, the SWANN SPoR service will be operating as a fully accessible, provider-accountable early-intervention pathway.

Specifically:

Three questions for Lisa Middleton

These three points require Lisa's input before the outcome statement can be finalised.

1. Response time standards (Outcome 2): do the existing provider contracts set a benchmark for response or acknowledgement times, or is this something we need to define as part of Phase 2?
2. Referral volume targets (Outcome 3): do you have any existing demand projections or referral volume targets from the commissioning stage? Even an indicative figure would allow the cost-avoidance analysis to be completed.
3. September 2026 horizon: does this work for the commissioning cycle and for the contracts framework, or would you want to adjust any of the above outcomes to an earlier or later date?

This document was submitted with the EPA portfolio for Assessment Method 2. It maps all 25 KSBs for the Project Proposal, Presentation and Questioning assessment to specific evidence locations in the submitted proposal and the 13-slide presentation.

Key: Pass = meets pass grading descriptor. Pass + Distinction = meets both pass and distinction grading descriptors.

KSB Group 1: Planning Your Project Proposal

KSBs: K1.1, K1.2, K1.4, K10.2, S1.1, S1.3, S4.3, B3.1, B3.2

KSB Group 2: Delivery of Their Project Proposal

KSBs: K1.5, K2.1, K2.2, K9.1, K10.1, S1.2, S2.1, S2.2, S2.3, S7.1, S9.2, S10.1, S10.2

KSB Group 3: Project Proposal Output

KSBs: K3.1, S1.5, S3.1, S6.3, B3.4