Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Date: Thursday 15 September 2011
Time: 2:00pm
Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich
Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.
Membership
Miss C Casimir (Chairman)
Mr R Bearman Mrs J Leggett Dr A Boswell Mr W Nunn Mr B Bremner Mr M Scutter Mr M Brindle Mr B Spratt Mrs J Chamberlin (Vice-Chairman) Mr T Tomkinson Mrs S Gurney Miss J Virgo Ms D Irving Mr P Wells Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr A Wright
Parent Governor Representatives
Mr P East Dr L Poliakoff
Church Representatives
Mrs J O’Connor Mr A Mash
Non-Voting Schools Forum Representative
Dr B Carrington
Non-Voting Cabinet Member
Mrs A Thomas
Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Member
Mr T Garrod Vulnerable Children Mr B Stone Education To view reports click on links shown in blue
Non-Voting Co-opted Advisors
Mr S Adamson Norfolk Governors Network Ms J Butler Special Needs Education Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr L Poulson Post-16 Education Ms C Smith Secondary Education
For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Kristen Jones on 01603 223053 or email [email protected]
For Public Questions and Local Member Questions please contact: Committees Team on [email protected] or telephone 01603 223053 A g e n d a
1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending
2. Minutes (Page 1)
To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel held on 14 July 2011.
3. Members to Declare any Interests
Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is prejudicial. A declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest, the member may speak and vote on the matter. Please note that if you are exempt from declaring a personal interest because it arises solely from your position on a body to which you were nominated by the County Council or a body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority), you need only declare your interest if and when you intend to speak on a matter.
If a prejudicial interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, in which case you may attend the meeting for that purpose. You must immediately leave the room when you have finished or the meeting decides you have finished, if earlier.
These declarations apply to all those members present, whether the member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.
4. To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency
5. Public Question Time
Fifteen minutes for questions from members of the public of which due notice has been given.
Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team ([email protected] or 01603 223053) by 5pm on Monday 12 September 2011. For guidance on submitting public questions, please view the Council Constitution, Appendix 10.
6. Local Member Issues/Member Questions
Fifteen minutes for local members to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given. Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team ([email protected] or 01603 223053) by 5pm on Monday 12 September 2011.
7. Cabinet Member Feedback
Scrutiny Items
8. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny (Page 19)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Overview Items
9. Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan following the (Page 27) Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
10. How the shared service for Customer Services and (Page 75) communications supports the work of Children’s Services generally, and in its requirement to consult and engage Children and Young People
Report by the Head of Customer Services and Communications
11. Norfolk Children’s Services: Draft Corporate Parenting Placement (Page 84) Strategy 2011-14
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
12. Proposed changes to Post-16 Transport policy principles and (Page ) eligibility criteria system The Chairman has agreed to extend the questions deadline for this item - all questions must be received by 12 noon on Wednesday 14 September. Report by the Director of Children’s Services
13. Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance (Page 97) Monitoring Draft report for 2011-2012
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
14. Education Capital Funding (Page 111)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services and Head of Finance
15. Consultation on School Funding Reform: Proposals for a fairer (Page 118) system
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
16. Fair Funding Consultation (Page 137) Report by the Director of Children’s Services
17. Trends in Pupil Exclusions from Norfolk Schools (Page 142)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
18. Consultations on proposals to change the current pattern of (Page 161) school organisation in 4 separate locations
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
19. Update on Strategy to Combat Racism and Promote Inter-cultural (Page 186) Understanding
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Group Meetings
Conservative 1:00 pm Colman Room Liberal Democrats 1:00 pm Room 504
Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH
Date Agenda Published: 7 September 2011
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Minutes of the Meeting Held on Thursday 14 July 2011
Present:
Miss C Casimir (Chairman)
Mr R Bearman Mr W Nunn Mr B Bremner Mr M Scutter Mr M Brindle Mr B Spratt Mrs J Chamberlin Mr T Tomkinson Mr M Kiddle-Morris Miss J Virgo Mr M Langwade Mr P Wells Mr S Little Mr A Wright
Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative:
Dr B Carrington
Non-Voting Cabinet Member:
Mrs A Thomas
Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Members:
Mr T Garrod Vulnerable Children Mr B Stone Education
Non-Voting Co-Opted Advisors:
Ms J Butler Special Schools Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Ms C Smith Secondary Education
County Councillors Also in Attendance:
Mr B Hannah
1. Chairman’s Announcements
1.1 The Chairman noted the Panel’s thanks to Mrs Janet Murphy in her previous role as Deputy Cabinet Member for Education. She welcomed Mr Barry Stone and congratulated him on taking up this role.
1.2 The Chairman welcomed Ms Chrissie Smith and Ms Janet Butler as Co- opted Advisors and thanked Mr Large and Mrs Rowlinson for their contributions to the Panel.
1.3 The Chairman announced that after Council on Monday 25 July there would be a presentation by representatives from the Norfolk In Care Council. They aimed to raise awareness of the work they were doing, the profile of children and young people in care and to showcase some of their achievements to date. Members would have an opportunity to raise questions and were encouraged to attend in their role as Corporate Parents.
2. Apologies and substitutions
2.1 Apologies were received from Dr Boswell (Mr Little substituting), Mrs Gurney (Mr Langwade substituting), Ms Irving, Mrs Murphy, Mr East, Dr Poliakoff, Mrs O’Connor, Mr Mash, Mr Adamson, and Mr Poulson.
3. Minutes
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2011 were agreed by the Panel and signed as an accurate record of the meeting.
4. Declarations of Interests
4.1 Mr Bearman declared a personal interest in Item 12 as he was a member of Foster Panel.
4.2 Mr Garrod declared a personal interest in Item 12 as he was a member of Foster Panel.
4.3 Mrs Thomas declared a personal interest in Item 11 as she was a member of Adoption Panel.
5. Items of Urgent Business
5.1 There were no items of urgent business.
6. Public Question Time
6.1 There were no public questions.
7. Local Member Issues/Member Questions
7.1 There were no Local Member Issues/Member Questions.
8. Cabinet Member Feedback
8.1 The Cabinet Member said that the results of the Ofsted announced inspection would be available on 22 July and this report would be brought to the September Overview & Scrutiny Panel. She thanked all staff for their professionalism over the two weeks of the inspection. It had been a productive two-way process which had resulted in a constructive approach for the service to improve further.
8.2 The Cabinet Member noted that due to the teacher strike action and the first day of the Norfolk Show taking place on the same day, students were already out of school, many attending the Norfolk Show. She noted that over 400 Looked After Children (LAC) attended the Norfolk Show with their carers and this was made possible by the Council in its role as Corporate Parent.
Scrutiny Items
9. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny
9.1 The annexed report (8) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report asked Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny.
9.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
Members suggested that a scrutiny of the impact of the cuts to the Youth Service be placed on the Forward Work Programme. The Director of Children’s Services suggested that it would be advisable to carry out a scoping exercise and added that the Youth Advisory Boards would not be up and running before the end of the year.
It was noted that there was an ongoing Cabinet Scrutiny Committee scrutiny exercise which would next be reported on in January 2012.
RESOLVED:
9.3 To agree the scrutiny topics and reporting dates as outlined in the report. No further topics were added to the Forward Work Programme.
Overview Items
10. Ofsted Annual Unannounced Inspection of Contact, Referral and Assessment
10.1 The annexed report (9) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the Assistant Director (Strategy & Commissioning, Safeguarding & Additional Needs) was available to answer questions from Members. The report provided the Panel with an update following the report to Panel of 12 May 2011 on the Ofsted Unannounced Inspection of Contact, Referral and Assessment, and to report on the Improvement Plan to address Areas for Development and the progress being made.
10.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
The Director of Children’s Services stated that both the unannounced and announced inspection findings would be rolled up into one report and brought to the September Panel meeting. She stated that she was confident that the action plan, which formed part of the upcoming report would lead to a better outcome and that her team were organising and planning to deliver the improvements outlined within this document.
Members made the point that many of the areas for development seemed to relate to the level of resources available, such as a lack of staff, and they asked what steps were being taken to address this. The Assistant Director responded that the strengthening of process and systems in line with the Department of Education’s ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ revised guidance would address this issue.
Members noted that one area for development stated that some assessments were undertaken by unqualified staff which was not in accordance with statutory guidance. The Assistant Director corrected this statement to say that the service was compliant with statutory guidance. He added that child protection core assessments were always led by qualified staff.
Members asked about the data cleansing process and the Assistant Director responded that work was taking place to ensure that data was entered into the system accurately.
In response to a Member question, the Assistant Director stated that the Eastern Safeguarding Project was a consortium of eleven local authorities in the East of England. Each local authority was given funds to improve service delivery and with the consortium, they shared their experiences to improve further. Funding originated from the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership.
In response to a Member question about re-employing social workers who had been made redundant, the Director of Children’s Services stated that the service had not made any safeguarding social workers redundant.
Members asked whether councillors and other partners were aware of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and that they were able to raise concerns they had with children or families. The Assistant Director stated that the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board had taken responsibility for driving the CAF approach across the partner organisations.
Members asked whether there was any core assessments which were significantly overdue. The Director of Children’s Services replied that there were still core assessments which were not on time but she felt that it was more important that quality was focussed on more than speed.
Members asked whether Children in Need and Child Protection Plans now had clear measurable outcomes and timescales and individual contingency plans. The Assistant Director stated that the service was working towards SMART plans (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely). The Cabinet Member added that as a member of the Adoption Panel she had the opportunity to read reports and study the quality of the report writing, which enabled her to identify strong areas and also areas for improvement.
Members highlighted that the issues around culture and ethnicity were raised in the areas for development in last year’s OFSTED report. The Assistant Director acknowledged this and said that a series of workshops at the University of East Anglia (UEA) for first level managers was already booked and this training would continue through the autumn.
It was highlighted that the success criteria for one area of development relating to the auditing systems and sustained improvement across all teams needed to be more concrete and explicit. The Assistant Director agreed and said that he would improve this statement.
Members asked whether CareFirst was more usable now that some of the planned improvements had been carried out. The Assistant Director stated that a better version of CareFirst was due to be implemented and work was currently being carried out to simplify templates for assessment.
RESOLVED:
10.3 To note the report.
11. Annual Approval of the Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s Residential Children’s Homes and a Summary Review of the year
11.1 The annexed report (10) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager was available to answer questions from Members. The report was presented to the Panel to comply with the Children’s Home Regulations 2001 and meet the requirements prescribed in the Care Standard Act 2000, each children’s homes Statement of Purpose and Function must be approved annually by the registered provider. Members were asked to recommend the Statement of Purpose and Functions to Cabinet for the approval of full Council.
11.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
All Members voiced their congratulations for the very good work carried out by the service and the tremendous job by the staff in the children’s homes to achieve the results received in their last OFSTED inspections.
The Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager replied to a Member question about the changes that had taken place over the past year. He said that there had been big changes, including the closing of one of the children’s homes on Harvey Lane. However, the fourteen children who were directly affected by this were not affected in a detrimental way and one particular case had been quite positive for the child.
Members said they were pleased that the restorative approach had been embraced and had been so successful. The Cabinet Member agreed and said that she was very supportive of using restorative approaches. She wished to see these methods rolled out more and more and she thanked the team for taking it forward.
Members stated that it was important that more was done to bring Looked After Children back in-county as it was felt that this would provide better outcomes overall for children with better value for money. The Director of Children’s Services acknowledged this and stated that the residential strategy had already resulted in additional provision in- county. In many cases, if a child was settled out-of-county it may not be in the child’s best interests to disrupt their situation.
RESOLVED:
11.3 To recommend the Statement of Purpose and Functions for all the Local Authority children’s homes to Cabinet for approval to comply with the Care Standard Act 2002.
11.4 To formally record congratulations to all managers and staff at Norfolk’s Residential Children’s Homes for their good work and results from the past year’s OFSTED inspections.
12. Statement of Purpose – Norfolk County Council Adoption Agency Annual Review
12.1 The annexed report (11) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager was available to answer questions from Members. The report was presented to the Panel to comply with the statutory requirement to publish and regularly update a document which described the ethos and goals of the adoption service, its management and oversight arrangements and the experience of its staff. The Statement of Purpose was a public document, approved by the County Council each year before being made to adoptive families, adopted children, their birth parents and guardians, adopted parents and staff working in the field of adoption. It was also inspected by OFSTED.
12.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
It was noted that the service had been assessed by OFSTED as ‘outstanding’. The Director of Children’s Services stated that she was very proud but there were still areas of the service that could improve and she wanted to achieve consistency across the service.
It was noted that while the service struggled to recruit adoptive families, it was achieving very good results for those children that were placed through the service. There would be a further adoption awareness campaign in October to encourage potential adoptive families to consider adoption and contact the Adoption Service for more information. The Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager stated that there were issues locally and nationally that affected people’s motivation for adopting.
The Director of Children’s Services added that she recently attended the annual Directors of Children’s Services conference where the Family Justice Review was discussed. She said that this could result in big changes to the court process to improve pace and consistency, affecting the adoption process.
Members requested that the statistical breakdown of data which was provided in past years continue to be provided in future reports. The Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager, who had only recently come into post, stated that this would normally be the case but he had not had the opportunity to prepare this. He added that this information would be published on the internet. This information is attached at Appendix A and B.
RESOLVED:
12.3 To recommend the Statement of Purpose 2011 to Cabinet and the full Council for approval.
12.4 To formally thank the independent members who served on the Adoption Panel for their significant commitment.
13. Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s Fostering Services Annual Review
13.1 The annexed report (12) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager was available to answer questions from Members. The report contained the Statement of Purpose which was a public document, approved by the County Council before being made available to foster families, fostered children, their birth parents and guardians, and staff working in the field of fostering. It was also inspected by OFSTED.
13.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
Members queried whether the number of foster families coming forward had increased following recruitment campaigns. The Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager stated that both the number and quality of foster families were important. He stated that indicative levels of payment were presented at the beginning of the process, and not at the end.
The Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager clarified that in regards to the staffing reductions , regular supervision took place by qualified staff every six weeks with the team manager in attendance.
Although the last inspection was carried out over three years ago, the Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager said that he personally assessed the service to be between ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’. By the next inspection in approximately 18 months, he aimed to achieve an ‘outstanding’ OFSTED rating.
RESOLVED:
13.3 To recommend the Statement of Purpose 2011 to Cabinet and the full Council for approval.
14. Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board
14.1 The annexed report (13) by the Independent Chair of the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board, Dr Caroline Ball, was received and she was available to answer questions from Members. The report sought to inform Members about the role and responsibilities of the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board (NSCB) for which the local authority had statutory responsibility (Children Act 2004, s13), and key proposals in the Munro Review of Children Protection which could impact on the work of the NSCB.
14.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
Dr Ball shared details of one of the multi-agency reviews and the issues highlighted following this review. She explained what the NSCB learned from these reviews and how the learning was disseminated to improve partner agencies’ practice.
Dr Ball expressed how the multiple agencies involved in the NSCB worked very closely together and how, in Norfolk, there was a good level of cooperation between agencies. The Director of Children’s Services added that the recent inspection report had included comments about the quality of communication. The multi-agency reviews had also influenced the creation of the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).
Members requested to view the NSCB Risk Register which was being produced following the workshop on 23 June 2011. This workshop identified risks to children arising from service reductions. Dr Ball agreed that this would form part of the next report from NSCB to the Panel next year as she and her team were still analysing feedback from the workshop. The Cabinet Member added that this would be considering the cumulative effect of changes in the police, the NHS and other partner agencies as well.
RESOLVED:
14.3 To note the report and to recognise NCC’s responsibility to ensure the NSCB fulfilled its functions.
15. Children’s Services Integrated Performance & Finance Outturn for 2010- 11
15.1 The annexed report (14) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the Assistant Director for Education Strategy and 0-19 Commissioning and the Assistant Director for Business and Compliance were available to answer questions from Members. The report provided an update on performance and finance monitoring information for the 2010-2011 financial year.
15.2 During the discussion Members questioned whether schools would have balances clawed back this year. The Assistant Director for Business and Compliance replied that this would not be the case this year. He said only 21 schools had overspent this year and this was down to better financial management on the part of schools.
RESOLVED:
To note the information contained in the report.
16. DfE Consultation on Proposed Changes to Admissions Arrangements
16.1 The annexed report (15) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the Assistant Director for Education Strategy and 0-19 Commissioning was available to answer questions from Members. The report summarised the recently launched consultation on proposed changes to admission arrangements and suggested responses to the main issues raised. The consultation was supported by two significantly revised draft codes covering Admissions and Admission Appeals. The key change related to in-year admissions and the proposal that schools take over the administration of all in- year admissions.
16.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
The Admissions Forum had considered the draft documents immediately after the launch of the consultation and would be formulating a separate response.
The Department for Education’s Question 1 asked “Do you agree that the new Codes achieve these aims?” The aims included removing duplication and sections of the Code which were open to interpretation, making the Code easier to read and understand, and reduce bureaucracy, and therefore, cost. Members did not feel the new Code achieved these aims because the removal of previous statutory requirements on the Code may make admission arrangements more open to interpretation and previous Codes sought to improve fairness and transparency in the process by introducing greater prescription. It was noted that recent Schools Adjudicator annual reports had indicated that the process had significantly improved in recent years.
Question 2 asked “Do you agree with the proposals to allow all popular and successful schools to increase their Published Admission Number?” Members again felt that they should disagree with this proposal. They referred to the point highlighted in the report which said if significant numbers of schools decided to exercise this new power this would have a significant impact on Norfolk’s ability to strategically plan sufficient provision and improve standards.
Question 3 asked “Do you agree that Academies and Free Schools should be able to give priority to children attracting the Pupil Premium in their admission arrangements?” Some Members said they felt that certain schools should not be favoured.
Question 4 asked “Do you support the proposal to remove the requirement for local authorities to co-ordinate in-year applications?” One of the implications of this, as outlined in the report, was that if schools did not provide full information about admission decisions children may disappear from the system and this had the potential to adversely affect the work of the County Council to minimise children missing education and would impact the ability to safeguard children. Members felt this was dangerous as schools already had so many administrative tasks that it was not wise to add to these. The Cabinet Member agreed and felt that the Council’s response to this question should be that it did not support this change.
It was noted that the consultation opened in late May and closed on 19 August. Everyone was encouraged to contribute to the consultation before the closing date.
The Assistant Director for Education Strategy and 0-19 Commissioning stated that he would ensure that the Panel’s comments were incorporated into the report to Cabinet.
RESOLVED:
16.3 To note the report and that comments made would be incorporated into the report to Cabinet.
17. Enabling Local Communities to meet Young People’s Needs
17.1 The annexed report (16) by the Director of Children’s Services was received and the 11-19 Strategy & Commissioning Manager and the Assistant Director for Education Strategy and 0-19 Commissioning were available to answer questions from Members. The report provided the Panel with a summary of the commissioning intentions related to enabling local communities to meet young people’s needs and an update on the process of the wider discussions taking place about the Council’s intensions and the next steps in the commissioning process.
17.2 During the discussion the following points were noted:
Members were concerned that there was an expectation that the local community would step in and fill the funding and resource gap and questioned the evidence of this.
Some Members felt that the funding used to set up the Youth Advisory Boards (YAB) could be better used on services. They felt that the needs were already known and it would be some time until these YABs were up and running, causing unnecessary delay. The Youth Service budget was cut in February 2011 and the service was winding down until it ceased on 1 June 2011, which some Members felt was some time without any services available. The 11-19 Strategy & Commissioning Manager said that the YABs would take some time to be established and it was important that the funding from the grant was spent this year. The Deputy Cabinet Member for Education felt that the YABs would be set up relatively quickly and he did not feel as though the needs of young people were fully known and the creating of the YABs was important to understanding these needs. The Deputy Cabinet Member for Vulnerable Children stated that there had been four consultation events around the county and from these he had noted that the provision across districts varied tremendously. He felt it was important for the policy to be as flexible as possible. He said that Breckland’s Youth Council was a very effective one but those in other areas may not be. Therefore the implementation of YABs would consider what was available across districts and what was not. It also gave an opportunity for other groups to bid for funding to provide services even if there was a effective voluntary group already in the area. In future, YABs would allow young people to decide where the funding was spent. Some Members agreed that the YABs may help especially in deprived areas.
Members asked how the grant was being provided for Momentum (an organisation coordinating support for voluntary sector youth groups and previously known as ‘Norfolk Council for Voluntary Youth Services’). Some Members suggested that the funding should be directly allocated to the YABs and the additional layer of bureaucracy could be removed. The 11-19 Strategy & Commissioning Manager replied that Momentum were key in providing the training programme for adults working with young people and did not only distribute the grant funding to youth groups. The Cabinet Member added that Momentum provided stability through the current transitional period.
The Cabinet Member stated that a report would be presented to Cabinet in September and all comments would be incorporated into this to ensure a balanced proposal was presented. She said she was keeping an open mind and was taking in all of the comments made.
RESOLVED:
17.3 To note the report and have their comments incorporated into the Cabinet report in September.
The meeting concluded at 16:45.
CHAIRMAN
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011
(textphone) and we will do our best to help. APPENDIX A
Action Note Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 14 July 2011
Agenda Report Title Action Item Number/ Minute Number 11 Statement of Purpose – Members requested that the statistical breakdown of data which was provided in past years Norfolk County Council continue to be provided in future reports. The Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Adoption Agency Annual Operations Manager, who had only recently come into post, stated that this would normally be Review the case but he had not had the opportunity to prepare this. He added that this information would be published on the internet.
RESPONSE: Please see the requested information at Appendix B.
APPENDIX B
Norfolk County Council Adoption Agency
Annual Statistical Report
1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011
ADOPTION AGENCIES REGULATIONS 2005
APPENDIX B
ADOPTION ORDERS GRANTED
Norfolk Children Adopted from Care 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09
Total 31* 60 51 Child’s Age 0 -11 months 18 02 00 1 – 3 years 16 35 40 4 – 8 years 14 22 11 9+ years 01 01 00 Gender Male 18 30 23 Female 13 30 28 Special Placement Needs 03 35 19 Minority Ethnic Group 01 03 02 Sibling Groups 3x2 8x2 5x2 2x3 2x3
SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP ORDERS
Alternative Permanence Option for 11 24 19 Children (especially suitable for birth relatives)
ADOPTION PLACEMENT DISRUPTIONS
Disruptions of Norfolk Approved Adoptive Placements - Before Adoption Order granted 03 00 02 - After Adoption Order granted 00 01 01
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
% children adopted last year who were placed for adoption within 12 months of a 60.6% 70% 74.5% plan being approved % looked after children under 16 living in same placement for 2+ years or placed for 72.1% - 68.7% adoption % children looked after adopted 5.4% N/A N/A
APPENDIX B
CHILDREN MATCHED FOR ADOPTION
Matches approved through the 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 Adoption and Permanence Panel Norfolk Children with AFFU Families 48 30 37 Norfolk Children with Other Agencies’ 07 15 19 Families Other Agencies’ Children with Norfolk 01 01 01 Families Total 56 46 57
DETAILS OF NORFOLK CHILDREN MATCHED FOR ADOPTION
Age when Matched - 0 – 11 months 11 06 07 - 1 – 3 years 33 27 34 - 4 – 8 years 11 12 14 - 9+ years 00 00 01 Gender Male 27 21 28 Female 28 24 25 Special Placement Needs 02 32 13 Minority Ethnic Group 1 5 3 Sibling Groups 9x2 6x2 5x2 1x3 Children Joining Siblings 5 4 5
PERMANENT FOSTERING
Families Approved as Permanent Foster 02 05 03 Carers Children Approved for Permanent 02 07 10 Fostering Children Matched for Permanent Fostering 09 08 12
APPENDIX B
PLANNING FOR CHILDREN
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 Consultation meetings on planning for 92 34 adoption Number of children involved N/K 90 70 Direct work programmes by AFFU staff 16 38 40 - numbers of children
APPROVAL OF CHILDREN’S PLANS FOR ADOPTION
Through the Adoption and Permanence Panel
Total children approved for Adoption 82 49 54 Of which number are relinquished children 01 06 Variation in plans for Adoption – - Adoption Plan withdrawn 01 02 05
DETAILS OF CHILDREN
- 0 – 11 months 37 19 20 - 1 – 3 years 30 17 24 - 4 – 8 years 14 13 10 - 9+ years 01 Gender Male 30 26 29 Female 44 23 25 Special Placement Needs N.A 23 26 Minority Ethnic Group 04 03 04 Sibling Groups 13x2 8x2 8x2 1x3 1x4 1x4
ADOPTION SUPPORT WORK
Counselling Adopted Adults 237 194 167 Birth Relative Intermediary Service 118 115 97 (contacting adopted relatives) Adoption Contact Cases 144 117 93 Letterbox – Adopter-Birth Family 1473 1467 1303 Exchanges
APPENDIX B
ASSESSMENT OF ADOPTIVE FAMILIES
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 Families attending Information Meetings 176 157 137 Initial Assessment visits undertaken 65 60 52 Families not taken forward 22 18 22 Participants in Preparation Groups 41 56 36 Home Study Assessments terminated 10 06 37
APPROVAL OF ADOPTIVE FAMILIES
Domestic Adopters 38 33 34 Inter-Country Adopters 04 02 01 In-Family (Step-Parent) Adopters 13 15 15 Families rejected by Panel/Agency 01 00 01 Decision-Maker
ADOPTERS’ ETHNIC ORIGIN
White British 50 61 White European 04 03 White Other 02 03 Black/Asian 01 01
DETAILS OF CHILDREN FOR WHOM APPROVED
For children up to 3 years 67 08 19 For children up to 8 years 14 25 15 For Sibling Groups 13x2 11x2 6x2 1x3 1x3 1x4 For children from overseas 04 02 01
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 15 September 2011 Item No. 8 Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary This report asks Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny
1. The Programme
1.1. The Outline Programme for Scrutiny (Appendix A) has been updated to show progress since the 14 July 2011 Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
1.2 Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel can add new topics to the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria below: -
(i) High profile – as identified by: Members (through constituents, surgeries, etc) Public (through surveys, Citizen’s Panel, etc) Media External inspection (Audit Commission, Ombudsman, Internal Audit, Inspection Bodies)
(ii) Impact – this might be significant because of: The scale of the issue The budget that it has The impact that it has on members of the public (this could be either a small issue that affects a large number of people or a big issue that affects a small number of people)
(iii) Quality – for instance, is it: Significantly under performing An example of good practice Overspending
(iv) It is a Corporate Priority
1.3 All Overview & Scrutiny Panel members may put forward considered proposals for a future scrutiny review. Such proposals will need to include supporting information and an outline of the objectives that may be achieved. The Scrutiny Planning Group will consider all proposals in the light of the guidance contained in paragraph 1.2 above and seek further information where necessary. The Group will then report back to the Panel recommending approval to add items to the scrutiny forward programme on the basis of their relative priorities.
2 Planning the Forward Programme
2.1 The Scrutiny Planning Group met on 25 July and 15 August to consider and identify suitable topics for scrutiny arising from the outcome of the recent OFSTED inspections of Children’s Services. The Planning Group felt that Members should take an active role in monitoring the implementation of the action plan arising from these inspections. It agreed that this should be undertaken by an overview working group which will include members of the Scrutiny Planning Group. A draft Terms of Reference for the proposed working group is attached (Appendix B). 2.2 The OFSTED report assessed Looked after Children Being Healthy and Economic Well Being as inadequate and the Scrutiny Planning Group felt that both topics should be added to the forward programme of scrutiny items. In doing so it recognised that further work would be needed to scope the topics and this could be best achieved in the light of progress on the action plan. 2.3 The Scrutiny Planning Group agreed to make the following recommendations to the Panel:- To approve the terms of reference and appoint a working group to monitor the implementation of the OFSTED action plan. Add items on Looked after Children Being Healthy and Economic Well Being to the forward programme of scrutiny items.
3 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
3.1 The crime and disorder implications of the various scrutiny topics will be considered when the scrutiny takes place
4 Equality Impact Assessment
4.1 This report is not directly relevant to equality, in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups.
5 Any Other implications
5.1 Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
Action Required
(1) To consider the attached Outline Programme (Appendix A) and agree the scrutiny topics listed and reporting dates.
(2) To consider and approve the recommendations from the Scrutiny Planning Group to: Approve the terms of reference and appoint a working group to monitor the implementation of the OFSTED action plan. Add items on Looked after Children Being Healthy and Economic Well Being to the forward programme of scrutiny items. (3) The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is invited to consider whether there are any further new topics for inclusion on the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria at para 1.2.
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Name Telephone Number Email address
Mick Sabec 01603 223499 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A Outline Programme for Scrutiny
Standing Item for Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel: Update for 15 September 2011 This is only an outline programme and will be amended as issues arise or priorities change Scrutiny is normally a two-stage process: • Stage 1 of the process is the scoping stage. Draft terms of reference and intended outcomes will be developed as part of this stage. • The Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Panel or a Member Group will carry out the detailed scrutiny but other approaches can be considered, as appropriate (e.g. ‘select committee’ style by whole O&S Panel). • On the basis that the detailed scrutiny is carried out by a Member Group, Stage 2 is reporting back to the O&S Panel by the Group.
This Panel welcomes the strategic ambitions for Norfolk. These are: • A vibrant, strong and sustainable economy • Aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills • An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity
These ambitions inform the NCC Objectives from which scrutiny topics for this Panel will develop, as well as using the outlined criteria at para 1.2 above.
Changes to Programme from that previously submitted to the Panel on 14 July 2011
Added None Deleted None
Topic Outline Objective Cabinet Stage 1 Stage 2 Requested Comment Portfolio Terms of (report back by Area Reference to Panel) Scrutiny Items Outstanding/ Ongoing
1. Child Consider the impact of Lord Children’s To be To be Overview & Lord Laming’s report has been protection after Laming’s report on child Services determined determined Scrutiny superseded by the review of child Lord Laming’s protection referrals. Panel protection undertaken by Professor report Examine whether Children’s March 2010 Munro. The final report and Services are responding recommendations from this review has effectively to increased been published. The Norfolk Children’s levels of demand. Social Work Reform Project is already Identify priorities for the building on the spirit of the Munro future planning and review. A paper summarising the main resourcing of child aspects of the Munro review will be protection responsibilities in presented to the Panel in November. Norfolk. The implementation of the recommendations from the Munro review will be a significant and important area of work. Consequently a scrutiny review will be more effective and productive after Children’s Services has responded to the recommendations contained in Professor Munro’s report.
2. The take up Highlight the reasons why Children’s Not Not Overview & A report was made to the Panel at its of school young people are not taking Services applicable – applicable – Scrutiny meeting on 7 October 2010 on work meals & free school meals. scrutiny by scrutiny by Panel completed by a cross departmental school meals Identify any key factors full panel full panel March 2010 project examining all aspects of where improvements will school catering. result in a significant Changes in legislation will have an increase in the number of impact on the eligibility for free school meals taken. meals. However, the date for the changes in legislation is not yet known. The need for a scrutiny review will be considered by the Panel after changes in eligibility have been implemented. 3. Strategy to To be determined Children’s To be To be Overview & This topic was placed on the forward combat racism Services determined determined Scrutiny programme by the former Overview & and promote Panel Scrutiny Panel. inter cultural September A briefing paper was presented to the understanding 2006 Panel in March 2008. . A further report will be presented to this meeting of the Panel to provide an update of the current situation. In the light of this update the Panel is asked to determine whether it wishes to undertake further work in this area including a scrutiny review.
Scrutiny items completed since 2007
Date completed Topic Method May 2011 Energy, Environment & Education for Sustainable Development Full panel March 2011 Levels of attendance in schools Scrutiny working group March 2011 The recruitment and retention of head teachers Scrutiny working group July 2010 The development of diplomas (14-19 learning) Full panel July 2009 Consultation processes within Children’s Services Scrutiny working group July 2009 Portrayal of young people in the media Scrutiny working group January 2009 Area based youth services Scrutiny working group May 2008 Staff development in Children’s Services Scrutiny working group May 2008 Priorities for educational aspects of Children’s Services, developed as a result of Ofsted’s Full panel Annual Performance Assessment. March 2008 The number of Looked After Children Scrutiny working group March 2008 Financial management and reserves (in Children’s Services) Scrutiny working group May 2007 Education for children with medical needs Scrutiny working group May 2007 School balances Scrutiny working group
Appendix B
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel OVERVIEW Working Group Terms of Reference OFSTED Improvement Action Plan
Membership of the working group Cllr. Charlotte Casimir (Chairman) Cllr. Jenny Chamberlin (Vice Chairman) Cllr. Richard Bearman Cllr. Bert Bremner Cllr. Mike Brindle Observers Cllr. Alison Thomas Cllr. Tom Garrod Officer Support Mick Sabec Plus officers responsible for implementing specific aspects of the action plan Reasons for establishing the working group To facilitate Member involvement and ownership in overseeing and monitoring the implementation of the OFSTED improvement action plan. Purpose and objectives of the working group 1. To provide support for Children’s Services in the delivery of the improvements required by the OFSTED action plan. 2. To ensure that the action plan is implemented effectively and in a timely manner. Issues and questions to be addressed: 1. To identify any areas requiring further development including those that will benefit from a scrutiny review. 2. To ensure that priority is given to address key areas for improvement identified by the action plan. Outcomes: 1. Report back to the Panel on the successful implementation of all aspects of the improvements outlined by the action plan. 2. A briefing note and Council wide member briefing session on the implementation of the OFSTED improvement action plan and the work undertaken by Children’s Services and the working group. Deadlines and timetable: 1. Working group meetings of up two hours to commence from October 2011. 2. The Working Group will disband when the improvement action plan has been implemented and reviewed Terms of Reference agreed by Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel: Date:
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 15 September 2011 Item no 9
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan following the Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Report by Director of Children’s Services
Summary
This report provides Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel with an update on progress made following the Ofsted Unannounced Inspection of Contact, Referral and Assessment and the Ofsted Announced Inspection of Safeguarding and Looked After Children Services. In particular, it reports on the integrated Improvement Plan (attached at Appendix A), which addresses areas identified for development, progress already made and plans in place.
Action
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note the information contained in this report and agree the frequency of progress reporting.
1. Background
1.1 At the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 14 th July 2011, it was reported that Ofsted had conducted an Announced (short notice) Inspection of the Children’s Services safeguarding and looked after children services in June 2011. Ofsted’s report was published on 22 nd July 2011 and can be accessed on http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/local- authorities/norfolk
1.2 It was also reported that the actions necessary to address Areas for Development arising from the inspection would be consolidated with existing areas for development identified within the earlier Unannounced (no notice) Inspection of the Children’s Services contact, referral and assessment arrangements to create an integrated Improvement Plan.
1.3 The Integrated Improvement Plan is attached (see Appendix A).
2. Improvement Plan for Areas of Development
2.1 The inspection judged that both the safeguarding services and the services for looked after children were adequate. There were 10 separate judgements for safeguarding all of which were adequate and 10 for services for looked after children, 2 of which were good, 2 were inadequate and 6 were adequate.
2.2 The inspection report sets out a number of areas of improvement and gives timescales for completion for each, ranging from immediate action to action within 3 months and action within 6 months. These areas of improvement have been put together with those arising from the unannounced Ofsted inspection which took place in March to form the Improvement Plan.
2.3 The main body of the improvement plan is structured sequentially in sections that parallel the ‘journey of the child’ through the safeguarding and looked after system, starting with prevention and early intervention and ending with leaving care. These sections are framed with an opening section on corporate leadership and final section on professional development, recognising the central importance of these factors in delivering high quality services and improved outcomes for children and young people. The sections of the plan are :
• Corporate leadership: strengthening key aspects of partnership work
• Prevention and Early Intervention: improving co-ordination and integration and further embedding the use of the CAF across the county
• Contact and Referral: ensuring a timely and consistent response through a more joined up approach with key partner agencies
Assessment: improving both quality and timeliness of initial and core assessments
Care Planning: ensuring SMART planning with robust managerial oversight
• Health of Looked After Children: ensuring more timely notifications and health assessments of all Looked After Children. This was one of two areas judged to be inadequate by the inspection team
• Looked after Children and Leaving Care: improving sufficiency and processes relating to placements. The economic well-being of care leavers was the second area judged to be inadequate with the focus on the inadequacy of accommodation for a small number of 16 and 17 year-olds and limited training and employment opportunities for care leavers
• Professional development: strengthening professional knowledge and skills and ensuring that auditing systems lead to sustained improvement.
2.4 Within the improvement plan each of the above areas for development has a series of actions with timescales for their completion.
2.5 Section 3 of this report sets out progress already made against those areas of improvement which required an immediate response
2.6 There were some key actions that were taken at the time of the inspection which reassured the inspection team that we are committed to driving improvement at pace, this is reflected in the Final Report. These actions include the ‘immediate steps’ taken by Children’s Services to add safeguarding expertise to Care Connect to ensure a sufficiently ‘assured response’ between referral and initial assessment (see paragraph 12 in the Ofsted Report) and actions taken to address the problem of the small number of Looked After 16 and 17 year olds being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. (See paragraph 50 in the Ofsted Report)
2.7 Section 4 of this report sets out other related developments which will improve the quality of our services and contribute towards improved outcomes for children, young people, and their families.
3. Areas for Improvement – immediate action required
Safeguarding
3.1 The Ofsted report states “make the application of thresholds using the ‘priority matrix’ more consistent and clearly communicated to all partner agencies, ensuring consequent robust risk assessment and communication between Care Connect and the social care duty teams”.
3.2 The priority matrix is a tool used to determine the degree of risk and case type on referral and the degree of risk at subsequent points of transfer. Regrettably a few practitioners had begun to use it as a scoring mechanism to gatekeep and manage thresholds for service delivery. This was particularly evident in Care Connect where the level of child focused social care expertise was insufficient to ensure a robust response to referrals. We have taken a number of immediate actions to address this: • We placed a Children’s Services safeguarding manager in the Care Connect team during the inspection and have maintained that position since. She is embedding training within the team and is working with the Care Connect managers to ensure more effective and robust decisions are made • An audit of 100 cases handled by Care Connect has been undertaken and used to inform the development work put in place by the safeguarding manager • Child protection training for all Care Connect staff has been planned and will be delivered from 14 th September to 5 th October 2011 • Three experienced duty workers from Children’s Services have been located within Care Connect since 26 th June 2011
• A multi-agency workshop was held to review the priority matrix and the associated process map (Journey of a Child) on 5 July and amendments made to the documents • The amended priority matrix and “Journey of a Child” have been piloted in City and South division for one month until 31 st August 2011 • A meeting to review the outcome of the pilot will be held on 7 th September • Revised guidance will be sent to all partners and Local Safeguarding Children Group (LSCG) chairs by 30 th September. The LSCG chairs will be asked to agenda this at their next meeting so that all partners will have an opportunity to learn about and discuss the revised guidance • The amendments will result in a revision of the case transfer protocol and process map which will be completed by 30 th October and will be included in the Professional Development Training being delivered to all managers and practitioners in frontline teams by 30 th November 2011.
3.3 The Ofsted report states “ensure improvement in the quality and the timeliness of assessments”. Ofsted also commented on these aspects of assessment in relation to looked after children but these actions are covered in paragraph 3.16.
3.4 Initial assessments should be completed within 10 days and core assessments within 35 days. Poor performance in relation to timescales has been a persistent challenge and informed the changes made to the structure of the duty, safeguarding and children in need teams in October 2010. In the two recent Ofsted inspections too few assessments were deemed to be good or outstanding. There are three key factors which impact on both the timeliness and quality of assessments: process, practice and capacity. The actions we have taken have resulted in an improvement in the timeliness of core assessments which rose by 20% to 79% from March to July despite the number of core assessments. However, the timeliness of initial assessments remains more of a challenge and performance fluctuates with capacity within the teams. The actions we have taken to address these issues are:
• Issued ‘Social Work in Norfolk with Children & Families Key Message 1 – Assessments’ on 2 nd June 2011 • Issued ‘Social Work in Norfolk with Children & Families Key Message 2 – Child Protection Enquiries & Core Assessments’ on 21 st July 2011 • Amended the CareFirst assessment documentation in June to include sections on risk and protective factors and analysis • Safeguarding Managers Best Practice Group meets on a monthly basis and focuses on standards and performance, interrogating latest performance data for timeliness of assessments • Workload analysis across duty, safeguarding and children in need teams has been carried out in July and August and will be
considered at Children’s Services Leadership Team on 13 th September • Operational Managers monitor timeliness of assessments on a weekly basis and incorporate them within supervision of team managers • All operational teams will have had a leadership visit by an Assistant Director by the end of December 2011 where the importance of the timeliness and quality of assessments is emphasised • The audit programme is well established and focuses on areas for improvement. Following each audit teams are required to produce action plans to address areas of weakness.
3.5 The Ofsted report identifies the following immediate action: “ensure robust managerial oversight, guidance and direction for children in need, including those in need of protection”.
3.6 The report noted that “while much change and improvements have taken place, the performance of duty and safeguarding teams remains variable and inconsistent”. It also noted that “challenges remain in relation to variable workload sizes and complexity as well as managerial span of control, notably in some duty and safeguarding teams”. We have taken a number of immediate actions to address these which should result in more robust managerial oversight:
• Workload analysis across duty, safeguarding and children in need teams has been carried out in July and August and will be considered at Children’s Services Leadership Team on 13 th September • Workshops have been held with the managers and assistant team managers of each of the duty teams in July and August and detailed improvement plans drawn up which focus on record-keeping, decision-making, strategy discussions, practice improvements, workforce development and quality assurance. These workshops will be repeated for safeguarding managers in October • Professional Development Training for practitioners and managers in frontline teams has been designed and commissioned and will be delivered by 25 th November 2011 • Actions taken by Operational Managers to address poor performance through supervision, support and appraisal.
3.7 The Ofsted report states “ensure that the outcomes of referrals and planned child protection meetings are effectively communicated to partner agencies and other referrers”.
3.8 Partner agencies frequently report that they do not get feedback from Children’s Services when they have made a referral despite there being a standard letter for that purpose. Actions taken to address this are:
• Operational Managers immediately instructed Duty Team Managers to ensure that the letter is issued following every referral
• Operational Managers are reviewing the letter and the business process involved to see if this can be managed more efficiently given the volume of referrals received. This will be completed by end of September 2011.
3.9 The key drivers of improvement in the system are the Team Managers. The Director and Assistant Director have planned to meet all Duty, Safeguarding and Children in Need Team Managers as a group regularly over the next 12 months to discuss progress and troubleshoot problems and obstacles.
Services for Looked After Children
3.10 Ofsted highlighted the following area for immediate improvement: “ensure the full implementation of requirements in relation to the transfer of children detained for alleged offences from police custody to social care accommodation”.
3.11 At the time of the inspection Norfolk County Council and Norfolk Constabulary had in place a protocol on the transfer of young people to Local Authority accommodation from police custody. This requires that children and young people should not be kept in police custody following charge and if they cannot go straight to court must be transferred to Local Authority accommodation. The only exception is where the young person is assessed as likely to cause serious physical or psychological injury to someone before they appear at court when a request to provide secure accommodation should be made. The Local Authority can place a young person at home or anywhere they decide is suitable. For several years Children’s Services has maintained a bed, known as the PACE bed (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), in one of its residential units primarily but not exclusively for this purpose. In reality the bed is seldom used and it was reported to the Lead Ofsted Inspector by a custody sergeant at Wymondham Police Investigation Centre (PIC) that a significant number of young people were detained in cells overnight. The reasons why are not entirely clear but local experience suggests that the following factors may be involved:
• The bed provided is not judged by the police to be secure and therefore they feel we cannot guarantee that the young person will appear in court the following day • Previous practice around the interpretation of the guidance on the grounds for requesting secure accommodation has been loosely applied by the Police and not robustly challenged by the Emergency Duty Team, Children’s Services or the Youth Offending Team • In some cases the effect of substances including alcohol or the young person’s emotional health and well-being have caused the Police to significantly delay the investigative interview and any
subsequent charges necessitating the young person being detained in the PIC overnight.
3.12 In response to the inspection we have taken the following action:
• An initial revised draft of the Protocol on Transfer of Young People to Local Authority Accommodation from Police Custody was completed by 30 June. Further practical guidance was then sought on the operational aspects and processes required for its effective implementation • It was shared with Norfolk Constabulary on the 18 th August 2011. It was agreed that there needed to be a clearer understanding of the transfer process in line with the protocol on the part of police custody staff and the police have agreed to action this • Following the closure of the residential unit at 16c Harvey Lane, Norwich which formerly housed the PACE bed an equivalent bed has been identified which can be used for PACE purposes in another residential unit • To manage capacity issues and increase the range of placement types available the Adolescent Fostering Team is recruiting foster carers around the county who are willing to accept placements of young people on PACE transfer; 2 sets of foster carers have been recruited to date who will each be able to offer 2 beds by 3rd October 2011.
3.13 The Ofsted report states “ensure timely notifications of all new looked after children to partner agencies, also informing them of other significant changes to placement arrangements”.
3.14 This was an immediate action because it contributed to the judgement of inadequate in relation to the health of looked after children. We could not provide evidence that we had robust systems in place for notifying health in a timely way when a child is first accommodated or has a change of placement. We took immediate action to address this by establishing a process whereby health agencies are notified on a weekly basis of every new looked after child and every child ceasing to be looked after.
3.15 The Ofsted report states “cease the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for young people looked after aged between 16 and 18 years.
3.16 This was an immediate action because it contributed to the judgement of inadequate in relation to the economic well-being of looked after children. The action plan shows a number of longer-term actions we are taking to address this issue but the following immediate actions have been taken :
• Appropriate accommodation solutions were found for all 6 young people in bed and breakfast accommodation at the time of the inspection
• A monthly Placements Solution Panel has been set up with representatives from all key placement providers to ensure appropriate planning for young people • We commissioned 10 additional beds through the YMCA “Night Stop” scheme to offer immediate accommodation for up to 5 nights for young people in crisis • The YMCA and Benjamin Foundation have been commissioned to recruit additional supported lodgings placements.
3.17 In relation to Looked After Children Ofsted also asked us to “ensure improvements in the quality and timeliness of assessments, ensuring that children are seen on their own and that their views are obtained, recorded and taken into account in care planning”. The actions outlined in paragraph 3.4 apply equally here but in addition we have:
• Monitored “child seen” figures on a weekly basis to ensure compliance and have seen a marked improvement in overall performance • Addressed poor performance through supervision and support • Reinforced through practice development, case and team discussions the need to ensure that children’s views are taken into account in planning • A service development day is planned for each division in October which will reinforce the key messages from inspection.
3.18 We were also asked to “ensure that care plans for looked after children are focused, specific and measurable and that they have clear managerial oversight, guidance and direction”. The new corporate parenting teams under the revised structure within Children’s Services came into being on the 6th June, the first day of the inspection. Three of the six managers were newly appointed Team Managers although they each had some experience in an “acting” capacity. There are several immediate actions being undertaken to improve performance including:
• The Corporate Parenting Performance Group meets monthly and reviews practice • The corporate parenting managers meet with their Operational Managers frequently to review business processes, manage caseloads and are establishing quality standards • Professional Development Training for practitioners and managers in frontline teams has been designed and commissioned and will be delivered by 25 th November 2011 • Actions taken by Operational Managers to address poor performance through supervision, support and appraisal.
3.19 Ofsted also asked us to “ensure compliance with regulation and guidance, with regard to placing children in the care of family and friends”. This refers to the need for us to comply with some new guidance which was recently introduced: Family and Friends Care:
Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities 2010. In summary, this is the guidance which asks us to promote permanence for children by seeking to enable those who cannot live with their parents to stay with extended family or friends, providing where appropriate a better alternative to growing up in the care of the Local Authority. The guidance sets out a framework for the support which the Local Authority can provide to family and friends to enable this to happen.
3.20 The action we have taken to date is: • Sought legal advice on the technicalities of the guidance • Family and Friends Care Procedures and process maps have been drafted and circulated to managers on the 19 th August • A review meeting will be held on the 5th September 2011 to finalise the procedures and process maps.
3.21 The key drivers of improvement in the system are the Team Managers. The Director and Asst. Director have planned to meet regularly with all team managers in the corporate parenting service to discuss progress and troubleshoot problems and obstacles.
4 Other related developments
4.1 In June 2010 The Munro Review of Child protection was launched . In July 2011 A child-centred system – The Government’s response to the Munro Review of child protection was published. This contains an agreement that all of Professor Munro’s recommendations need to be considered in the round and acknowledges that together they represent the opportunity to deliver holistic reform of the child protection system. The response includes the following:
• The Government will oversee a radical reduction in the amount of regulation through the revision of statutory frameworks to place greater emphasis on direct work with children, young people and families
• An amendment to statutory guidance by December 2011 to remove the prescription of timescales and the distinction between initial and core assessments
• Inspection will continue to be important with a new inspection framework that will have at its heart the experiences of children and young people
• The Government envisages most local authorities will have appointed Principal Child and Family Social Workers by April 2012 and all will have done so by July 2012
• Plan for a Chief Social Worker to be in place by late 2012 to advise Government on social work practice and the effectiveness of help being given to children and young people
• The Government have confirmed the statutory status of Directors of Children’s Services and the Lead Member for Children’s Services.
4.2 The Norfolk Children’s Social Work Reform Project is building on the spirit of the Munro Review and earlier work by the Children’s Workforce Development Council to bolster the expertise, effectiveness and professional confidence of our child and family social workers. A further report will come to Overview and Scrutiny Panel in November.
4.3 The Social Work Pilot for Vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds
Following a successful bid to the DfE for funding this forward looking project, which is firmly based in an outcome based approach to commissioning, will be establishing a Social Work Pilot tasked with meeting the needs of 16 and 17 year olds who have come into care as a result of the Southwark Judgement. The pilot, which will go live from April 2012, will have devolved placement funding to help ensure the making of the most appropriate and cost effective placements. This will contribute to the actions to address the judgement of the economic well-being of care leavers.
5. Involving Children, Young People and Families
5.1 During the June inspection, a number of immediate comments on communication with children in care were made with recommendations for action. Some of these were responded to immediately at the time with the benefit of the Inspection Team’s comments, this included sending an information pack to all children and young people looked after, that set out the Norfolk County Council Pledge for looked after children in Norfolk, as well as information about how to make a complaint, information about the Kids In Care Together website and the activities of the Children in Care Council (ICC) and how to join in.
5.2 These were followed by more detailed observations in the published report of 22 July. They identified some room for improvement in communication with children and young people in the following areas:
• Knowledge of the complaints process and how to access care files
• Engagement during assessments
• Engagement with service users
• Lack of notice or consultation about significant changes
We are taking a number of actions to address these which are set out in section 5.6 of the action plan. Staff from Customer Service and Communications are working closely with Children’s Services staff to improve our communications with children and young people.
5.3 Reporting of the OFSTED announced inspection to children in care
The In Care Council is writing a “young person friendly synopsis” of the OFSTED report, which will be made available online on the Kids In Care Together (KICT) website by 31 st August 2011. This will then be disseminated to all looked after children and care leavers through the corporate parenting teams and the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) service. The full OFSTED report will be available on the KICT website by the 12 th August 2011
6. Resource Implications
6.1 Resources for the implementation of the Improvement Plan are contained within the Children’s Services Budget.
7. Other Implications
7.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Success criteria contained in the improvement plan includes the clear recording of information in case files and consideration of implications relating to culture, religion, disability and language. Actions include an analysis of issues in relation to culture and ethnicity and these factors will be taken more into account in assessment and planning.
7.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The purpose of the Improvement Plan is to improve the quality of services provided to children by Norfolk County Council and Statutory partners.
7.3. Legal implications
This Improvement Plan is consistent with our Statutory Duties as a Children’s Services Authority and complies with the relevant statutory Guidance and National Minimum Standards.
7.4 Any Other implications
The Improvement Plan will give focus to the identified Areas for Development and ensure that these improvements take place within timescales.
8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
8.1 There are no specific implications. The inspection framework includes an assessment of how well Children’s Services is working with partners to achieve shared priorities including reviewing how it is delivering safer and stronger communities for Norfolk.
9. Risk Implications / Assessment
9.1 Risks to improving performance are contained within the Children’s Services risk register. These continue to be monitored and reported on.
10. Action Required
10.1 Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report. 10.2 Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to agree update to each meeting.
Background Papers
1. Appendix A Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan for Areas of Development identified in Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections. 2. Inspection of safeguarding and looked after children services – Norfolk County Council: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/local-authorities/norfolk
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Tom Savory, Assistant Director, Strategy and Commissioning, Safeguarding and Additional Needs tel:01603 223475 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan for Areas of Development Identified in Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
Corporate Leadership
1. Areas for Development: • Establish, through the NSCB, more effective use of information and intelligence in evaluating performance and planning improvement from, for example, conference chairs, Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). ( Announced 2011 – 3 month ) • Ensure that the strategic partnership provides clearly articulated leadership, ambition and detailed objectives for looked after children, communicating these effectively to practitioners and managers in all services ( Announced 2011 - 3 month ) • Ensure that agencies are compliant with guidance on safeguarding training requirements, in particular dental services, and that training is robustly monitored and evaluated to ensure that it positively impacts on practice. ( Announced 2011 – 6 month )
1. Strengthen key aspects of partnership work Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 1.1 Ensure whole council ownership of improvements Tom Savory Improvement plan to be presented to Children’s 15 th Sept 11 through overview & scrutiny of improvement actions & Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel with frequency of their progress review to be decided.
1.2 Scrutiny programme that addresses areas judged Tom Savory To be agreed at Children’s Services Overview & Sept 11 to be inadequate Scrutiny Panel 15 th Sept 2011 onwards
1.3 Children’s Services Leadership Team provides The key drivers of improvement in the system are the strong and clear leadership in further improving Team Managers. The Director and Assistant Director safeguarding and looked after children services have planned to meet all Duty, Safeguarding and Children in Need Team Managers as a group regularly over the next 12 months to discuss progress and troubleshoot problems and obstacles.
The Director and Assistant Director have planned to meet regularly with all team managers in the Corporate Parenting Service to discuss progress and troubleshoot problems and obstacles
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 1.4 The Ofsted report noted that “there are no formal Tom Savory Assistant Director to discuss with the Head of Sept 11 apprenticeships or training opportunities offered by Economic Development and attend the Skills Board. the council which is a weakness”. Norfolk County Council (NCC) should explore such opportunities for care leavers.
1.5 Strengthen learning to improve practice and Wendy Dyde Head of service will produce annual report to go to Annual outcomes for service users through more effective use Children’s Services Leadership Team (CSLT) and Report – of information & intelligence – for example from child Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board (NSCB) re Sept 11 protection conference chairs Independent Reviewing Independent Reviewing Officers and Independent Officers (IRO)s, Local Authority Designated Officer Child Protection Conference Chairs with quarterly (LADO), Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements reviews (MAPPA) and the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) Adoption Panel, Compliments & Sarah-Jane NSCB Task and Finish Group to look at strengthening Sept 11 - Complaints and Children Missing from Care. Smedmor learning from key areas identified. Workstreams will completion report back to the NSCB Monitoring and Evaluation date Group.
LADO Annual Report taken to NSCB Board Completed June 11
Jackie Cole LADO report to NSCB Monitoring & Evaluation Group Oct 11 quarterly
Jackie Cole LADOs link to and attend 3 local safeguarding Nov 11 children groups onwards
Jackie Cole MAPPA / MARAC will provide updates to NSCB Sept 11 Monitoring & Evaluation Group onwards
Dr. Caroline Chair of NSCB will use analysis provided by above Report to Ball means in regular reports to Cabinet Cabinet Nov 11
1.6 Ensure that the NSCB provides an appropriate Wendy Dyde Safer programme continues to provide extensive range of safeguarding training in its own right and Sarah-Jane safeguarding training across the voluntary sector. monitors and ensures compliance by partner agencies Smedmor with guidance on safeguarding training requirements. Training course validation process is in place and all Completed
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections agencies will be required to submit courses to the NSCB for validation. The course validations will ensure agencies compliance with safeguarding training requirements
Kerry An Organisational Development & Learning Board In place by Furness (ODLB) is being established to pull together training end priorities & overall organisational development across Sept 11 the system for 2012/13
A training impact assessment of safeguarding training Complete by is currently on going. A quantitative survey has been end Sept 11 completed which will be followed up with a number of qualitative focus group discussions with different agency/ level staff.
NSCB to adapt a national evaluation tool to establish Pilot in place a more robust training evaluation of safeguarding Jan to Mar training courses. Work underway. 12. Implement Apr 12
NSCB are commissioning a refreshed and focused By Apr 12 programme of training courses. Delivery of new training to start by April 2012.
The next annual assessment of Section 11 (Children’s Start Sept Act 2004) will emphasise agencies’ training 11, report to compliance. Monitoring and Evaluation Group to NSCB Board oversee. in Dec 11
The new training strategy will be circulated to partner Jul 11 agencies to clarify training requirements for different level staff.
1.7 Children’s Services continues to focus on Tom Savory Work in partnership with ‘making research count’ to Workshop 1 providing a programme of training in key areas of provide a rolling programme of six workshops for first held Jul 11 service improvement in response to areas identified line mangers funded through social work improvement
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections for improvement fund. Workshop one has taken place and further workshops will follow.
Three workshops on risk assessment and decision Workshops making have been completed with duty management Jul/Aug 11 teams in operational divisions. Action plans being Action Plans completed. complete by end Sept 11.
Expert external provider (Callander Associates) to 3rd Oct to provide an extensive programme of professional 25 th Nov 11 development for front line social care managers and practitioners focused on priority areas of practice identified through audit and inspection.
1.8 Update Corporate Parenting Strategy to better Justin Rolph Composition and terms of reference for the Multi- Nov 11 reflect our collective aspirations for all looked after agency Looked After Children Corporate Parenting children and young people leaving care. Ensure that Strategic Board currently being looked at with these high aspirations are translated into concrete recommendations for change to go to next Board multi-agency actions and that systems are in place to meeting in November 2011 monitor and evidence impact. Ensure all stakeholders are aware of the Strategy and understand the critical Vision and strategy currently being revised for Board Autumn 11 part they play in its success. approval. Relaunch the Multi-agency Corporate Parenting Board High profile event currently being arranged for Autumn and give it the clear remit to ensure that the Strategy 2011 to launch Strategy is delivered and that any difficulties are robustly addressed and overcome.
1.9 Success Criteria:
Commissioning plans, Member reports and audit work are informed by up to date, high-quality analysis of child protection information. A specific agreed vision for Looked after children is agreed by the In Care Council and endorsed by the Corporate Parenting Board All staff across agencies have the appropriate level and amount of training.
1.10 How will success criteria be measured? Through audit work of NSCB & Children’s Services
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
2. Prevention & Early Intervention
Area(s) for Development: • The use of the common assessment framework (CAF) is improving leading to children receiving appropriate support in the community. While use of the CAF is not fully embedded across all services there are plans in place to improve this, for example, with the recent development of CAF coordinator posts in each area. However, these developments have yet to result in a sustained significant increase in the use of the CAF ( Unannounced 2011 ).
2. Improve the use of the common assessment framework across the County Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 2.1 Service Specifications to include required use of Tom Savory / Service specifications for Children’s Centres currently From Jul 11 CAF in all commissioned services Fred Corbett being written to include use of CAF to identify need and plan intervention.
2.2 Confirm that leadership around CAF is from the Lisa Agreed by NSCB at June Board meeting NSCB CAF Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board Christensen Project commences 16 th Sept 11
2.3 Monitor impact of CAF coordinators Lesley Review of the role of CAF Co-ordinators was Completed Whitney undertaken in light of structural and resource changes by 19 th Aug during July and August 2011.Consultation on a Sept 11 – revised structure to support CAF implementation 1st report to within each operational division. CSLT Jan 12
2.4 Regular audit of quality of CAF Phil Holmes • The CAF trainer will use the national CAF Quality Commence Assurance (QA) framework to audit 1:10 of all Nov 12 closed cases regardless of the agency that originated the CAF.
• The Children’s Services QA team will audit a sample number of cases that have been subject to CAF since the revised documentation has been used.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections • These audits will take place 3 times per year at the end each school term and will only be for CAF’s raised by Children’s Services staff.
2.5 Regular surveys of customer satisfaction with the Ceri Sumner Date of 1 st CAF process survey – Apr 12
2.6 Success criteria? • Increased numbers of common assessments being undertaken • Common assessment plans are well defined, with specific objectives, outcomes and timescales for their achievement
2.7 How will success criteria be measured? • Numbers of CAFs undertaken improve month on month • Average age of children and young people involved in CAF reduces • Numbers of agencies initiating CAFs increase • Reduction in the number of re-referrals and numbers of children subject to a child protection plan for the second or subsequent time • Audit reports show consistent high standards of “SMARTness” • Parental and child/Young Person (YP) views of process show consistently positive feedback
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
3. Contact & Referral
Area for Development: • Make the application of thresholds using the ‘priority matrix’ more consistent and clearly communicated to all partner agencies, ensuring consequent robust risk assessment and communication between Care Connect and the social care duty teams. ( Announced 2011 - immediate ) • Ensure that the outcomes of referrals and planned child protection meetings are effectively communicated to partner agencies and other referrers. ( Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Ensure improved effectiveness of agencies response to child protection needs through the implementation of the planned multi-agency safeguarding hub (Announced 2011 – 3 months ) • Ensure that the out of hours social care service provides a timely and consistent response to safeguarding needs of children and young people. ( Announced 2011 – 3 months )
3. Improve co-ordination and integration Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 3.1 Ensure Safeguarding Managers Best Practice Dominic Monthly performance management meetings with Ongoing Group and Safeguarding Performance Management Stevens Duty & Safeguarding Managers – meetings also Group maintains focus on contact & referral engage key partner agencies and share best practice. improvement Six-weekly meetings arranged with wide attendance. In place
3.2 Improve Children’s Safeguarding expertise in Care Tom Savory / Audit of 100 cases handled by Care Connect that are Completed Connect Dominic referred to Duty Teams or closed off in Care Connect 13 th Jun 11 Stevens / Service Debby McKechnie Experienced Children’s Services’ Safeguarding Manager located in the Care Connect Team to embed 17 th Jun 11 training and effective decision making.
Report analysis & recommendations presented to Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) workshop for 11 th Aug 11 attention & action to inform phase 2 of MASH implementation
Child Protection training to be delivered to Care 14 th Sept to Connect staff in 5 focused one-day sessions. 5th Oct 11
“Bite sized” training on key aspects of safeguarding From 20 th delivered to Care Connect staff informed by the audit Jun 11 of 100 cases. ongoing Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
Three experienced Children’s Services’ Duty Workers 26 th Jun11 located into the Care Connect Team.
3.3 Implement the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub Phil Holmes The project for the MASH is being implemented in (MASH) three phases and further information is found in the MASH project plan
Phase 1 is the physical co-location of key workers Co-location from the Police and Children’s Services and the virtual will co-location of key Health workers commence 19 th Sept 11
Phase 2 - Review, design, develop and implement a new new “front door” process for Child Protection and processes Children in Need Referrals into the co-located team fully implemented Jan 12
Jan to Jul 12 Phase 3 - Once phase 1 and 2 have been fully implemented, consider cost & benefits of further improvement options. Timescale for this phase to be agreed by the Board. This will use the experience of the first two phases and consider the following:
• Alignment with Adult Safeguarding. • Alignment with Police daytime hours • Closer alignment with Emergency Duty Team (EDT) • The Health commissioning case for Health resources to be placed within the MASH. • Geographical hubs
3.4 Review the emergency duty team service James The Emergency Duty Team (EDT) Review Project will Dec 11 Bullion ensure that EDT and MASH decision making and (Lesley business processes are aligned.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Whitney) Proposals for a redesigned Emergency Duty Service End Sept 11 to be taken to a joint meeting of Children’s Services and Community Services leadership teams
3.5 Re-communicate the priority matrix among partner Lesley A multi agency workshop was held to review the Completed agencies & establish shared ownership Whitney priority matrix and the associated process map 5th Jul 11 (Journey of a Child).
The revised priority matrix and process map have Pilot ended been piloted in one operational division. on 27 th Aug 11
A meeting to review the outcome of the pilot is 7th Sept 11 planned
Revised guidance will be sent to all partners and Completion Local Safeguarding Children Groups (LSCG) chairs. date 30 Sept 11
Revised guidance made an agenda item for all LSCG Oct 11 meetings
Revise the transfer protocol and process map to By 30 th Oct reflect changes 11
3.6 Ensure consistent communication of outcomes of Lesley Operational Managers instructed Duty team managers referrals to referring agencies Whitney to ensure that the existing standard letter for replying Jul 11 to referring agencies is consistently used.
Operational Managers with Business Support By 30 th Sept Managers to review the letter and business process to 11 see if this can be managed more efficiently given the increase in the volume of referrals being received. From MASH staff to give clear feedback to referrers commencem ent of MASH in Sept 11
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
3.7 Success Criteria: • Referring agencies consistently using priority matrix & reporting regular feedback regarding referrals made • All referrers told of outcome of referral. • MASH in place • Decrease in inappropriate referrals
3.8 How will success criteria be measured? Audit of Agency feedback Increase in percentage of referrals proceeding to Initial Assessment Reduction in number of re-referrals.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
4. Assessment
Area(s) for Development: • Ensure improvement in the quality and the timeliness of assessments. (Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Review the balance of workloads within social care duty, safeguarding and children in need teams, to ensure they are commensurate with the urgency and complexity of cases ( Announced 2011 – 3 month ) • Ensure that assessments fully consider issues of ethnicity, religion, culture and identity and that services are responsive to these needs to enable full engagement by children and their families. ( Announced 2011 – 3 month ) – cross reference professional development actions • Assess and address the current needs of children previously subject to poor assessment and protection, notably those who have experienced chronic neglect or emotional abuse. ( Announced 2011 – 6 month ) • A very high number of initial assessments are not completed within statutory timescales and some are significantly overdue resulting in delay in the provision of services ( Unannounced 2011 ) • Some assessments are undertaken by unqualified staff which is not in accordance with statutory guidance ( Unannounced 2011 ). • The quality of assessments varies from good to inadequate. While a significant number are at least satisfactory too many are of poor quality with insufficient analysis and a lack of identification of risk and protective factors. Chronologies are not consistently in place and historical information is not always taken into account in assessments and decision making. The council have an action plan in place to address these issues which were identified as areas for development at the previous inspection ( Unannounced 2011 ). • In some cases sampled, there was a lack of evidence of children and young people’s views being taken into account within assessments ( Unannounced 2011 ). • The effectiveness of management oversight is too variable. Management decisions are not consistently specific with clear timescales to ensure the timely completion of work to a satisfactory standard ( Unannounced 2011 ). Recording of management oversight variable. • There is significant variation in staffing capacity and quality of practice between the three area-based duty and safeguarding teams. In two areas some caseloads are too high and there are a significant number of cases which are unallocated or waiting for closure or transfer. However, all unallocated cases have been risk assessed and are regularly reviewed by an operational manager ( Unannounced 2011)
4. Improve the quality and timeliness of both initial and core assessments Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 4.1 Strengthen processes and systems in line with Tom Savory / Key Message 1 - ‘Social Work in Norfolk with Children Completed Working Together Lesley and Families’ issued, setting out clear and focused 2 Jun 11 Whitney approach towards the quality of assessments and the . professional confidence of social workers in their judgements and interventions.
Key Message 2 Child Protection Enquiries and Core Completed – Assessments issued setting out clear guidance and 21 Jul 11 expectations for staff conducting child protection enquiries and core assessments.
CareFirst updated to include risk & protective factors Completed
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections and analysis in assessment forms. Jul 11
4.2 Monitor compliance Lesley Weekly monitoring reports produced which are shared In place and Whitney with relevant operational and strategic managers. To on-going inform performance management
New supervision template explicitly highlights expectation of recorded discussion of children’s Oct 11 identity needs arising from race culture religion and also focus on “voice of the child”. Template designed and will be implemented with revised supervision policy and guidance.
Regular review at Performance and Quality Board Oct 11
4.3 Review the effectiveness of the new duty & Lesley A detailed review of the teams has been undertaken, Completed safeguarding structure – ensure it is sustainable & Whitney focusing on workload analysis, practitioner and end Aug 11 workloads balanced re urgency & complexity of cases management capacity, complexity of cases and geographical considerations.
Report to be taken to Children’s Services Leadership 13 th Sept 11 Team.
4.4 Ensure greater regard is given to the voice of the Tom Savory Annual report from the Director of Children’s Services Mar 12 child to include stronger involvement of the In Care and Lesley to Corporate Parenting Board in response to actions Council with presentation to full Council or CS Whitney raised by In-Care Council (ICC). overview & scrutiny at least once a year Irene Kerry ICC presented to Full Council 25 th Jul 11
Lesley Produce on-line surveys for children in care & care 1st survey Whitney leavers to assess quality of services provided. Oct 11
Assistant Director visiting all staff teams to discuss 1st Jul – 14 th and ensure a focus on this key area of practice. Nov 11
4.5 ensure that assessments fully consider issues of Dominic New supervision policy template and Callander Oct – Nov ethnicity, religion, culture and identity and that Stevens Associates training will further reinforce focus on this 11 services are responsive to these needs to enable full area of practice
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections engagement by children and their families NSCB will run a series of Best Practice Groups for First multi agency groups of managers focusing on workshop developing key areas of practice including ethnicity, (sexual religion and culture, voice of the child, sexual abuse abuse) 16 th and neglect Sept 11
4.6 Assess and address the current needs of children Key Message 2 - Child Protection Enquiries and Core 21 Jul 11 previously subject to poor assessment and protection, Assessments issued to staff with clear guidance notably those who have experienced chronic neglect significant increase noted in number of core or emotional abuse assessments complete.
Analysis of causes of static performance is complete, 13 th Sept 11 paper on capacity and improvement plans will be presented to CSLT .
4.7 A very high number of initial assessments are not Clear guidance issued to staff within Key Message 1 May 2011 completed within statutory timescales and some are Social Work in Norfolk with Children and Families significantly overdue resulting in delay in the provision of services
4.8 Some assessments are undertaken by unqualified New supervision template and policy explicitly Oct / Nov 11 staff which is not in accordance with statutory highlights need for management focus on this area of guidance practice. Staff training to be delivered by Callander Associations. Assistant Director visiting all staff teams to discuss 1st Jul – 14 th and ensure a focus on this key area of practice. Nov 11
4.9 In some cases sampled, there was a lack of Operational Managers focus on improvements during Ongoing evidence of children and young people’s views being supervision & support and appraisal. Three workshops Jul /Aug 11 taken into account within assessments on risk assessment and decision making have been Workshops completed with duty management teams in complete. operational divisions. Action plans are being Action Plans completed for each team focusing on record-keeping, in place by decision-making, strategy discussions, practice end of Sept. improvements, workforce development and quality assurance.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 4.10 The effectiveness of management oversight is Three workshops on risk assessment and decision Workshops too variable. Management decisions are not making will be held for safeguarding management complete by consistently specific with clear timescales to ensure teams in operational divisions. Action plans will be end Oct 11. the timely completion of work to a satisfactory completed. Action Plans standard. in place by end Nov 11
4.11 Success Criteria: • Increased numbers of initial and core assessments being undertaken and completed within timescale • Assessments contain clear analysis, including consideration of cultural and diversity issues • Plans are well defined with specific objectives, outcomes and timescales for their achievement • Children and YP’s views are consistently sought in the assessment process • All assessments are compliant with Government guidance • Workloads are balanced and consistent across the County. • Quality of assessments is at least good.
4.12 How will success criteria be measured? • Performance measures for the timeliness of initial and core assessments • Audit of compliance with practice standards for social care staff and managers • Service Users report satisfaction with quality of assessment and social work intervention. • Audit of cultural and diversity sensitivity shows consistent good practice
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
5. Care Planning
Area(s) for Development: • Children in need and child protection plans do not always contain clear measurable outcomes and timescales and some do not include individualised contingency plans ( Unannounced 2011 ) • The effectiveness of management oversight is too variable. Management decisions are not consistently specific with clear timescales to ensure the timely completion of work to a satisfactory standard ( Unannounced 2011 ). • Ensure robust managerial oversight, guidance and direction for children in need, including those in need of protection. ( Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Ensure that care plans for looked after children are focused, specific and measurable and that they have clear managerial oversight, guidance and direction. (Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Ensure improvements in the quality and timeliness of assessments, ensuring that children are seen on their own and that their views are obtained, recorded and taken into account in care planning. ( Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Provide robust pathway and transition plans for all those leaving or having left care and for relevant or former relevant young adults. ( Announced 2011 – 3 month ) • Ensure sufficient capacity to effectively implement the requirement of the Public Law Outline, including timely legal advice and effective instruction of legal representation. ( Announced 2011 – 3 month )
5. Ensure that all children receiving services have the relevant plans in place Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 5.1 Improved CareFirst planning recording format Phil Holmes SMART action plan for CareFirst use designed. Completed Aug 11
5.2 Continue to develop CareFirst so it is fit for our Phil Holmes Adapted core assessment document on CareFirst to Completed purpose make it more straight-forward for users July 11 Further improvement to core assessments and Care Plans will be implemented with CareFirst version 6.10. Jan 12
5.3 Raise the profile of the importance of high quality Lesley Hold a series of leadership visits to front-line offices All recording Whitney using the ‘learning walk’ concept from schools operational teams visited 1st Jul – 14 th Nov 11
Lesley Service development workshops to be held in each of 21 and 26 Whitney the three Operational Divisions. These will focus on Sept and 13 inspection outcomes, multi-disciplinary working, Oct 11 performance and professional development
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 5.4 Ensure clear policy and process in relation to Dominic Children’s Services, in conjunction with Norfolk Public Guidance Public Law is understood & implemented by staff. Stevens Law have undertaken a joint review of practice in issued relation to the Public Law Outline & have issued June 11 updated guidance to first line managers.
Dominic Progress monitored via the safeguarding managers Stevens best practice group & court work leads group. Work supported by ‘Reports & Assessment’ workstream in the safeguarding & family support project. Apr 12
New procurement arrangements to be introduced for 20 th Oct 11 residential assessments
Children’s Services liaising with Family Justice Council to run public law summit
5.5 Improve the quality of Care Plans for Looked After Stewart Betts Training programme for managers and practitioners Children and Pathway Plans for young people leaving developed and commissioned to address recent care changes in national care planning guidance, changes Dec 11 – in recording on CareFirst and need for improvement in Mar 12 quality of assessment.
Children in need and cp plans do not always contain Wendy Dyde New format to help ensure SMART plans will be Jan 12 clear measurable outcomes and timescales and some brought in with CareFirst V6.10. do not include individualised contingency plans Audit of plans focusing on SMART planning and Nov 11 consistent use of contingency plans to take place.
Work ongoing with Independent Chairs on use of contingency plans and SMART planning will lead to End Sept 11 practice guidance being issued to staff.
Enhance the performance management arrangements Katherine “Balanced Scorecards” in place to monitor Monthly in order to drive forward a step change in performance Attwell performance across Children’s Services. reporting improvement Tom Savory Performance monitored monthly by Performance commenced Board in Children’s Services and thematic 1 Sept 11 performance groups including Safeguarding Performance Management Group and Corporate
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Parenting Performance Group.
Katherine New Performance Management arrangements to roll In Place Attwell out from 01/09/11 with increased emphasis on drilling down to performance at division level and increasing local accountability
Independent Reviewing Officers to ensure Care Plans Wendy Dyde Quality Assurance questions about care planning on To be are meaningfully discussed and updated as necessary CareFirst to be updated. Performance measuring the completed at every review. To particularly ensure that child/yp’s percent of Care Plans being Achieved’ to form part of 1 Oct 11 views are obtained and properly considered. To then ‘scorecard’ performance framework ensure that plan is amended as necessary and actions identified to progress the plan and meet the child’s needs.
Care Planning Audit Tool to be updated to have Phil Holmes Care Planning Audit Tool to be updated by 1st Oct 11 greater emphasis of assessing the quality and appropriateness of the Plan
5.6 Ensure Departmental Planning and service development is informed by the views of children and young people, in particular those who are looked after in Local Authority Care.
Ofsted identified some room for improvement in communication with children and young people in the following areas:
Knowledge of the Complaints Process Justin Rolph Information pack sent to all children and young people Jun 11 looked after, that sets out the Norfolk County Council Complete Pledge, as well as information about how to make a complaint, information about the Kids In Care Together (KICT) website and the activities of the Children in Care Council (ICC) and how to join in.
Phil Holmes Children’s Services Quality Assurance Team to Oct 11 engage with Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People Youth Forum to ensure the voice of disabled children
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections and young people inform quality assurance and user feedback and to import “best practice” for use with the wider population of children & young people.
Ceri Sumner • Re-designing the web site to make the complaints Jul to Dec process for looked after children and care leavers 11 clearer and easier to understand
• Changing the process by which complaints are Jul 11 accepted so they include the options for a complaints case manager taking verbal account over the phone, or offering to meet children in care face-to-face to capture their complaints
• improved advocacy services are being By Mar 12 commissioned.(joint commission with Community Services)
• New protocols have been agreed with Norfolk’s Jun 11 Citizen’s Advice Bureaux to give direct access to social care
• Norfolk County Council, after discussion with the In June 11 Care Council, has set up a texting service for young people who want to make complaints. This was communicated, as part of the updated "have your say" leaflets in the packs sent to all looked after children and young people.
By Jan 12 Engagement during Assessments The ICC have developed good practice guidelines
offering practical support to social care workers on
how to encourage engagement in processes. These
will be promoted by the ICC and the Involvement
Officer to each of the Corporate Parenting Teams at
their team meetings.
Engagement with Service Users The NSCB are working with young people who have
been subject to safeguarding procedures to co- Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections produce a plan to improve engagement by creating a steering group which will include service users.
In the interim the ICC are assistant the NSCB and will Oct 11 – Apr be running evaluative consultations with service users 12 around the service they have received and how best to involve them in the future.
Lack of notice of consultation about significant The ICC website and KICT and Facebook are the changes primary ways that information is communicated. This is suitable for consultations and sharing changes to service provision*
The shared service is considering ways to make the KICT website more interactive and to improve usage of the site by the wider looked after community. Emails containing consolation information and service updates are also sent via Virtual School email accounts.
* Please note: The KICT website and Facebook are not suitable individual young people up to date with personal changes.
Ensure departmental planning and service The ICC will meet with a senior management group development is informed by the views of children and arranged by the Director of Children’s Services. This young people, in particular those who are looked after will raise awareness of the work of the ICC and allow in Local Authority care. discussion to explore opportunities on how best to involve service users in service development and departmental planning.
In addition: The ICC will independently produce a document responding to the Ofsted recommendation and will identify where the ICC feel they can best be involved to help Children’s Services meet these. This document will also supply practical advice on how service users could be involved with the offer to facilitate this involvement.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
5.7 Success Criteria: • First line managers feel well supported by a framework for driving service improvement. • Records are up-to-date and demonstrate sound assessment, analysis and decision making, including evidence of management oversight and decisions made in supervision • Cases closed contain clear reasons for closure by a Team manager • Data quality is improved and there are accurate management information reports which are owned by teams at all levels • EDT are able to access accurate and up-to-date information on CareFirst • Information relating to culture, religion, disability and language is clearly recorded in case files, implications considered and appropriate responses embedded in care plans. • There is increased confidence in and effective usage of CareFirst across the service • More timely outcomes achieved for children & young people subject to public law proceedings • Higher quality assessments provided by children’s services lead to fewer expensive expert & residential reports • Children are always seen alone consistently and there is evidence that their views are taken into account in planning and reviews
5.8 How will success criteria be measured? • Audit programme reflects SMART plans and appropriate contingency planning • Reduction in data quality errors • Robust information readily available for all Statutory Returns • Children and young people report satisfaction with care and pathway plans and case closure process • Fewer expert & residential assessments procured. • Managers report greater satisfaction with information available to support their work
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
6. Health of Looked After Children - Improvement Actions
Area(s) for Development: • Ensure timely notifications of all new looked after children to partner agencies, also informing them of other significant changes to placement arrangements (Announced 2011 – immediate ) • Ensure that looked after children placed out of area receive health assessments and that all looked after children initial health assessments are undertaken by a medical practitioner in accordance with guidance. (Announced 2011 – 3 month ) • Ensure that there is equality of access for all young people referred to the CAMH services across the area. ( Announced 2011 – 3 month ) • Provide an effective health leaving care service. ( Announced 2011 – 6 month ). • Ensure that agencies are compliant with guidance on safeguarding training requirements, in particular dental services, and that training is robustly monitored and evaluated to ensure that it positively impacts on practice. ( Announced 2011 – 6 month )
NB. Please note that many of the actions within this section are drawn from the NHS Norfolk & Gt Yarmouth and Waveney combined Ofsted & Care Quality Commission Action Plan and are marked as such
6. Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 6.1 Ensure timely notifications of all new looked Nigel Nicholds Robust system now in place that ensures that Health In place after children to partner agencies, also informing and Lou are notified on a weekly basis of every new Looked from Jul 11 them of other significant changes to placement Meagher after Child and every child ceasing to be looked after. arrangements
6.2 NHS community providers to implement a Jane Black and To develop a minimum standard for the care leavers 1st Oct 11 leaving care health service that complies with Mark Gower service statutory requirements. . NHS providers to implement care leaving service and End Dec 11 start sending regular reports and data to monitor the service to NHS Norfolk
To undertake a periodic survey with the young people Apr 12 and about the service and receiving health histories annually thereafter Text taken from NHS Action Plan
6.3 The local authority and its partners should Mark Gower Ensure that there is a service agreement with Oct 11 ensure that looked after children placed out of area providers to clarify this is actioned. receive health assessments and that all looked after children initial health assessments are To receive regular reports from providers and children Oct 11 Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections undertaken by a medical practitioner in accordance services for notification and working in accordance with guidance with statutory guidance therefore providers to have practice guidance and information flow in place to ensure this happens in a timely and effective way: Notifications received and assessments arranged.
To have a monitoring system in place - Data reports Oct 11 seen and discussed at meetings, any health assessments to be part of audits for Out of area placements
Mark Gower To develop a system where the completion of initial Ongoing health assessments are reported on a regular basis and to periodically audit a % of the initial health assessments for compliance and quality of the assessment: On the agenda and in minutes of meetings, reports seen from the audit.
Mark Gower To review service specification and Key performance Ongoing Helen Jackson indicators with regular reporting systems embedded in to the system with clear lines of accountability. Data of KPI’s received and discussed on a monthly basis.
Jane Black Meeting with commissioning and provider trusts have Ongoing taken place to examine ways to streamline the service process and operation to make better use of medical time. Service Specification and level agreement in place and seen. Data from service commence date received.
Great Yarmouth and Waveney to agree medical input Target date and have Service Specification and service level 1st Oct 11 agreements in place to set up the initial assessment.
Text taken from NHS Action Plan
6.4 Review current access times and capacity to Helen Jackson . - NHSN is now receiving performance data broken Majority specialist Children & Adolescent Mental Health & Elaine Mash down to locality level. This will ensure that any referrals
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Services (CAMHS) and develop a plan (NHS) variation is transparent. within 13 weeks by Sept 11
- The freezing of vacancies during the internal All within 13 reorganisation of NWMHFT CAMHS has exacerbated weeks by length of waits in the southern and northern localities Dec 11 and of central Norfolk. 8 weeks by Mar 12 - NWMHFT has given assurance that these will now be recruited to (adverts to go out early September). - In the interim NWMHFT agreed to staff working additional hours to deal with backlog.
This along with other measures will support delivery of a trajectory that all CAMHS referrals will be seen within 13 weeks by the end of December 2011 and within 8 weeks by March 2012.
Performance management will show the majority of referrals across the County will be seen within 13 weeks by the end of September 2011 and help identify “out-liers” which will be addressed by the above measures.
Text taken from NHS Action Plan
6.5 Adopt and implement the use of electronic Phil Holmes License to use BAAF Form purchased. Jan 12 BAAF form to record a LAC’s health assessment. Implementation date agreed
6.6 Ensure that access to Care First is made Georgina Potter Work well advanced Care First available to the LAC Health Team in Great & Joanne available to Yarmouth and Waveney Community Services. Howes (NHS) NHS LAC team from 16 Sept 11
6.7 Develop a prompt function within Care First at 4 Georgina Potter “Manual” function in place, guidance to be issued to End Sept 11
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections months (for under 5s) and 10 months (for 5- staff in use of this function Jan 12 18years) to remind social workers to refer for next health assessment appointment. “Automatic” prompt to be introduced with increased functionality offered by Care First version 6.10
6.8 The local authority and its partners should Mark Gower or Work closely with Monitoring and Evaluation Group Monthly, ensure that agencies are compliant with guidance Jane Black (Sub group of Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board) ongoing on safeguarding training requirements, in particular dental services, and that training is robustly Mark Gower An audit of training is underway with the Monitoring Ongoing monitored and evaluated to ensure that it positively and Evaluation Group to evaluate training content and impacts on practice to standardise some training and provide Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board accredited training.
Jane Black All Independent contractors including dentists to have Complete Sue Zeitlin access to a resource pack outlining their 31 st Aug 11 requirements, these packs can be accessed electronically as well as a hard copy. Resource pack developed and seen Link to resource pack.
Jane Black Further training sessions for dentists to be arranged 30 th Jan 12 Sue Zeitlin and to have a meeting with Norfolk and Norwich Institute Medical Education (NANIME) (Meeting took place on 25.08.11)
Sue Zeitlin Evaluation and monitoring of dentists training needs to Annually Jane Black take place and to devise a reporting system for this - Mark Gower Results of evaluation seen and results published
Mark Gower & An electronic file and audit/evaluation tool to be Complete Named Nurses/ developed for sharing alongside providers that will 30 th Aug 12 practitioners in incorporate pre and post training knowledge, skills provider and competence of NHS staff at training levels 2 & 3 Evaluations to be reviewed to develop and influence future training.
Safeguarding Training as a set agenda item at all safeguarding meetings.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Jane Black NHS Norfolk to receive an action plan from providers Action plan Mark Gower outlining their actions to achieve training to a minimum received of 80% Aug 11
Letter from Designated safeguarding team to be sent to providers requesting the above action plan.
NHS Norfolk to request an update on training on a monthly basis and discussed at regular safeguarding meetings in provider trusts and NHS Norfolk Safeguarding Practitioners Operations Group
Text taken from NHS Action Plan
6.9 Success Criteria: • Health assessments completed in accordance with statutory requirements and within timescales • Notifications by Children’s Services to NHS about new looked after children and those where placement has changed are consistently timely • Leaving care health service in place & valued by service users • Equal access to CAMHS provision across county • All dental practices are compliant with safeguarding training requirements
6.10 How will success criteria be measured? • Health assessment performance increase in statutory returns • Reported satisfaction from LAC with health assessments and plans • Waiting times for access to specialist CAMHS services are similar across the county and the wait for a first appointment is no more than 4 weeks. • Audits of dental practices show safeguarding training being undertaken in accordance with guidance.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
7. Looked After Children & Leaving Care
Area(s) for Development: • Ensure the full implementation of requirements in relation to the transfer of children detained for alleged offences from police custody to social care accommodation. ( Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Ensure timely notifications of all new looked after children to partner agencies, also informing them of other significant changes to placement arrangements. (Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Cease the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for young people looked after aged between 16 and 18 years. ( Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Ensure compliance with regulation and guidance, with regard to placing children in the care of family and friends. ( Announced 2011 - Immediate ) • Ensure progress is made in providing stable placements for children close to their home community, and the timely provision of permanent homes for children with a plan for adoption. ( Announced 2011 – 6 month ) • Implement efficient, clear and effective commissioning and procurement arrangements in accordance with the sufficiency duty, engaging, as appropriate, partner agencies and the voluntary and community sector. ( Announced 2011 – 6 month )
7. Improve sufficiency and processes around placements Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 7.1 Set up monthly Placement Solutions Panel to Cathy Placement Solutions Panel fully established and In Place ensure appropriate planning for all young people aged Larkowsky meeting regularly with representation from all key post 16/17 in Bed and Breakfast accommodation. -16 placement providers.
Appropriate accommodation solutions were found for Jul 11 all 6 young people in Bed and Breakfast accommodation at the time of the Ofsted Inspection at the first Panel Meeting in July
All case accountable Social Workers with young people placed in Bed and Breakfast accommodation have to be present at the Panel to give an understanding of the young person’s needs, risks and desired outcomes. This requirement has so far been met in all cases.
7.2 Increase the number of appropriate post-16 Justin Rolph A range of commissioning activities are underway (or Apr 12 placement options already completed) that will see an increase of 50 post-16 accommodation options. They include:-
• YMCA and Benjamin Foundation commissioned to In place Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections provide additional Supported Lodgings placements specifically for Children’s Services • YMCA Night Stop Service commissioned to take direct referrals from Children’s Services for the first In place time. (This is an emergency service offering up to 5 nights accommodation whilst appropriate assessments are undertaken) • In-house Children’s Residential Service currently In place exploring, in partnership with Housing Association, since Jun 11 the possibility of providing appropriate ‘move-on’ accommodation for their residents • Three Independent Children’s Homes in Norfolk are also increasing accommodation options by Apr 12 securing semi-independent move-on accommodation for our young people placed with them. • Working with Supporting People and 7 Housing Authorities to ensure young people leaving care can better benefit from the range of accommodation they have commissioned for 16+ year olds. Multi-agency Unregulated Aug 11 Accommodation Strategy Steering Group established to identify commissioning and other opportunities.
7.3 Increase efficiency and effectiveness of post-16 Cathy From 01/09/11 the responsibility for finding In Place placement finding process Larkowsky appropriate post-16 accommodation options transferred to the Placement Team. Previously the responsibility for finding ‘unregulated’ placements sat with each individual case-accountable worker. This new approach has created a more efficient, streamlined ’single point of access’ referral route, it puts all the placement intelligence in one place and frees up front-line Social Worker time. It also gives us better and more timely management information enabling us to commission solutions that are more aligned to known need.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 7.4 Bid to Department for Education (DfE) for grant Justin Rolph Bid to DfE was successful. Project funding to establish a Social Work Pilot Service £120k secured to enable us to commission a Manager in focused on the needs of homeless 16/17 year olds dedicated Social Work Team tasked with meeting the place Sept coming into care needs of 16/17 year olds coming into care as a result 11 of the ‘Southwark Judgement’. These needs will include finding the appropriate accommodation. For New Service some young people this will include support until 24 th operational birthday as part of fulfilling our leaving care from 1 st Jun responsibilities. 12
7.5 Develop an ‘Assessment Centre’ to provide Justin Rolph Commissioning plan developed with intention of co- 1st Apr 12 immediate crisis accommodation for up to 10 locating the Social Work Pilot Service within the homeless LAC aged 16 /17. assessment centre to ensure joined-up working in practice.
7.6 Ensure the full implementation of requirements in Lesley • An initial revised draft of the Protocol on Transfer of 30 th Oct 11 relation to the transfer of children detained for alleged Whitney Young People to Local Authority Accommodation offences from police custody to social care from Police Custody was completed by 30 th June. accommodation. Further practical guidance was then sought on the operational aspects and processes required for its effective implementation.
• It was shared with Norfolk Constabulary on 18 th
August 2011. It was agreed that there needed to
be a clearer understanding of the transfer process
in line with the protocol on the part of police
custody staff and the police have agreed to action
this.
• Identification of a “PACE bed” (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) in a residential unit
• To manage capacity issues and increase the range New Foster of placement types available the Adolescent Carers Fostering team is recruiting foster carers around operational the county who are willing to accept placements of from young people on PACE transfer; 2 x 2 carers rd 3 Oct 11 recruited to date.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 7.7 Increased provision of affordable, high quality Justin Rolph Detailed project in place (part of CS Transformation placements in Norfolk to support all children, Programme) to increase both the number of whatever their need, have a positive experience of placements options in Norfolk as well as their value for care money – See Corporate Parenting Placement Strategy for detail. Impact of new approach already being seen as agency budget is currently projecting a Apr 12 small surplus (July 2011). Overspends against this budget have historically been high.
Key actions to date have included:- Jun 11 • Marketplace actively stimulated through
Commissioning process and additional 30
residential placements and 80 fostering
placements will be secured in Norfolk
• More rigorous approval process put in place to In place ensure children only go out of county when their needs require a specialist provision only available on a regional or national basis.
• Better value for money being secured through 1st Oct 11 more robust negotiations with partners in advance
of spot purchasing decisions being made
• Tendering process for Independent Fostering Agencies (IFAs) completed. 12 Agencies approved (an increase of 6 on current arrangements) and on provider list to start from 1st Apr 12 01/10/11. This will see increased activity focused on foster carer recruitment in Norfolk with the expectation that an additional 60 carers will be recruited across the partnership.
• From 1 April 2012 IFAs will be scored (on the Apr 12 basis of cost and quality) and put into 4 tiers.
Placements will first be offered to those in tier 1
then tier 2 etc offering a clear market incentive to
reduce cost and increase quality.
• Tendering process for Independent Residential Apr 12
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Care underway which will result in increased capacity and decreased cost • In advance of the roll out of the new residential care arrangements from 01/04/12 the Corporate Parenting Strategy & Commissioning Manager is negotiating with all organisations currently being used to both reduce the cost of current (and future) placements
7.8 Success Criteria: • No Young Person placed in Bed and Breakfast establishments • Increased numbers of LAC adopted or made the subject of Special Guardianship Orders • Increased number of LAC placed within 20 miles of home address • Reduced number of LAC placed out of county • Increased placement stability • The transfer of children and YP from police custody to social care is carried out in accordance with statutory requirements
7.9 How will success criteria be measured? • Increase in numbers of LAC in placement 2+ years or placed for adoption • Increased use of supported accommodation for 16 – 18 year-olds. • Children’s views of care provision are positive • No overspend on budget
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections
8. Professional Development
Areas for Development: • Case recording is of variable quality and not always up-to-date. In some cases it is not possible for managers to identify from the records whether the appropriate action has been taken to protect children and young people ( Unannounced 2011 ) • There are established auditing systems in place which has led to dissemination of the findings and clear plans. However, this has not led to sustained improvement across all teams ( Unannounced 2011 ) • Culture and ethnicity are not consistently taken into account in assessment and planning ( Unannounced 2011 ) • Ensure that assessments fully consider issues of ethnicity, religion, culture and identity and that services are responsive to these needs to enable full engagement by children and their families. ( Announced 2011 – 3 month )
8. Improve professional knowledge and skills Actions / tasks Lead Officer Progress Update on Action & Evidence of Action Timescales Taken 8.1 Analyse issues in relation to culture and ethnicity. Debby Bring a report to Children Services Management team Achieved Re-enforce the role of Team Manager in quality McKechnie / which identifies: Jul 11 control through case supervision, management Jo overview and appraisal Richardson / • Whether quality issues are concentrated in particular Dominic localised geographical/service areas in Norfolk Stevens • The precise ways in which culture and ethnicity are not being fully reflected in assessment and planning
*Any localised issues immediately reported to responsible managers to be addressed through monthly supervision & performance appraisal objectives – and monitored monthly for evidence of continuous improvement.
Children’s Services policy & template for supervision Issue date redrafted to highlight need to focus on equality & Oct 11 diversity issues relating to identity
8.2 Corporate Equalities Manager to advise on action Jo A task and finish project group chaired by the to ensure focus on equality & diversity is improved & Richardson Children’s Services Localities and Integration Completed front-line staff understand what they need to do and Manager, supported by the Planning, Performance Aug 11 why it is important. and Partnership’s (Equality) Manager and attended by relevant staff from across Children’s Services has been established and met twice already, to develop a Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections robust strategy for strengthening performance on equality and relevant actions. The project group will oversee implementation of the strategy to ensure targets are achieved over the next three years.
An opportunity has also been taken to align this work with a wider project around race and ethnicity in Norfolk, to engage relevant communities and young people in reality checking actions and performance.
The draft strategy is being developed and is due to be On 20 th Sept taken to Children’s Services Leadership Team.
Actions identified to date include: • Development of specialised e-learning module for social care staff followed by series of fast- track master classes on understanding To be heritage, identity, culture, religion & belief; completed wider issues affecting Black, Asian and minority by ethnic young people (BAME) i.e. education, Nov 11 training and employment; exposure to positive role models; understanding discrimination and stereotyping, and tackling hate-related bullying.
• Map of available voluntary & community To be BAME/diverse faith provision developed, to completed extend the range of available options for social by care staff in ensuring BAME young people in Nov 11 non-BAME placements have as much access as possible to support and provision about their heritage & identity
8.3 Ensure senior managers review and act on Phil Holmes QA team present proposed annual audit plan to CSLT Nov 11 findings of key themes from audits QA team take quarterly reports to Departmental In place and Performance Board, highlighting key significant audit ongoing findings.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Audit findings and recommendations are discussed with operational managers at the conclusion of the audit and included in Operational Division action plans
Team and Service action plans held by QA team and revisited during entry interviews of subsequent audits.
Include key themes in targeted management audits (which will periodically replace a round of routine management audits)
Quarterly county wide executive summary of key themes feeds report to Performance Board Commenced Themes fed into current audit cycle so far include: Aug 11 • Core assessment audit (completed)) • Management Overview
8.4 Ensure social work teams are aware of relevant Operational Audit Plans in place for each division Complete audit findings. Managers Operational Managers discuss at Team Meetings and On-going through supervisions
All audits reported on intranet and QA website In place
All executive summaries shared with operational In place managers at the close of the audit.
Post audit action plans reviewed with each team at the In place commencement of next audit cycle.
QA manager updates duty & safeguarding managers on key themes monthly at Safeguarding manager’s In place best practice group
Quarterly meeting between QA manger and Divisional Oct 12 senior management teams to cross reference findings onwards from audit with this improvement plan
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 8.5 Develop training schedule focused on improving Tom Savory / Six training workshops for Team Managers run in Rolling quality of practice in identified areas Elly Starling partnership with the University of East Anglia have programme been funded by the Social Work Improvement Fund. began with This first workshop was aimed at enabling managers 1st workshop to support their staff in using evidence based held interventions. 12 th and 13 th Jul 11
The above training workshops will be complemented 3rd Oct to by a parallel series of training events for front line 25 th Nov 11 Social Workers focused on key practice issues, including “cultural competence” and the voice of the child.
8.6 Set clear expectations around standards of Tom Savory / Continue to include in key messages for social work Ongoing recording to include a quality assurance process Lesley staff within appraisals Whitney Build into training planned for July (see Action 1 completed above)
Managers will include findings from audits of quality of May / Jun 12 current case recording to feed key themes & issues into appraisals targets.
8.7 Continue to develop CareFirst so it is fit for our Paul Fisher / Adapted core assessment document on CareFirst to Complete purpose Phil Holmes make it more straight-forward for users
Implement improved strategy within CareFirst version Jan 12 6.10 to include: • Improved care plan • Streamlined CP process • Further improved core assessment
A bid has been submitted to secure the funding to Outcome fund the programming necessary to implement Care expected First version 6.10 Dec 11
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections 8.8 Build an audit of compliance of case recording into Phil Holmes Scope and approach for discussion at CSLT Completed QA cycle. Write and publish practice standards and guidance for Completed all file records.
Standards taken to Lesley Whitney’s Management Completed meetings
Working Group established consisting of 1 1st Oct 11 Operational Manager – Safeguarding + Operational Manager Localities and Integration
Content agreed Mar 11
Standards published on Children’s Services Jun 11 Procedure Site and QA website.
Report of implementation and findings from Jul 11 management overviews and audits to be included in quarterly report of performance to Performance and Quality Board.
8.9 Raise the quality of recording Tom Savory Hold a series of leadership visits to front-line offices All teams / Lesley using the ‘learning walk’ concept from schools building visited by Whitney on the three Service Development Workshops to be Dec 11 held in the Operational Divisions
Scope and agree approach through Performance and Sept 11 Quality Board.
8.10 Appoint three Principal social workers to provide Tom Savory Funding through Eastern Safeguarding Project and Agreed support and guidance to social workers and and Lesley Social Work Improvement Fund (work co-ordinated by associated staff to help drive improvements in social Whitney Norfolk Children’s Social Work Reform Project) work practice. Assessment process agreed – using the Children’s Jun 11 Workforce Development Council’s Advanced Social Work Professional Status assessment.
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Advertise posts Oct 11
In post Jan 12 8.11 Implement new Senior Social Worker role to Posts sit alongside Principal Social Worker Posts as Jun 11 develop Social Worker career pathway and better part of an enhanced professional development route quantify levels of experience needed in teams to for Social Workers designed within the Norfolk ensure best practice and most efficient and effective Children’s Social Work Reform Project use of resources. Initial consultation with Trade Union and Senior Jun 11 Managers on proposals for Senior Social Worker role are complete. Nov 11 Consult staff on proposed posts Apr 12 Implement new posts 8.12 Success Criteria: • Assessments contain clear analysis, including consideration of the impact of diversity issues • Assessments will consistently be judged at least “Good” in the next Ofsted inspection of Children’s Services. • First line managers well supported by a framework for driving service improvement. • Records are up-to-date and demonstrate sound assessment and decision making, including decisions made in supervision • Cases closed contain clear reasons for closure by a Team manager • Data quality is improved and there are accurate management information reports which are owned by teams • EDT are able to access accurate and up-to-date information on Care First • Information relating to culture, religion, disability and language is clearly recorded in case files and implications considered. • There is increased confidence and ownership of Care First across the service • The voice of the child is clear in every assessment and care plan.
8.13 How will success criteria be measured? • Outcomes from audits of assessments show full consideration of & specific tangible activity relating to cultural requirements where necessary. • Audit programme reflects improved performance • Reduction in data quality errors • Robust information readily available for all Statutory Returns • Record keeping will be assessed through supervision and case record audits undertaken by Team Managers reported on at the Performance & Quality Board • Service users report satisfaction within case closure process
Children’s Services 2011/12 Improvement Plan Response to Ofsted Announced & Unannounced Inspections Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 15 September 2011 Item No. 10
How the shared service for Customer Services and Communications supports the work of Children’s Services generally, and in its requirement to consult and engage Children and Young People
Report by the Head of Customer Services and Communications
Summary
This report is for the information of Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel to aid discussion.
It responds to a request from the Chairman of the Panel for information about how the Customer Services and Communications shared service supports the work of Children’s Services in general, and particularly, how it supports work to ensure children and young people are engaged in the planning, commissioning and delivering of Children’s Services and receive feedback on the results.
Recommendation :
Members are asked to consider the contents of this report.
1. Background - The Customer Services and Communications shared service
1.1. The Customer Services and Communications shared service supports the Children’s Services agenda in a wide variety of ways. Though the customer services and communications elements have operated as a shared service for several years, the outcome of the authority’s Organisational Review added marketing, consultation, post room and complaints services and began the development of a stronger customer insight function.
1.2 These elements were added towards the latter part of last year and some of the processes associated with them are still under review and transformation.
1.3 As a consequence, the shared service delivers the following services for the Children’s Services department.
Service offered Performance since 1 April 2011
Compliments and complaints service 222 complaints, 15 compliments
Frontline customer services operations 446 email enquiries re education (Taking and dealing with customer requests 6,175 telephone enquiries (education) for services and information through the 9,645 telephone social care enquiries customer service centre and web). Customer profiling/insight We have worked with colleagues on two projects to identify customer preferences and use of services to help inform change - the Schools Music Service and the Fostering and
Adoption team
Media service Dealt with 227 enquiries, issued 38 releases and prepared or issued 16 statements
Marketing and public information campaigns (NB since October 2010)
Two fostering campaigns - this spring's campaign will be repeated in the autumn
One adoption campaign, another planned for later this year
New marketing information for Children's Centres
New leaflets, marketing packs, and campaign support for the early years service
Gipsy, Romany, Travellers day (with the traveller education team)
The Play90 campaign now mainstreamed into all schools, ran two training courses, tickets at matches for schools/young carers, fostered children etc
A schools pack and information for the Tour of Britain – being updated for this year
Marketing support for the Power of Five campaign – marketing sports activities in schools
Anti bullying week campaign
Marketing support for the School Music Service – new information, setting up a week of events at the Forum at Christmas, and event launches at the Norfolk Show
Aim higher and D'Catch projects - information for parents of children with disabilities - support and developing information
Children's Services presence at the Royal Norfolk Show in the shared marquee and coordinating and managing the ticketing for Looked After Children letters for carers, resource centre managers and head teachers, arrangements with EDP for goodie bags etc
In planning
Major marketing around traded services for schools - including the communications service to schools and academies
Community reassurance campaign (large school element - working with David Sheppard)
Teenage pregnancy - in planning for the last four months, planned launch in the autumn
Internal communications Support/editing for weekly brief
Attending one management team per month for comms support/intelligence gathering for internal comms/marketing (separate from regular media slot)
Support for changes associated with the Organisation Review and budget savings
Staff briefings and information for clients involved in changes to services
Support for developments around the Additional Needs project - website and guidance workshops
Briefings for staff involved in the children's centre consultations and communication planning around delivering the changes.
Consultation and Involvement See separate section below
1.4 Services to schools
In addition we are a service provider to schools through a contracted-in subscription service for media and marketing activities. Since 1 April we have handled 30 enquiries on behalf of individual schools. We have also prepared and issued six releases and five statements. We have provided marketing training for schools, including a one day training course for 19 schools and some dedicated support into schools on publications.
2. Consultation and Involvement
2.1 Norfolk County Council is required to engage and consult people who use its services and those that care or support them, in the planning, commissioning and delivery of them.
2.2 It is a responsibility the County Council takes seriously, particularly in respect of the work carried out by the Children’s Services Department.
2.3 The Consultation and Community Relations (CCR) team have a corporate responsibility to ensure that the authority’s decisions and services are shaped by, and with, the active input of Norfolk citizens and the people who use our services. However, most day to day consultation and engagement takes place not through consultation workers, but through the dealings that practitioners have when working with individual families and carers, and children and young people.
2.4 Until October 2010, a number of consultation and engagement staff within the department supported and delivered specific engagement projects and consultation activities. In addition, consultation and engagement were key elements of the work carried out by Youth Workers. A single, corporate consultation officer supported departmental colleagues with good practice toolkits, advice and guidance and by leading an authority wide public involvement group that included three County Councillors.
2.5 In November 2010, consultation staff from across the authority were brought together into one consultation and community relations team within the shared service. The objectives of that re-organisation were to save money, share resources, build strong networks, develop and share good practice and learning more effectively across the council as a whole and deliver a more consistent service.
2.6 In 2008, Members of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel formed a working group to scrutinise consultation processes within Children’s Services. The group published its report in July 2008. There is a strong fit between the objectives for the new consultation shared service, and the findings and recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel’s working group on this matter.
3 Three key drivers for improvement and change
3.1 Two key factors arising from the results of Norfolk’s Big Conversation have a particular bearing on the future role and work of the team.
• Transformational changes to organisational structures and to some services, such as youth provision, mean that some of the structures that were in place to engage young people and the staff that used to help facilitate their use, no longer exist. In the future, rather than our youth services delivering activities for children and young people it will be voluntary and community services who do. We plan to build and maintain strong and supportive links with these organisations to help ensure they are able to engage with us.
• As the authority commissions more and provides less, it is very important that what we commission is shaped by those who need and will use the services and that the quality of what is provided is monitored with their involvement. This requires consistent frameworks, support and training for staff and strong relationships and support for voluntary and community providers.
3.2 The third key driver for improvement concerns social media.
3.3 Where young people are concerned in particular, their widespread knowledge and use of social media provides great potential for the authority to reach out and engage with them more widely and much more regularly. Some of the recent organisational changes make this an opportune time to exploit these technologies more effectively in the future. In addition the development of social media means some of our consultation and involvement tools are now outdated, so we are working hard to update them. We have already explored the use of social media to engage with young
people, for example in the Post 16 Transport consultation we developed a Facebook page to encourage young people to share their views on ideas to save money. Over 50 people engaged with the page, resulting in 254 responses being received to the online consultation. The page will be used to feed back the findings and any decisions made.
4. How the shared service works for Children’s Services
4.1 The service has a senior consultation officer, Anne Tansley Thomas, who is responsible for liaising effectively with the department and with its performance relationship manager, to understand and identify its consultation needs.
4.2 In addition, we have a full time involvement officer supporting the corporate parenting and safeguarding agendas and engagement with Looked After Children. Irene Kerry supports the In Care Council (ICC) and is working hard to extend and broaden the means by which we engage more young people in our care in Children’s Services and other council consultations.
4.3 We have a consultation officer, Tom Gaskin, who has a role to ensure that the views of young people are fed into all relevant consultation and involvement across Norfolk County Council and that our tools and techniques are young people friendly. To give an example, we are currently supporting the development of Healthwatch to ensure that young people are involved.
4.4 The networks we support, use and encourage include:
- The In Care Council for Looked After Children (Junior, senior and area based) - The UK Youth Parliament across the nine Parliamentary constituencies - School Councils
5 Current activity to support consultation in Children’s Services
5.1 We continue to work closely with the Department’s management team to identify all the consultation needs associated with its transformation projects and look at their involvement / consultation plans. Forthcoming specific consultations we are supporting include a consultation of changes to the CAMHS service, 11-19 Strategy and to Additional Needs provision.
5.2 We are responding to requests for advice on engaging and involving young people from Children’s Services personnel. We are also setting up online questionnaires and consultation mechanisms for Children’s Services and advising on analysis.
5.3 A social media engagement pilot using Facebook to engage Young Travellers. The pilot is yielding invaluable information on barriers to use of social media with young people. The pilot will inform the development of the forthcoming Social Media Framework, which will state the council’s corporate position on social media and its use and will also inform the CCR team’s staff training programme on the use of social media to engage.
5.4 Helping develop a consultation plan to support the work of the Small Schools Working Group. This includes advising on methods and support in developing question areas and approaches. The team will also be working with our young people peer researchers to engage with pupils to explore their experiences of small schools.
5.5 Early Intervention Grant - the team supported the consultation process to develop the area Youth Advisory Boards and is currently supporting the development of the terms of reference, the commissioning specification and young people’s involvement.
5.6 We have supported the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) to develop its consultation with young people and parents and carers on the future direction of CAMHS and will assist in the development of its young people involvement activity.
5.7 Working with children who have supervised contact to help improve their experience of this service - the team will work with staff in Children’s Services help to develop a mechanism where the service can gain feedback from children who have supervised contact. The aim is for the voice of the child to be heard in this process. The project will also look at the experience of parents and foster carers.
5.8 An extensive work plan in relation to involving Looked After Children in the development of their services.
5.9 Embedding children and young people involvement in the decision making and development of our Anti Bullying Strategy. This will involve looking at the key stages of development of the strategy and advising where and how children and young people can be involved. After devising a way for children and young people to help prioritise actions in the strategy, there will be further work with children and young people to co- produce solutions.
5.10 Supporting the involvement of children and young people in the NHS ‘You’re Welcome’ scheme, which aims to make health services more 'young people' friendly. We will be training young people to act as inspectors, accessing bids from health facilities wishing to achieve “You’re Welcome” status.
5.11 Improving and updating our Public Involvement Toolkit so there is better information about how to engage children and young people.
5.12 Reviewing our on-line tools such as consultation finder and survey monkey to see if we can get more interactivity.
5.13 Developing a database of contacts for youth organisations in the voluntary and community sector with whom we can work on the consultation agenda for children and young people.
5.14 In addition we are:
• Planning to develop stronger relations with school councils and enable better consultation with and through their members through a re-launched Schools Council Network. We do not currently have a single database of schools councils with up-to- date contact information for chairs and key points of contact. The CCR team will develop this by January 2012 to provide a principle route for consultation and participation and feedback between the council and schools. This network will also be incorporated into the new stakeholder management database.
• Developing a new consultation and involvement membership scheme to replace Citizens’ Panel and Your Voice. There will be a young people element as part of this which will give colleagues access to an online panel for rapid consultation or sounding board. It will also create a panel from which young people can become more involved in co-production and other involvement activities, such as focus groups and mystery
shopping. We are hoping to work in partnership with other public sector organisations on this. We expect the scheme to be up and running by April 2012 and the young people’s element to this work to be completed by April 2013.
• Working in partnership with the Learning and Development Shared Service we will seek to "Build a Culture of Participation" across the department through a programme of workforce development that will aim to ensure that the services users voice is heard in the development and delivery of services .
6 Feeding back the results of consultation and supporting others to do so
6.1 Where we engage with a group of young people for a specific project we feed back the results of that engagement directly to that group. When we have used specific mechanisms for engagement, for example Facebook, we post the results of the engagement online so that anyone who has taken part using that method can see the results.
6.2 For example, the results of the recent Ofsted inspection have been placed on the Kids in Care Together website and a link placed on our involvement officer’s work Facebook website which all ICC members access for updates. In addition the link has been sent out to approximately 460 children and young people through their virtual school email accounts. The carer’s version has been placed on the fosternet site which will be promoted to carers .
6.3 With more general consultations, where we are not working with a specific group of young people, feeding back is harder. We publicise the result online, we issue a news release, and we put information at source. Where people have said that they wish to hear the outcome of the consultation we use email. So for example, in the recent library opening hours consultation, as well as coverage in local media, the results were on our website and physically inside libraries.
6.4 Where young people are consulted individually as part of care planning etc, it’s the responsibility of the relevant social care practitioner to make sure that they feed back to the young person the outcome of that consultation. Sometimes some of their views may not have influenced the resultant care plan for good reason, but in any event, they should receive clear feedback on what has been put in place and why. In our toolkits and in the advice we give to departments we stress the need to feed back the outcomes of consultation and involvement.
6.5 When we support the department with consultation planning, consideration of how they publicise a consultation and feed back the results are an important and integral part of this planning process.
6.6 Where partnership working with voluntary and community sector (VCS) youth organisations is concerned, we have a designated an officer to develop a network of VCS youth organisations that we will be able to use much more effectively in the future to communicate upcoming consultation and involvement activity and feedback results to a wider group of children and young people. This will be operational by November 2012 and we will incorporate this network into the stakeholder management database scheduled for development in 2012.
7 Resource Implications
7.1 Finance: There are no finance implications with the contents of this report. The service developments described will be met within the existing budget.
7.2 Staff: There are no staffing implications with the contents of this report.
7.3 Property: There are no property implications with the contents of this report.
7.4 ICT: Planned improvements to the authority’s web platforms will aid the implementation of some of these proposals and there will be a draw on web resource but this is scheduled within current resources.
8 Other Implications
8.1 Legal Implications: There are no legal implications with the contents of this report.
8.2 Human Rights: The involvement of children and young people is steered by two charters that the UK has signed, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The relevant articles in the UN Convention are articles 12 and 13 and in the Charter article 24. Of particular relevance, Article 12 of the UN Convention: states Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
8.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA): When undertaking consultation and involvement we collect demographic information about participants to ensure that, where relevant, participants represent the wider population. This diversity monitoring means that we are able to tell when young people are underrepresented. When feeding back the results of consultation into decision-making we are clear about which groups have responded and which groups have not. Where possible we try to put in place other mechanisms to get the feedback of underrepresented groups.
8.4 Communications : The innovations detailed in this report will significantly improve communications between the council and children in care.
9 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
9.1 There are no specific crime and disorder implications. The overall impact of the changes for children in care will better outcomes for them, which may reduce the likelihood of disengagement and negative and anti-social behaviours associated with this.
10 Risk Implications/Assessment
10.1 None
11 Action Required
11.1 Members are asked to consider this report.
12 Background Papers
12.1 Inspection of safeguarding and looked after children’s services at Norfolk County Council. OFSTED, 6-17 June 2011
12.2 Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Working Group Report on Consultation processes in Children’s Services July 2008
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with Joanna Hannam Tel No: 01603 222969, email address: [email protected]
If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Joanna Hannam on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel September 2011/12 Item No. 11
Norfolk Children’s Services Draft Corporate Parenting Placement Strategy (2011 – 14)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Recommendation : Members are asked to comment and give direction on the Draft Strategy
Summary
This report identifies how we will act as a ‘good and prudent parent’ always seeking to improve outcomes and life chances but, as with any family, doing so within our financial means.
Historically the cost of providing care has been a problematic area for Children’s Services, not just in Norfolk but nationally. Demand has often outstripped supply, which has favoured providers.
This new approach for Norfolk is multi-faceted because the Corporate Parenting system is complex. At the heart of it is a desire to better manage the market rather than be managed by it. The clear aim is to reduce cost whilst seeking to improve the quality of care, with a greater emphasis on partnership.
The Corporate Parenting budget for 2011/12 is £54,756,068. The greatest expenditure (83%) relates to placement costs, broken down as follows:- LAC Placement costs (fostering, residential etc) £41,803,258 Leaving Care Placement Costs £3,407,445
Financial projections, as at the beginning of August 2011, show a balanced budget at year end. Whilst it is clearly too early to celebrate, the actions in the strategy are starting to make a difference. An example of this is that the number of highest cost placements, costing £4K per week has decreased from 41 to 19 in just 16 months.
The strategy will be kept under continuous review as it needs to adapt and respond quickly to changing circumstances in the internal and external environment. What is represented here is the current plan and actions.
The strategy has 4 key objectives. Under each of these objectives are the detailed actions that will deliver a balanced budget.
1. National Legislation
1.1. Care Matters
The Corporate Parenting Strategy for Norfolk sits within a national context and legislative framework. As Care Matters: Transforming the lives of Children and Young People in Care (2006) states:-
‘The state has a unique responsibility for children in care. It has taken on the task of parenting some of society’s most vulnerable children and in doing so it must become everything a good parent should be. It must offer a nurturing home and a happy childhood, must be ambitious for children’s futures, and must be demanding of schools and services to get the best for these children.’ (p10)
Care Matters was introduced to see a step-change in outcomes for children in care. Norfolk shares this ambition and seeks to reflect the following goal in all it does:-
‘However long or short a time children spend it care, it should make a positive difference to their lives. Many will enter care during a troubled part of their childhood when they are on a path towards poor qualifications and minimal prospects in adult life. Care must change that course, whether by helping settle a difficult family situation or by offering the child a stable new home through long term care, special guardianship or adoption. We believe that to make this difference care must be a positive experience for children. It must raise their aspirations and offer better opportunities to enjoy childhood.’ (p11)
1.2. Sufficiency Duty
‘Sufficiency: statutory guidance on securing sufficient accommodation for looked after children’ (DfE; 2010) has been introduced as part of the suite of regulations and guidance issued under the umbrella of Care Matters enacted in April 2011. It requires local authorities to ‘take steps that secure, as far as reasonably practicable, sufficient accommodation within the authority’s area which meets the needs of children that the local authority are looking after, and whose circumstances are such that it would be consistent with the welfare for them to be provided with accommodation that is in the local authority’s area’
There is a substantial body of evidence showing that outcomes for LAC are improved when they are placed close to home. As the Sufficiency guidance identifies, ‘securing sufficient accommodation that meets the needs of looked after children is a vital step in delivering improved outcomes for this vulnerable group. Having the right placement in the right place, at the right time, is a vital factor in improving placement stability, which in turn is a critical success factor in relation to better outcomes for looked after children.’ (p8)
Norfolk currently has 20% of its LAC population living outside of Norfolk making the Sufficiency Duty a central driving force behind this strategy.
2. Norfolk Vision for Looked After Children
The Norfolk Corporate Parenting Board recently discussed the vision for our LAC to reflect the ambition of the national agenda but also the requirement, as with any family, to live within the financial means available. The following emerged with which we will have further discussion with stakeholders.
As a Local Authority with statutory responsibility for children and young people who are looked after, and for young people who are care leavers we wish to act as a good and prudent parent .
As good parents we will have high aspirations for all our children and we will support them to do their best and to achieve their potential, within the means we have available.
The following inform how we meet our responsibilities as a good and prudent corporate parent:- • The statutory framework of legislation, regulation and guidance for looked after children and care leavers. • Relevant performance measures. • The views and aspirations of our children and young people (as expressed through individual Care Planning, through wider consultations and through our Children in Care Council). • Our aspirations for our children and young people (as expressed in our Pledge). • The grade descriptors for the Ofsted inspection framework(s). • What national and local research tells us, particularly about good practice and “what works”. • The resources available to us balanced against the demand upon them.
The components above will individually and collectively inform: • our policies and procedures • our commissioning decisions • what we view as “good practice” • our performance framework
In order to achieve the best that we can for our children and young people our services will be delivered by confident and knowledgeable practitioners, who are well informed and able to access appropriate resources for the children and young people they care for.
3. Principles
This strategy is underpinned by the following key principles
1. The needs of children looked after or at risk of coming into care, are best met by all services to children and young people working together in a joined-up co-ordinated manner 2. Most children are best brought up within their own families 3. Early intervention to support children and young people in need and their families will be provided to give them the best chance to stay together 4. Where children cannot be supported within their immediate family, family and friends care arrangements will be explored as the preferred alternative arrangement leading to adoption, special guardianship or residence order 5. If children do require to be accommodated outside their family or friends network then the majority will have their needs best met in a foster care environment 6. Where the complexity of the child’s needs mean that they cannot live in a family setting or where a child is clear that they do not want an alternative family then their needs will best be met in a residential setting 7. The needs of most of Norfolk’s Looked After Children and young people leaving care are best met in Norfolk. Placements, therefore, should be, wherever possible, sufficiently local to enable children to remain in their communities, maintain their friendship networks and educational provision and so minimise disruption in their lives 8. All Looked After Children of statutory school age should receive appropriate educational provision regardless of their placement location 9. Placements should provide stability for children within their families or alternative care arrangements. 10. Placements should support positive transitions to adulthood, education, employment and training enabling care leavers to be an integral part of their local community and succeed in independence 11. Good assessment, planning and reviewing is central to Looked After Children and young people leaving care achieving positive outcomes
4. Needs Analysis
4.1. The number of Looked After Children in Norfolk has increased from 832 (01/04/07) to 969 (01/04/11). This represents a 16.5% increase over the 4 years. This increase is in line with the national trend and lower than some of our geographical and statistical neighbours.
4.2. The January 2011 summary shows that Norfolk had 196 LAC placed out of county These 196 LAC were placed as follows:-
126 in Foster care - 23 In-house Foster carers 4 In-house Kinship Foster carers 99 Agency Foster carers
63 in Residential care - 1 Secure Unit 2 Residential Care Home (health setting) 3 Residential Family Assessment Unit 2 Children’s Home (vol sector) 20 Residential School 35 Children’s Home (private sector)
1 Placed with Parents (full care order) 3 Court ordered family/friend placement during proceedings 3 in independent living (post 16 ‘unregulated’ accommodation)
Since this date the number placed out of county has remained relatively stable despite an increase in the overall Looked After Children population.
4.3. The latest data published annually by DfE shows that Norfolk had 190 LAC placements out of county and 155 LAC placements made by other local authority’s in Norfolk (as at 31/03/10). Thus, Norfolk is a ‘net exporter’ of 35 LAC. This compares with Suffolk which is a ‘net importer’ of 45 and Lincolnshire which is a ‘net importer’ of 245.
5. Financial Analysis
5.1. The budget plan for Children’s Services includes reduction in expenditure of £3,283m (placements) and £2,791m (staff) for 2011/12 within a total savings package of approximately £10m across the Corporate Parenting system over the next 3 years.
5.2. The savings plan was informed by a detailed financial benchmarking exercise across 53 local authorities completed by CIPFA on 31/03/10. The exercise gave much rich data about cost comparisons and shows that significant savings can be achieved. The key message for Norfolk is that it had the 7 th highest placement cost per head per week out of the 53 local authorities ( £1,012 against average of £809)
6. Analysis of placements made in last 12 months
6.1. Out of County Residential Care Placements purchased in last 12 months
Our data shows that of the 63 LAC currently placed in out of County Residential Care over a third have been settled in this placement for over 2 years. Of the 21 LAC placed in out of county residential care during the last year the data shows that the majority of these placements specialise in supporting children with emotional, behavioural and/ or learning difficulties. Our focus, therefore, with partners has been to increase Norfolk placements to meet these needs.
6.2. Out of County Agency Foster Care Placements purchased in last 12 months
Our data shows that of the 99 LAC currently placed in Agency Foster Care over half have been settled in their placement for over 1 year. Of the 47 LAC placed in agency foster care during the last year the data shows that the vast majority are placed close to Norfolk in neighbouring authorities.
7. Analysis of data
7.1. Norfolk currently has a shortage of both residential and fostering placements within its geographical boundaries. This would be true even if Norfolk could free up the placements currently used by other authorities. Historically providers have tended to focus their provision in geographical areas that are close to a number of local authorities so that they can spread the investment risk and not put all their ‘eggs in one basket’.
7.2. Our current projection is that there is a need for the following additional placements during 2011/12:- 20 – 30 additional residential placements 80 - 100 additional foster care placements 40 – 60 additional leaving care placements This will mean we can meet the vast majority of need for new Looked After Children within Norfolk as well as those needing to return to Norfolk. It is expected that the majority of this extra capacity will be developed by our partners.
8. Key Objectives
Given the level of need, our statutory responsibilities, our current performance and our key principles the following 4 key objectives are central to our strategy:- 1. Provision of evidence-based programmes of support for families enabling them to stay together and therefore reduce the need for children to be looked after 2. Provision, through a robust commissioning process, of a flexible and affordable mix of high quality placements to support all children, whatever their need, have a positive experience of care 3. Provision of clearly planned journeys through care which enable looked after children to be reunited with family and friends where possible, be adopted or have Special Guardianship or Residence Orders where appropriate, have stable placements and exit the care system positively 4. Drive forward improvements across the whole corporate parenting system by introducing an improved performance management framework
9. Objective 1: Supporting families stay together
9.1. More effective and focused early intervention could lead to a reduction of the number of children who need to be looked after, as their needs are addressed before they progress to that state.
9.2. Whilst for sound financial planning purposes a net increase of 50 is projected, Children’s Services has set itself a stretch target to reduce the LAC population by 50 during 2011/12. In order to achieve this, the success of the following actions will be critical:-
Action Update Establishment of the multi- Children in Need Teams operational from 1 st June disciplinary Children in Need Teams 2011. to give greater capacity to support families in need
Re-tendering process for all Tendering process underway with expectation that Children’s Centres across Norfolk new arrangements will be operational from 1 April with greater focus on supporting 2012. those families in greatest need The Children’s Centre specification has been written with input from Safeguarding Strategy & Commissioning Manager to ensure clear focus on supporting families in greatest need where research informs us that the children might otherwise end up in care Ongoing work to improve the take The CAF is being written into the specifications of all up of CAF appropriate services (both delivered in-house and externally commissioned) as the initial assessment form and process.
A working group is currently exploring whether the CAF form can be made to be more ‘fit for purpose’ as the size and complexity of the current form is considered a significant barrier to take up Continuation of the jointly-funded The Family Nurse Partnership (in which a Health Family Nurse Partnership model of Practitioner intensively supports a small caseload of evidence-based support for young young mothers) is operating at full capacity mothers
Refocusing work of staff from New specification for these teams has created a more County Adolescent Prevention joined-up all age service Service and Unthank Centre
Expansion of the Boarding School An additional £100k has been allocated this year to the Pathfinder Scheme as an effective Boarding School Pathfinder Scheme. means of keeping families together Over 25 children have now been supported making and improving educational this the largest such Local Authority scheme in the outcomes country. Future developments include going into partnership with a national charity and securing significant discounts on current fees Continuation of Family Intervention There are a number of FIPs across Norfolk where Projects (FIPs) intensive support is provided to families needing a joined-up response from public organisations. Of particular interest is the pilot in South Norfolk where the focus is on supporting families with children on the edge of care.
10. Objective 2: Provision of a flexible and affordable mix of high quality placements for looked after children and young people leaving care
10.1. For children and young people in care we need to make sure we have the right range of placements which promote positive experiences whatever their needs. As the needs analysis identified we do not currently have sufficient placements available in Norfolk to meet all types of need, which means that some children can end up in placements a long way from their local community. The benchmarking data also showed that we have a high average placement cost per child. The key actions to deliver against objective 2 are therefore:-
10.2. Action One: Stimulate and encourage the marketplace for residential placements so that additional placement capacity is delivered in Norfolk.
Ronmar has just opened a second residential unit for 4 placements in Thetford
Clover Lodge has just opened a second unit for 3 placements in Broadland.
Break is opening two new Children’s Homes during 2011/12 in Thetford and Blowfield. This will increase their placement capacity by 8.
The Benjamin Foundation is opening a Children’s Home with on-site education in Gt. Yarmouth in March 12. This will provide 8 placements
A Special School is developing a new unit that would be appropriate for LAC with SEN. This will provide 6 placements.
A Private Organisation is currently seeking to open a new unit in Norfolk offering 4 placements on A47 between Gt Yarmouth and Norwich Childhood First has added a 5 th bedroom at Merrywood and will add a 6 th by September 11. A Private Organisation have just opened a new unit just outside Norfolk in Wisbech. The unit has the capacity for 8 placements.
The above developments should see a minimum of an additional 30 placements come on stream during 2011/12. When combined with recent changes in our in-house residential provision this should still create a net increase of 24 placements. All at a cost significantly below that we are currently paying for out of county residential placements.
10.3. Action Two: With increased competition arising from increased capacity, drive down placement costs.
We expect the new Sufficiency Duty to be very helpful with this aspect to our plan in the following key ways:- • Currently 155 LAC from other authorities are placed in Norfolk and this will begin to significantly decrease as authorities seek to place in their own areas freeing up options for Norfolk children. • Improved partnership working with neighbouring authorities will also deliver real benefits eg we will have access to the 30 Suffolk County Council Foster Carers living in Norfolk and they will have access to our foster carers living in Suffolk. • Organisations providing residential Children’s Homes are actively developing new provision in Norfolk as they know they will see a significant drop in business with us outside of Norfolk • There is less potential for providers to play one authority of against another and ramp up price as we all agree to focus on placing in-county – As only Norfolk (out of Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire) is a net-exporter of LAC if we do not use placements in their areas they will have little need to place in Norfolk.
10.4. In addition we will go out to tender for Agency Residential Approved Provider Status during 2011/12. This will create a restricted list of Approved Providers that we will go to when required for ‘spot purchase’ placements with costs and quality criteria agreed in advance. During this process we will also seek to move from the current ‘one size fits all’ payment system to one where we can pick items from a ‘menu of costs’ based on the individual needs of each child.
10.5. In advance of the new restricted list being used for all new placements from 01/04/12 we have negotiated with individual providers and secured placement discounts on current fees. To date this has generated placement savings of between 10 – 20% for ‘new business’. Organisations whose fees are greater than we are prepared to pay for the type of service they provide have been told this and no new placements made. Again our experience has shown that after a period of a few months most come back willing to negotiate. In April 2010 Norfolk paid for 41 LAC in placements costing over £4k / week. The number now (July 2011) in these high cost placements is only 19 showing the impact of this approach.
10.6. Action Three: Introduce new tighter gate keeping arrangements that act as the only access route to spot purchased agency placements
A new Sufficiency Manager post has been created to act as the short term ‘agency decision maker’ for the whole county. This post combined with the county weekly and monthly panels (chaired by Children’s Services Assistant Director or Strategy & Commissioning Manager) has ensured that there is a thorough process of identifying the most appropriate placement to meet identified need and ensuring a single consistent route through.
10.7. New criteria have been introduced that ensure that if a therapeutic residential unit is requested then there is a joint assessment with health (CAMHS) colleagues and a joint agreement with Health about sharing placement costs. This has resulted in improved joint working by practitioners, improved joint working by commissioners and a reduction in the placement cost met by the Social Care budget.
10.8. In addition, new criteria have been introduced that ensure that if a dual registered placement (Children’s Home with on-site education) is requested then there is a joint assessment with education (SEN) colleagues and a joint agreement with Education about sharing placement costs. This has resulted again in improved joint working by practitioners, improved joint working by commissioners and a reduction in the placement cost met by the Social Care budget.
10.9 Action Four: Stimulate and encourage the marketplace for foster care placements so that additional placement capacity is delivered in Norfolk.
Sufficiency Action Development Tender for Dynamic Purchasing System being introduced that will create a Agency Foster ‘league table’ of providers based on score combining cost and Care going out in quality judgements. Placements will first be offered to best April 11 for start performing agencies to encourage high quality / low cost date of October placements. Model actively encourages new entrants to the 11. Norfolk market. Early analysis of costs indicates that savings will be achieved on current ‘pan London’ prices evidencing value of going it alone and no longer paying London rates Encourage New A Charity is developing a new therapeutic fostering service for Entrant adolescents with significant and complex needs. Planning for 12 new ‘single’ therapeutic placements from Oct ‘11 Encourage New A Private Company entered the market as a new fostering Entrant agency within last 12 months. They are actively recruiting at present and have 20 new carers in training at the moment to potentially be available in next 6 months. Residential Care to We are currently exploring a ‘bridge to fostering’ pilot with another Fostering Private Company which will see children currently in a residential setting but with a care plan goal for long term foster care move to foster care at an appropriate pace and time. We are seeking to pilot this approach with up to 10 young people during 2011/12 They are also actively recruiting in Norfolk and expect to see an increase of at least 20 placements during 2011/12 Explore ways in A review of the In-house Fostering Service (NFS) is underway. which our In- A report soon to be available will identify recommendations for House Fostering future improvements Service can increase efficiency and effectiveness Bid to DfE for In partnership with Suffolk County Council we have been funding for successful with our bid to pilot this evidence based intervention Multidimensional for LAC. The pilot will focus on Gt. Yarmouth and Waveney and Treatment Foster will enable us to add this ‘specialist fostering approach’ to our Care programme menu of options and help prevent inappropriate high cost residential placements.
The above actions will see an increase in the number of foster carers in Norfolk (both in- house and agency) of between 80 and 100 during 2011/12. The average cost per placement will also decrease as a result of our tendering process.
10.10 Action Five: Stimulate and encourage the marketplace for post – 16 leaving care placements so that additional placement capacity is delivered in Norfolk.
Data on the % of care Leavers at age 19 that are living in suitable accommodation (as judged by the council) is collected annually. It showed 95.1% in suitable accommodation in March 2010 (up from 94.1% in March 2009). A recent snapshot from an internal audit showed the following:- Finance data for this year shows Norfolk is projecting a spend of £969,965 on accommodation for care leavers. This is up from £877,500 for 2009/10. Of this amount 45% is spent so that care leavers aged 18 plus can continue to live with their foster carers (now ex-foster carers as they are no longer LAC)
10.11. We know from the LAC population data that whilst there is an average of 52 LAC for each year group between age 0 and 17 there is currently a peak between ages 14 and 16 where the average number in each year group is nearly double at 103. This clearly means that additional capacity needs to be created to respond to this level of need.
10.12. In addition the recent ‘Southwark’ judgement regarding homeless 16/17 year olds is seeing an increase in young people coming into care aged 16 and 17. Exact numbers are currently hard to come by but our expectation is that numbers will ultimately not be far below that reported in a recent nation survey which identified the average Local Authority would see an increase in LAC numbers of 20%.
Sufficiency Action Development Bid to DfE for We have been successful in our bid for a Social Work Pilot. Social Work Pilot This will enable us to ‘contract-out’ our duties to homeless young people funding to focus becoming looked after at the age of 16/17. on supporting On completion of the tendering exercise the successful organisation will 16/17 year olds have responsibility for supporting this client group and re-unifying with more family where appropriate. The placement budget will be devolved to the appropriately team and significant savings expected on the current rates paid for accommodation. Working closely Supporting People plan to drop the internal recharge where historically with Supporting they passed on the supporting people costs for 16/17 year olds leaving People to ensure care. current services are appropriate for the needs of young people leaving care. Increasing Children’s Services has become part of the District Council Partnership emergency and that buys ‘Nightstop’ and ‘Supporting Lodgings’ accommodation from supported the Norfolk YMCA . Children’s Services now have 10 hosts available at lodgings options any one time. YMCA have agreed to extend the remit of Nightstop’ from a maximum of 3 nights accommodation to 5. This gives more time to ensure that necessary assessments are completed before move on plans are agreed.
Develop more Agreed to centralise the unregulated post – 16 placement finding efficient function within the Placement Team rather than as at present expecting streamlined each case-accountable worker to find their own appropriate process for accommodation options. This will make for a more efficient system as accessing post well as giving us better management information about the post-16 16 unregulated housing needs of young people leaving care. This has been introduced accommodation from 01/09/11.
Ensure that A monthly panel with representatives from all the key accommodation appropriate providers has been created to collectively seek solutions for ‘hard to alternatives to place’ young people. Any Social Worker with a young person in B+B (or B+B are found at risk of ending up there) presents an overview of the young person’s for all children in needs, risk factors and desired outcomes and the panel recommend and leaving care solutions. This approach has resulted in no new B+B placements being made since our Ofsted Inspection in early June 2011. Maximise income We will ensure in a more robust way that we claim all welfare benefits from welfare available when young people aged 18+ stay with their ex-foster carers rights
11. Objective 3: Give children and young people clearly planned journeys through care
Improve Care For children and young people in care, having a clear care plan is Planning essential. A good plan ensures that children come into and leave care at the right times. We will better ensure that children do not drift through care but have clearly-planned journeys which allow them to be reunited with family and friends where possible, have stable placements in foster and residential care and leave the care system positively at whatever age this happens.
Find the right We will ensure that the updated and streamlined process for referral for a placements placement are complied with and detailed information on the child’s needs, risk factors and desired outcomes is provided to support placement finding. Placement decisions, where appropriate, will be better supported by joint assessment and planning with health and education colleagues.
Give children Giving children in care a sense of security, continuity and commitment is stability and essential to their experience of care. This sense of ‘permanence’ includes permanence as emotional, physical and legal stability. We will ensure that for all looked quickly as after children by the time of their second care review there is a clear plan possible to achieve permanence. This can be achieved through: • Reunification with the birth family • Living with other family and friends • Adoption, Special Guardianship Order or Residence Order
Provide better We will ensure that the right children come into care at the right time. challenge at the Despite recent improvements through the change in responsibility for gateway to care approving section 20 accommodation requests, children on the brink of care may become looked after when they may not need to be. This is because their needs may be assessed at a point of crisis when a longer term view is required, or because risks are being assessed and presented in a way which makes it hard to challenge.
Increased use of a number of services, including emergency / short term care, restorative family conferences and the family support services in the Divisions, as well as the introduction of a new panel process, will prevent some of these children having to enter care. Provide better There will be a number of children who are able to leave care, but the options to enable lack of appropriate options is holding them back. This will be addressed some looked through a number of routes including adoption, special guardianship after children to orders (SGO) and residence orders (RO). The numbers of SGOs and exit care ROs are low in comparison with other authorities. Specific actions, therefore, include:- • Increasing the capacity and efficiency of the Adoption and Family Finding Unit so that more children can be adopted quicker when appropriate and in their best interests • Increasing the numbers of long term and kinship foster carers choosing to be financially supported under a Special Guardianship Order instead by making this option more widely known and understood • Re-specifying the work of the Placement Plus Team so that priority is given to supporting children in their first 6 months in care where the care plan is re-unification. This is the timeframe research shows is most likely to result in a successful re-unification • Developing Multi-Systemic Treatment Foster Care (proven to enhance reunification success) in partnership with Suffolk CC through DfE bid • Focusing Social Worker time on discharging Care Orders where appropriate on those LAC placed with parents
12. Objective 4: Drive forward improvements across the whole corporate parenting system by introducing an improved performance management framework
Norfolk has adapted the concept of the ‘Balanced Scorecard’ and introduced a ‘Norfolk Scorecard’. This enables a balanced focus on performance issues concerning outcomes, finance, processes and staff. A detailed process of discussion within the different elements of the corporate parenting system led to the identification of the key performance issues that needed to be reflected in the scorecard.
A Corporate Parenting Performance Group has been established and meets monthly to review performance and agree actions required to address areas where performance is not on target. This Performance Group feeds into the Children’s Services Performance Board.
13. Resource Implications
No additional resource, finance, staff, property or IT implications
14. Other Implications
14.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
An equality impact assessment is not necessary here. All actions identified are underpinned by anti-discriminatory principles, equality of access regardless of age, disability, gender, faith, race or sexuality.
14.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk (this must be included)
Having a successful Placement Strategy for Looked after Children is essential for supporting their wellbeing and life chances.
14.3 Health and Safety Implications : (where appropriate)
To encourage the integration of health and safety management, consideration be given to including any health and safety risks which may be associated with proposals presented. Including this information would give Chief Officers the assurance that health and safety implications have been considered and expert advice has been sought where necessary. Further help and guidance can be obtained by contacting the Corporate Health & Safety Manager, Derryth Wright, on 222912.
14.4 Any Other implications Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
15. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act (this must be included) The Act requires Local Authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.
16. Risk Implications/Assessment (where appropriate)
A risk assessment is not required as members are not required to make a decision
17 . Action Required
17.1 Action Required – to comment and give direction on the draft Strategy
18. Background Papers
None
19. Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name Tel No; email address Justin Rolph 223909 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 15 September 2011 Item no. 12
Proposed changes to Post-16 Transport policy principles and eligibility criteria
Report by Director of Children’s Services
Summary
As part of the Big Conversation the Leader propos ed that savings of £1 million rather than £2.5 million be identified in the 2012/13 post 16 transport budget. As part of the process of identifying these savings a Working Group of officers and providers was formed with the aim of obtaining a cost sharing agreement between bus operators and schools and colleges to maintain current service levels.
The Working Group first met in January and as a result of its work during the last eight months six specific proposals have been identified to maintain and enhance the current service and share the cost of delivering the £1 million savings. These proposals are:- Reduce the cost of travel of students with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities by investing further in independent travel assistance for this group of students – estimated savings £150,000; Transfer 50% of the responsibility for students on low incomes to schools/colleges to fund shortfall from new hardship funds – estimated savings £200,000; Move to core routes – estimated savings £150,000, and Change policy of administration and remove double funding – estimated savings £100,000. The £400,000 balance of savings to be split between an additional County Council contribution to the cost of Post 16 Tr ansport and an increased student contribution ie Increase the County Council contributi on to planned subsidy – estimated cost £200,000, as supported by Cabinet meeting on the 12 September, and Reduce level of subsidy from 50% of costs to 45% of costs – estimated savings £200,000.
Action Required Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel are asked to comment on the proposed changes to the post 16 transport arrangements prior to their consideration by Cabinet.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Big Conversation contained a proposal to end the local authority subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over with a projected saving on £2.5m in 2012/13.
1.2 In responding to the feedback from the Big Conversation the Leader amended this proposal. The report by the Leader to the County Council stated:
“I recommend we reduce from £2.5m to £1m the proposed savings sum for 2012/13 and look to agree cost sharing agreement between bus operators and schools and colleges over the coming year to maintain current service levels. This is a matter on which we have received strong representations and we have already had a number of constructive discussions on this matter. I sincerely hope we will be able to reach an agreement to achieve shared responsibilities for protecting in the long term a service so clearly valued.”
1.3 A Working Group consisting of school 6th form and college representatives and county council officers have been meeting over the past eight months to consider how the revised budget savings could be met. Discussions have also been held between officers and transport operators on the ideas and proposed revised administrative proposals.
1.4 To assist with the process stakeholders were also consulted in June on a number of emerging ideas.
2. Current Post-16 Transport Policy Principles
2.1 Cabinet agreed the principles of the current arrangements in 2006, these were:
1. Norfolk County Council to continue to provide and administer the transport infrastructure for post 16 transport. This would ensure the retention of the transport infrastructure.
2. Norfolk County Council to provide a standard level of support to all eligible post 16 transport students based on an agreed percentage of the average unit cost of mainstream transport. (Currently 50%)
3. Student charges should not be related to distance travelled but be a flat rate per student in order to ensure an equitable scheme.
4. Treat students with learning disabilities or difficulties (LDD) the same as other students when applying the principles of support. However any charges should be calculated on the average cost of travel for mainstream students.
5. A concession policy for students from low income families. (Currently 50%)
6. Recalculate the level of subsidy and charges annually in accordance with the agreed principles and apply for the following academic year.
7. Introduce an independent travel training scheme to enable some students with learning difficulties or disabilities (LDD) to use public transport.
8. Introduce a system for dealing with exceptional circumstances as there will always be cases where students will suffer particular hardship and these should be individually assessed
9. Introduce a procedure for appealing against decisions.
3. Current Post-16 Eligibility Criteria
3.1 Based on the Post 16 Transport policy and principles the following eligibility criteria were used in 2011/12.
3.2 Norfolk County Council’s current Post 16 Transport Policy provides for students aged 16 to 19 yrs (21yrs for students with learning difficulties or disabilities) to access their chosen lines of learning providing they meet the following criteria:
Live in Norfolk
Live at least three miles from a state funded school sixth form, a sixth form college or a further education college, as measured by the nearest walking route
Be under 19 years of age at 31st August or 21 years for those with learning difficulties or disabilities. Transport will be provided up to the end of the course year in which the student reaches 19 years (or 21 years for those with learning difficulties or disabilities)
Be attending a full time course (i.e. a minimum of 450 guided learning hours per year)
Be attending either: . A state funded school sixth form within ten miles of their home, or . A sixth form college or further education college within twenty five miles of their home.
A 50% concession is available for families in receipt of maximum working tax credit.
Under the current policy, the student contribution for 2011/12 has been calculated at £392 pa (£196 for concessions).
4. Result of consultation with stakeholders on emerging ideas
4.1 The Working Group tested a number of ideas on how the policy could be changed with stakeholders. The consultation headed “Your views on our ideas to save money on student transport” was an internet survey. The survey was publicised by various means, including Facebook links; emails to previous consultees, media articles and through the school sixth form heads network. The consultation generated 250 plus responses.
The reason behind the ideas and the result of this consultation are set out in the following paragraphs.
4.2 Idea 1: Prioritising the use of main public transport routes to colleges and sixth forms.
Reason for the idea - An analysis of current subsidised routes showed a number of routes that were being provided for the individual institutions across unusual geographical patterns. The provision of these routes would be unnecessary if the students attended equivalent institutions which were supported by the main transport routes.
Consultation question - Do you think we should take this idea further?
249 responses received to this question
Yes – 79% No – 21%
4.3 Idea 2: Making it easier for students to pay for transport using a smartcard.
Reason for idea – Smartcards are being introduced across the some parts of the transport network and consideration was being given to how they could be used to support the provision of subsidised post 16 transport. The use of smart cards for post 16 transport would enable better control over costs and more flexibility for students. The use of the card would however require the student to pay for each journey, but at the subsidised rate.
Consultation question - Do you think we should take this idea further?
227 responses received to this question
Yes – 55% No – 45%
4.4 Idea 3: Changing our policy on how far away students live from their college or sixth form before they transport support.
Reason for idea – the current policy is to provide support for students that live 3 miles away from education/learning institution; the idea was to increase this
to 5 miles. Analysis shows that students that live within five miles of Norwich City College and College of West Anglia are less likely to claim a travel pass that those that attend East Norfolk Sixth Form College or Great Yarmouth College. An analysis of the cost of public transport suggests students within five mile of a college are likely to be able to travel to that college at a cost lower than the cost of subsidised post 16 travel. The Great Yarmouth urban area is an exception to this rule as the two colleges pay the parental contribution for subsided travel and thus the students travel free and market forces therefore do not apply.
Consultation question - Do you think we should take this idea further?
219 responses received to this question
Yes – 30% No – 70%
4.5 Idea 4: Getting more students to volunteer to help other vulnerable students to get to college or sixth form.
Reason for idea – the cost of providing specialist transport for student with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities is almost four times more expensive than mainstream transport. Norfolk has been very successful over recent years in maximising transport support for this vulnerable group of students not only by giving them confidence to use mainstream transport but also by giving them increased independence and helping them with their social skills development. More recently a Summer Buddy scheme has been developed which relies on young Buddies employed by the County Council providing peer support to more vulnerable students. This programme thus helps the individual students in gaining confidence in using public transport and also the County Council in reducing costs of transport.
Consultation question - Do you think we should take this idea further?
220 responses received to this question
Yes – 77% No – 23%
5. Proposals to deliver £1million savings
5.1 The objective of the proposals is to continue to provide cost effective subsidised transport to enable post-16 students to attend course which enable their chosen educational or learning programme to be followed.
5.2 To achieve this objective post-16 transport provision should: maximise the use of home to school transport provided for mainstream high school students; maximises the use of public transport routes;
support the overall county transport network; support vulnerable young people to become independent travellers, and focus on core routes.
5.3 The budget saving profile has been changed from £1million savings in 2012/13 to £583,000 savings in 2012/13 plus £417,000 savings in 2013/14 to reflect the academic rather than the financial year.
5.4 Six specific proposals to deliver the savings have been identified:- Reduce the cost of travel of students with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities by investing further in independent travel assistance for this group of students – estimated savings £150,000; Transfer 50% of the responsibility for students on low incomes to schools/colleges to fund shortfall from new hardship funds – estimated savings £200,000; Move to core routes – estimated savings £150,000, and Change policy of administration and remove double funding – estimated savings £100,000. The £400,000 balance of savings to be split between an additional County Council contribution to the cost of Post 16 Transport and an increased student contribution ie Increase the County Council contribution to planned subsidy – estimated cost £200,000 as supported by Cabinet meeting on the 12 September, and Reduce level of subsidy from 50% of costs to 45% of costs – estimated savings £200,000.
5.5 Proposal 1 - Reduce the cost of travel of students with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities by investing further in independent travel assistance for this group of students – estimated savings £150,000.
This proposal reflects an extension of current policy and practice and the idea was supported by a significant majority of those stakeholders responding to the consultation.
No change in policy of eligibility criteria required.
5.6 Proposal 2 - Transfer 50% of the responsibility for students on low incomes to schools/colleges to fund shortfall from new hardship funds – estimated savings £200,000.
This proposal is consistent with the Government’s move to introduce new targeted arrangements for financial support for 16-19 year olds in education or training instead of Education Maintenance Allowances.
The Government have outlined that the new arrangements will provide £180million a year for a 16-19 Bursary Fund. The Fund is being distributed to schools, colleges and work-based training providers to provide financial support to young people aged 16-19 participating in full time education and
training. The 16-19 Bursary Fund has two elements:
(i) Young people in care, care leavers, young people in receipt of income support and disabled young people in receipt of Employment Support Allowance who are also in receipt of Disability Living Allowance will be eligible to receive a bursary of £1,200 a year, and
(ii) Providers may then use their discretion to make awards to young people in ways that best fit the needs and circumstances of their students. Bursary awards should be targeted towards young people facing financial barriers to participation, such as the costs of transport, meals, books and equipment.
As their contribution to the overall savings the schools and college representatives on the Working Group accept that their contribution to the savings target would be to use some of their 16-19 Bursary Funds to support students with transport hardship thus enabling the County Council to reduce the level of support its provides for families on low incomes.
The County Council low income subsidy would as a result of this proposal reduce from 50% to 25%.
No change in policy or eligibility criteria required except the concessionary rate would be reduced from 50% to 25%.
5.7 Proposal 3 - Move to core routes – estimated savings £150,000.
A review of the routes supported for post 16 travel identified a number which were introduced to support small cohorts of pupils travelling routes that are inconsistent with the existing geographical spread of provision and represent an unreasonable exercise of choice by students, eg Attleborough students travelling to College of West Anglia rather that City College; Reepham students travelling to Paston College; Framingham Earl students travelling to Great Yarmouth; Coltishall students travelling to Great Yarmouth; Kings Lynn students travelling to City College
Moving to a concept of core routes would enable these inefficiencies to be removed. The core routes would be routes that attract eligibility to subsidised travel. The core routes would be pre-defined.
The core routes would reflect the geographical area served by each type of institution. For school sixth forms this would mean that the current mainstream transport routes would become the core routes for post 16 students, thus no change would be experienced. For the three remaining groups of institutions ie sixth form colleges, further education colleges and specialist colleges again core routes would be established to reflect the type of provision being provided. In the case of the sixth form colleges, the further education colleges and the special college the individual core routes would be fixed in consultation with the individual institutions.
The core routes would as now be provided by public transport or by contract buses.
No change in policy however eligibility criteria would change. The existing eligibility criteria of “Be attending either: . A state funded school sixth form within ten miles of their home, or . A sixth form college or further education college within twenty five miles of their home.” Would be replaced by “Be attending either a school sixth form, or sixth form college, or further education college or specialist college and travelling on a core route.”
5.8 Proposal 4 - Change administrative arrangements and remove double funding – estimated savings £100,000.
It is proposed to change the arrangement for collecting the parental contribution for subsidised post 16 travel. The proposal is that, wherever possible, the County Council will only pay the bus service provider the subsidy and the students pays the provider the balance on a journey by journey basis. It is proposed to pay the bus service provider on a termly basis and issue students with termly subsidised tickets. Discussions are taking place with providers regarding these arrangements. Providers are generally supportive and are willing to introduce standard charges on core routes for subsidised travel not related to distance travelled.
Students that wish to travel on non core routes may obviously do so but will be required to pay the normal travel costs for those journeys.
The advantage to students of this “pay as you go” arrangement is that they will only be required to pay fares on the days they travel whereas now the parental contribution buys a subsidised travel pass for every day of the week. The County Council will also have reduced administration and reduced cost of collection as parental collections could be reduced by up to 75% by using this approach.
The administrative arrangements for students travelling to school sixth on mainstream school transport will remain unchanged. The parental contribution will as now be collected in advance.
The proposal will result in bus service providers having less certainty on level of income collected and will require them to collect fees from students based on the production of a valid travel pass/discount voucher.
The proposal is to continue with a standard charge for each of these subsidised journeys. Market forces will thus apply to all routes on which this method of subsidy applies and students will continue to decide if the normal fare or subsidised fare is better value.
No change in policy or eligibility criteria required.
5.9 Proposal 5 – Increase the planned County Council contribution to subsidy - estimated costs £200,000.
The implementation of the first four proposals would result in a shortfall from the £1 million proposed saving of £400,000. It is proposed that this sum be shared between the County Council and students. This proposal will result in the County Council subsidy to post 16 transport being £200,000 greater than initially planned. This proposal was supported by Cabinet meeting on the 12 September.
No change in policy or eligibility criteria required except the agreed percentage of cost to be charged would increase from 50% to 55%.
5.10 Proposal 6 - Reduce level of subsidy from 50% of costs to 45% of costs – estimated savings £200,000.
The implementation of the previous proposals is likely to result in an additional £200,000 needing to be collected direct from students. It is proposed this is achieved by reducing the subsidy level from 50% to 45% of the actual cost of post 16 transport. The 2012/13 subsidised charge is estimated to be £460 per academic year, an estimated increase above the rate of inflation of approximately 10%. However this will be offset for most learners by the ability to pay for tickets on a pay as you go basis rather than the current system that requires a standard payment for 5 days travel.
No change in policy or eligibility criteria required except the agreed percentage of subsidy would reduce from 50% to 45%.
5.11 The Annex sets out in full the proposed Post-16 Transport Policy Principles and Post-16 Eligibility Criteria for implementation in September 2012, should all the proposals be agreed.
6. Views from Partners
6.1 The 14-19 Strategy Group will be considering the proposals at their meeting on the 14 September. The views of the group will be reported orally to the Panel.
6.2 Views from schools and colleges have been reflected in the proposals that were developed by the Working Group.
7. Other Implications
7.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
7.1.1 Norfolk County Council faced a budget gap of at least £155 million over the three years 2011/14, due to a reduction of around 7.1 per cent of Government
funding in each year, increasing council costs, inflation and demand for services. In order to address this, the Council proposed and consulted on a number of changes to its role. This revised savings proposal is a result of that process.
7.1.2 This impact assessment looks in detail at the proposal to reduce the subsidy for post-16 transport. This will mean that parents and carers will have to pay an annual cost of transport of £460 per student per year. If this proposal is implemented parents, carers and students will need to find some extra funding for post-16 transport. This is likely to impact most on low-income households, and on young people who live in rural communities.
7.1.3 To mitigate some of the effects of this proposal a “pay as you go” payment method is being implemented. This proposal has two benefits, students pay as and when they use the transport and therefore no up front payments are required and secondly students only pay on the days they travel and not for five days a week. 3. Context to the proposal 7.1.4 The purpose of the post-16 transport subsidy is to provide affordable equality of access for all young people to post-16 education in the county, and to support young people to have a choice about their education after the age of 16. Approximately 5500 young people in Norfolk currently claim subsidised post-16 transport allowance to help them attend either college or sixth form. Overall, there are around 183,861 young people in Norfolk aged 16 to 19 years. Of this number, around 10,000 young people live in low-income families outside the larger urban areas of the county.
7.1.5 The Council’s main role in administering the post-16 transport policy is to ensure that young people meet the criteria for financial support. The Council does not monitor the profile of young people who receive the subsidy. A concessionary rate is currently provided for all low-income families, and all students receive the same level of service, whatever their journey distances. 4. Potential impact 7.1.6 If this proposal is implemented, parents, carers and students will need to provide some increased funding for post-16 transport. This is likely to impact most on low-income households, and on young people who live in rural communities where distance to provision is considerable and there are no practical alternatives.
7.1.7 The retention of the policy of setting a single standard level of charge regardless of the distance the student travels will continue to provide support to those students in rural areas and protects them from the true costs of transport.
7.1.8 To mitigate the impact of the increase on low income households, education institutions will use some of their 16-19 Bursary Funds to support students with transport hardship.
7.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk The proposals are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the post 16 transport arrangements whilst continuing to provide subsidised transport which supports reasonable student choice of institution. The extension of the assisted travel scheme for the most vulnerable students will not only give them confidence to use mainstream transport but also give them increased independence and help them with the development of their social skills. The proposed increase in charges to students has been kept to a minimum by a mixture of more efficient arrangements, including the introduction of core routes and “pay as you go” arrangements for students where ever possible, the use of the new college/school hardship funds to support student travel where appropriate and the additional Local Authority contribution towards the post 16 subsidy.
7.3 Any Other implications Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report above, there are no other implications to take into account.
8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act There are no specific implications.
9. Action Required
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel are asked to comment on the proposed changes to the post 16 transport arrangements prior to their consideration by Cabinet
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Paul Fisher Tel: 01603 223464 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Annex.
Post-16 Transport Policy Principles if proposal agreed
Cabinet agreed the principles of the current arrangements in 2006, these were:
1. Norfolk County Council to continue to provide and administer the transport infrastructure for post 16 transport. This would ensure the retention of the transport infrastructure.
2. Norfolk County Council to provide a standard level of support to all eligible post 16 transport students based on an agreed percentage of the average unit cost of mainstream transport. (Proposed 45%)
3. Student charges should not be related to distance travelled but be a flat rate per student in order to ensure an equitable scheme.
4. Treat students with learning disabilities or difficulties (LDD) the same as other students when applying the principles of support. However any charges should be calculated on the average cost of travel for mainstream students.
5. A concession policy for students from low income families. (Proposed 25%)
6. Recalculate the level of subsidy and charges annually in accordance with the agreed principles and apply for the following academic year.
7. Extend an independent travel training scheme to enable more students with learning difficulties or disabilities (LDD) to use public transport.
8. Continue the system for dealing with exceptional circumstances as there will always be cases where students will suffer particular hardship and these should be individually assessed
9. Continue the procedure for appealing against decisions.
Post-16 Eligibility Criteria if proposals agreed
Norfolk County Council’s proposed Post 16 Transport Policy provides for students aged 16 to 19 yrs (21yrs for students with learning difficulties or disabilities) to access their chosen lines of learning providing they meet the following criteria:
Live in Norfolk
Live at least three miles from a state funded school sixth form, a sixth form college or a further education college, as measured by the nearest walking route
Be under 19 years of age at 31st August or 21 years for those with learning difficulties or disabilities. Transport will be provided up to the end of the course year in which the student reaches 19 years (or 21 years for those with learning difficulties or disabilities)
Be attending a full time course (i.e. a minimum of 450 guided learning hours per year)
Be attending either a school sixth form, or sixth form college, or further education college or specialist college and travelling on a core route.
A 25% concession is available for families in receipt of maximum working tax credit.
The estimated student contribution for 2012/13 based on this revised policy has been calculated at £460 pa (£345 for concessions).
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 15 September 2011 Item no. 13
Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Report for 2011-2012
Report by Director of Children’s Services
Summary
This report monitors the delivery against the Plan, providing up to date integrated performance and finance monitoring information. The report provides a balanced view of our performance – presenting information on managing change, service performance, managing our resources and delivering improved outcomes.
This report provides integrated performance and financial year monitoring for the 2011/12 financial year. The report also sets out the variations between the approved budget for 2011/12 and the actual spending during the year. The paper comments on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions.
The report also outlines how the additional funding allocations agreed at Cabinet on the 11 July have been allocated.
The main financial points within the paper are:
• The Children’s Services revenue budget shows a £0.279 million or 0.2% projected underspend for the year. • The Schools Budget variations are contained within the approved contingency fund. • The Children’s Services capital budget shows a £0.696 million or 0.9% projected underspend for the year. • The level of projected school balances at 31 March 2012 is £30.591 million. • The level of projected balances and provisions at 31 March 2012 is £12.574 million.
Action Required Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report.
1. Performance Background In May 2011 Cabinet agreed a new performance framework for the County Council which responds to the new challenges facing local government in general, and the Council in particular. The framework reflects the importance of increased emphasis on efficiency and value for money, and the need to balance the demanding change agenda with continuing to deliver good quality critical services as effectively and efficiently as possible. It has four themes • Managing change – as delivered through the Norfolk Forward Programme • Managing resources • Quality and performance of services • Outcomes for Norfolk people. This integrated finance and performance report summarises progress in the last quarter within each of these four themes. This framework and the Children’s Service dashboard were discussed with the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel in May 2011. Since then a corporate strategic dashboard which includes key measures from Children’s Services has been used monthly to provide a snapshot of corporate performance and reported to Chief Officer Group. This format was also used for the first time in July to report progress against Norfolk County Council’s strategic performance to Cabinet.
The definitions for the Children’s Services dashboard are currently being agreed and the key service dashboards that feed into the Children’s Services dashboard are currently being reviewed and refreshed by the Performance and Quality Board in light of inspection findings. As a result of this activity the Performance Dashboard will form an Appendix to the integrated Performance and Finance Report from November.
2. Delivering Norfolk Forward 2.1 The Children's Services Transformation Programme is part of the County Council's Norfolk Forward Portfolio and currently consists of 20 projects delivering key organisational change within the service and budget savings required from the Big Conversation proposals.
Most of the Children's Services transformation programme projects are running to plan with all 2011/12 financial savings being achievable. As at August 9 of the 20 projects are reporting Green, 8 Amber and 1 Red (eCAF where the government has indicated that it is withdrawing the national eCAF system and hence this project will be closed).
For those reporting Amber, a majority are where we are still working on the proposals for producing the year 2 and year 3 savings. These should be achieved but until the details are confirmed we are reporting these projects as Amber. We are forecasting that all target savings for 2011/12 will be achieved. The Looked After Children Project is at risk of not achieving the financial target savings because of the costs of the increase in the number of Looked After Children. However, the budget currently remains on target.
Most of the key projects are running to proposed timescales. The Children’s Centres project progresses but there is still much work to complete and the deadline remains very tight (we will know by the 5 September if the tender will be ready for issuing as planned). The Additional Needs, ICT File Structure & CareFirst projects remain on Amber pending approval for additional ICT and business resources to undertake these priority projects.
Analysis is also being undertaken across all projects to ensure there is sufficient project planning and resource allocation to achieve required deadlines. These will be discussed in detail at the September Project Boards with the Project Sponsors. To assist in future resource planning within Children’s Services a joint project with the Corporate Programme Office is in progress assessing Children’s Services Project Managers Capability & Capacity.
3. Managing Our Resources 3.1 Revenue – Local Authority Budget
The 2011/12 Children’s Services revenue budget is £154.755 million. There is no Local Authority funding of schools as they are funded completely by the Dedicated Schools Grant.
This year end monitoring report shows a projected £0.279 million or 0.2% revenue budget underspend for the year.
The following summary table shows by type of budget, the actual spend for the year. The table shows the variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget.
Revenue – Local Authority Budget
Division of Approved Forecas Forecast Forecast +Over/ Varianc service budget t +Over/- Underspend as % e in £m Outturn Underspen of budget forecast £m d since £m last report £m Spending Reductions School 4.702 4.423 -0.279 -6 Pension /Redundancy costs
Total 0.279
3.2 Additional Revenue Funding Allocations
Cabinet agree on the 11 July 2011 to allocate two additional sums to Children’s Services for 2011/12. The two sums were £129,000 additional Early Intervention Grant received since the budget was agreed and £676,000 additional Local Services Grant again received after the budget was agreed. The additional £676,000 to be used to fund prevention activity within Children’s services.
Additional Early Intervention Grant (EIG) The Cabinet report said: “In March, the Department for Education revised the amount of Early Intervention Grant for 2011-12. The allocations now include funding from the Home Office, which local authorities can use for youth crime prevention. Norfolk County Council’s allocation has been increased by £0.129m to £29.480m compared with £29.351m included in the 2011-12 budget. A report taken to the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel on the 12 May included proposals for how the £29.351m included in the budget should be allocated, but not the additional £0.129m. It is recommended that the additional £0.129m EIG be passed to Children’s Services and reported to the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.”
This funding is being used by Youth Offending Team in accordance with the advice from the Home Office to undertake prevention and discretionary activities and engagement with young people at risk of becoming involved in crime, including knife related violence.
Additional Local Services Support Grant (LSSG). This additional funding was being provided as a replacement to the extended rights and the general duty to promote sustainable travel grant. The Cabinet report said: “When preparing the 2011-12 budget, the funding for this duty was under review and due to be announced after the final local government settlement for 2011-12 was known. It was assumed at that time that this funding would cease and this was reflected in Children’s Services 2011-12 budget, i.e. additional budget was provided to enable the service to continue. On 1 April 2011, Communities and Local Government announced details of the Local Services Support Grant (LSSG: a grant which combines a number of grants previously paid by DfE, Home Office, CLG and DEFRA but which have not been consolidated into the Formula Grant). An element of the overall LSSG announced on 1 April is £38m made available nationally by the Department for Education. Norfolk County Council’s allocation is £0.676m. This represents additional funding in 2011-12 to cover extended rights and sustainable transport duties. As noted above, the Children’s services budget has already been adjusted upwards in 2011-12 to reflect the assumed ending of this grant support. The additional funding of £0.676m is not ringfenced and its use is a matter for Member decision. However, in view of the significant level of savings required from Children’s Services in 2011-12 and ongoing risk around Looked After Children (LAC), Cabinet Members may wish to see this additional funding directed towards bolstering the robust work being undertaken to manage LAC costs and to support the focus on prevention. It is recommended that the additional £0.676m be used to fund prevention activities within Children’s Services.”
Following consultation with the Cabinet Member it has been agreed that this additional sum should be focussed on the following six activities in 2011/12.
Allocation of the additional £676,000 for prevention activities £000 Development of Speech and Language Project to 50 focus on pre 5's interventions and preventative work Support the Kick-start moped transport scheme 50
Match fund the Multi systemic treatment pilot 100 programme to focus on vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds Provide additional funding for the prevention / 270 early intervention operational commissioning Provide funding to focus on below floor target 150 schools where DfE funding has not been forthcoming. Provide funding to kick start widespread adoption 50 of restorative approaches across Children's Services Total: 670
3.3 Revenue – Schools Budget
The Dedicated Schools Grant funds the Schools Budget. The Schools Budget has two main elements, the amounts delegated to schools and the amounts held centrally for pupil related spending. The amount delegated to schools includes a contingency which was allocated to schools for specific purposes.
The Dedicated Schools Grant can only be used for specified purposes and must be accounted for separately to the other Children’s Services spending and funding.
Variations on Dedicated Schools Grant Funded Budgets The variations are presented in the same way variations within the budget for Local Authority services are being reported. The following summary table therefore shows for budgets with an in year variances, the actual spend for the year. The table shows the variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget. The table also shows movements in the variations since the last report.
Revenue – Schools Budget
No variances are currently projected.
3.4 Capital Programme
2011/12 Future Years £m £m Approved Budget 78.639 41.054 Forecast Outturn 77.943 41.054 Variation from Approved Budget -0.696 0.000
The 2011/12 approved capital budget contained £87.282 million of estimated payments in 2011/12. Since approval the approved budget has decreased by £8.643 million to £78.639 million. This is due to reprofiling funding to future years.
The projected 2011/12 outturn based on the latest monitoring information is £77.943 million.
This year end monitoring report shows a projected £0.696 million or 0.9% capital budget underspend for the year.
All funding has been committed to individual schemes and programmes of work.
The reasons for the variance is analysed in the following table.
Capital Programme - Variances
Scheme or Approved Forecast Slippage Reasons programme of 2011-12 2011-12 since work capital capital the budget outturn previous £m £m report
TCF - Sewell 0.192 -0.009 -0.201 Savings on Park High project costs TCF - 0.174 0.000 -0.174 Savings on Churchill Park project costs Costessey 0.172 0.000 -0.172 Savings on High - High project costs Growth South Harford 0.169 0.000 -0.169 Savings on Pupil Referral project costs unit Reepham 6 th 0.000 0.020 0.020 School Form project contribution sought for small overspend Total -0.696
3.5 School Balances The Scheme for Financing Schools in Norfolk sets out the local framework within which delegated financial management is undertaken. In respect of budget plans the expectation is that schools submit budget plans: • at the end of the Summer term, taking account in particular the actual level of balances held at the end of the previous financial year; • at the end of the Autumn term, taking account in particular of staff and pupil on roll changes; • and if necessary, during the Spring term.
Based on budget information provided by schools the original projection of balances is as follows:
School Balances as at 31 March 2012
Title/description Original forecast balance at 31-03-12 £m Nursery schools 0.116 Primary schools 17.835 Secondary schools 10.641 Special schools 1.476 Partnerships 0.523 Total 30.591
3.6 Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions
A number of Reserves and Provisions exist within Children’s Services. The following table sets out the balances on the reserve and provision in the Children’s Services accounts at 1 April 2011 and the balances at 31 March 2012.
The table has been divided between those reserves and provisions relating to Schools and those that are General Children’s Services reserves and provisions.
Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions
Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 01-04-11 balance at £m £m 31-03-12 £m Schools Transport Days 0.113 0.331 +0.218 Reduced number of Equalisation home to school/college Fund transport days in the 2011/12 financial year as a result of the timing of Easter. Schools 4.080 4.080 0.000 Contingency Fund Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 01-04-11 balance at £m £m 31-03-12 £m Schools Non- 0.321 0.321 0.000 Teaching Activities Building 0.565 0.565 0.000 Maintenance Partnership Pool School 1.460 1.460 0.000 Sickness Insurance Scheme School Playing 0.284 0.300 +0.016 Additional annual school surface sinking contributions to the fund reserve Education 0.022 0.022 0.000 Provision for Holiday Pay Non BMPP 1.085 1.085 0.000 Building Maintenance Fund Norfolk PFI 1.766 1.760 -0.006 Sinking Fund Schools total 9. 696 9.924 +0.228
Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 31-03-11 balance at £m £m 31-03-12 £m Children’s Services IT Earmarked 0.290 0.250 -0.040 Use of the reserve to Reserves support IT projects within Children’s Services Repairs and 0.200 0.150 -0.050 Use of fund to replace Renewals Fund assets Grants and 2.664 2.250 -0.414 New reserve for changes Contributions in accounting for unrestricted government grants and contributions Children’s 3.154 2.650 -0.504 Services total
Total 12.850 12.574 -0.276
4. Quality and Performance of Services In this section a summary of the latest information on service performance and quality for Children’s Services is provided. This includes key achievements and successes, as well as identifying where we have not met our standards and improvements are needed.
4.1 Achievement at Primary School Provisional results published for Key Stage 2 tests taken by pupils at the end of primary school were published in August. In Norfolk for all subjects – English, reading, writing and Maths – the results show improvements in the proportion of 11 year olds in maintained schools reaching the expected levels of performance.
The National picture shows that the percentage of pupils achieving the expected level remained stable with only writing improving, by comparison in Norfolk all subjects saw improvement - writing improved by two percentage points more than nationally and English by three percentage points more than nationally.
Subject 2010 2010 2011 2011 Change Change National Norfolk National Norfolk since 2010 since National 2010 Norfolk English 80 74 81 77 +1 +3 Reading 83 80 84 81 +1 +1 Writing 71 63 75 69 +4 +6 Maths 79 75 80 76 +1 +1 Both 73 67 74 68 +1 +1 English & Maths
The comparisons are affected by last year’s national boycott of Key Stage 2 tests by many schools but still reflect an improvement across the county – although it is recognised that more needs to be done and this remains a continued area of focus for improvement.
4.2 Achievements at Secondary School Key Stage 3 Provisional data for Norfolk published in August in relation to the Key Stage 3 teacher assessments of pupils at 14 years old, show improvements in English and science with Maths remaining stable. It is recognised that there are some issues with this data arising from schools converting to academy status from July this year and because some schools in Norfolk have now begun to teach the Key Stage 4 curriculum in Year 9.
77% of pupils were assessed as reaching the expected Level 5 in English compared to 76% in 2010 - the national percentage for 2011 was 82%. In maths the percentage fell slightly from 81% last year to 80 % this year which is just below this year’s national average of 80%. In science the figure was 83% compared with 80% in 2010 – the same as the national average.
4.3 Key Stage 4 Provisional results show that Norfolk has seen the biggest improvement in results for six years with a 3 percentage point increase to 55.3% in the proportion of students achieving the gold standard of five A* to C grades and the proportion of young people achieving five A* to C in any subject improving by 3.5 percentage points to 70.6%. Provisional figures show that 18 looked after children achieved the gold standard.
Improvements of 10 percentage points or more at the gold standard were achieved by pupils at Long Stratton High, Reepham High, Hethersett High and Notre Dame. There are now no Local Authority maintained schools in Norfolk where fewer than 35% of pupils achieved 5 GCSEs at grades A* - C including English and Maths or below the floor standards.
The six academies that were supported and championed by the County Council to raise attainment have seen an average increase at the gold standard of 12.5 percentage points with the Open Academy, Ormiston Victory, City Academy, Costessey, Ormiston Venture, Gorleston and King’s Lynn Academy all showing improvements in pupils achieving at GCSE. The results for Thetford Academy are difficult to compare to last year as it is an amalgamation of two separate schools.
4.4 AS and A Level Early indications show that the overall picture for Norfolk appears to remain positive with attainment at maintained schools and academies being maintained at a similar level to last year. Results are awaited from two sixth forms so at this stage the picture is still incomplete. The equivalent national figure will not be published until 20 October.
The eastern region, which represents 12% of the total number of candidates, had the third highest proportion of A* grades in the country and 13% of the top grades awarded in the country.
4.5 Attendance The data on attendance for the Spring Term for both Primary and Secondary schools show that in both settings there has been a reduction in unauthorised absence and a slight increase in authorised absence compared with the previous term. Whilst a number of schools (37) did not provide a breakdown of their absence data by code, any analysis of the available reason for absence data shows that illness (not medical or dental or other appointments) was the highest increased reason for absence; agreed family holidays reduced and family holidays (not agreed or in excess of agreement) rose by 0.03%.
4.6 Exclusions A separate report to this panel sets out in more detail information in relation to permanent and fixed term exclusions following the publication of the statistical release at the end of July. For the year 2009/10 Norfolk showed a reduction in the number of permanent exclusions but an increase in the number of fixed term exclusions and the trend shows that Norfolk schools overall are not high excluding schools within the national context particularly in relation to permanent exclusions.
4.7 Child Protection Since the structure redesign in November 2010 and the implementation of the Initial Assessment Implementation Plan, the rate of completion of initial assessments has over the past few months begun to show an improvement, albeit from a low base. Nearly 2000 initial assessments were completed between April and July 2011 – a 40% increase compared to the same period in 2010.
The timeliness for completing initial assessments across the county is also showing improvement. Where there are some fluctuations in performance on a monthly basis we have identified the causes of that and have taken action to address them. We are modelling a collaborative approach focussed on timescale and quality of assessment.
The new structure in Children’s Services and implementation of the actions arising from the unannounced inspection of the service are also having a positive impact on the numbers of core assessments completed. The number of core assessments undertaken has risen from 68 in April 2011 to 196 in June - a 288% increase with an improvement of those completed within the 35 day timescales from 55.9% in April to 60.2% in June.
4.8 Corporate Parenting A substantial increase in the number of looked-after children has been seen in Norfolk both in 2009/10 and again in 2010/11. The number of looked-after children has increased from 970 at the beginning of April to almost 990 by the end of July – which is around 100 more than at the same time last year. Much of this increase can be attributed to an increase in referrals following the media publicity following the death of Peter Connolly & the Southwark judgement of May 2009. This has resulted in an increase in younger children entering the care system, which has been compounded by an increase in the number of 16 – 17 year olds becoming looked after as a result of the Southwark judgement.
An increase from 51 looked after a child per 10,000 of the under-18 population to 54 between 2006 & 2010 is exactly in line with the increase in the statistical neighbour average, the East of England average & the England average over the same period.
A project with partners has been set up to review and improve the business processes, recording and data quality around health assessments for looked after children as our data for this year shows that only one in five (20.6%) looked-after children had a dental check within statutory timescales, less than half (39.3%) had received a health assessment within timescales and only one in twenty (6.1%) looked-after children aged 0-5 had developmental checks within timescales.
The percentage of looked after children with a named qualified social worker had fallen from 96.8% in 2009/10 to 92.4% in April 2011. Current reorganisation and staffing adjustments have had a recent impact on this performance indicator. The new corporate parenting teams became operational on 1 June, and have been designed so that all looked after children will be allocated a named qualified social worker. The percentage of looked after children adopted within 12 months of best interest decision being made has fallen to 60.6% in April 2011 which is well below target. A complete business redesign is in the process of being commissioned for adoption although it should be noted that our Adoption Service has been twice rated as outstanding – one of only 8 in England.
4.9 Vulnerable Young People 4.9.1 Teenage Conceptions Due to the long time lag in obtaining data on teenage conceptions through the Office of National Statistics (often a two year delay), we are working hard in Norfolk to develop a robust, accurate local proxy indicator. Working with colleagues in the NHS, we are looking at how best to obtain the most up to date information on teenage conceptions, teenage births (under 19 and under 16), and miscarriage/termination data across the county in order to develop the indicator further. We have now established a regular monthly feed of local teenage pregnancy data and although this local data currently covers Norfolk PCT, work on expanding the dataset to cover all of Norfolk is also underway. In early September 2011 a workshop will take place at which colleagues with local area responsibility for reducing teenage pregnancy will meet to review local data and agree a common approach to priority actions and assessment of progress.
4.9.2 Not in Employment Education or Training (NEET) The latest NEET figures for Norfolk, which show the number of young people not in employment, education or training, show that in June the percentage of young people NEET was 5.19% and that this fell slightly to 5.18% in July. This compares favourably with the national position which was 6.5% in June. The July figure of 5.18% equates to 1442 young people out of a cohort of 29,215. The Norwich has 309 NEET (7.53%) compared to Broadland with 132 (3.41%).
4.9.3 Youth Offending The latest available data for first time entrants to the Youth Justice System is from 2010/11 Quarter 4 and shows a drop in first time entrants of 11.8%. Performance on this indicator in Norfolk has slowed somewhat and is not as large a decrease on average as for other Youth Offending Teams. Nonetheless, this is still an improved decrease over the course of the year, in addition to the previous 2 years reduction, in excess of 50% (38% reduction in the last 2 years) and is still well ahead of target.
5. Outcomes for Norfolk People Outcomes from the Announced Inspection of Safeguarding and Looked After Children The report into our recent inspection of safeguarding services and services for looked after children has recently been published and a separate report to panel sets out the findings from this and the improvement action plan. An update of progress against the actions set out in the improvement plan will be reported, within this report, to future panels. Out of the 22 findings Ofsted judged 2 as good, 18 adequate and 2 inadequate. The two areas judged as good were ‘staying safe’ and ‘enjoying and achieving’ with regard to looked after children and care leavers. The outcome also identified 2 areas as inadequate, ‘being healthy’ and ‘economic well-being’. Ofsted also said we were meeting all of our statutory requirements on safeguarding children in need and services for looked after children. We were particularly pleased that inspectors found that almost all children feel safe and know how to access help and those children most in need of protection and safeguarding are suitably identified. Inspectors were particularly positive about services to disabled children and their families and highlighted the work of the Virtual School in helping to improve outcomes for looked after children. Inspectors also found that some improvements had stalled – largely as a result of significant organisational change. They identified particular inadequacies in supporting the health needs of looked after children and their economic well-being. However, they found that Children’s Services had responded promptly and positively when improvements were identified during the inspection and that data and performance management arrangements were being used extensively and that the quality of these was improving. The inspectors were rigorous but fair and the judgements are, on the whole, what we anticipated given the timing of the inspection, which followed hard on the heels of a year of enormous change.
6. Other Implications
6.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
There are no specific implications. The information included in this report represents activity as agreed as part of the Council’s wider strategic agenda to address inequality over the medium to long term.
6.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The performance framework reflects the importance increased emphasis on efficiency and value for money, and the need to balance the demanding change agenda with continuing to deliver good quality critical services as effectively and efficiently as possible. The financial changes outlined in this report are designed to minimise the impact on children and young people and maximise the allocation of resources to priority areas.
6.3 Any Other implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report, there are no other implications to take into account.
7. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
There are no specific implications.
8. Risk Implications / Assessment
Risks to achieving our key priorities are contained within the Children’s Services risk register. These continue to be monitored and updated regularly by the Children's Services Leadership Team. Actions to mitigate risks are frequently part of other performance management actions and are referred to where relevant throughout this report.
9. Action Required
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report.
10. Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Paul Fisher tel:01603 223464 [email protected] Katherine Attwell tel:01603 638002 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 15 th September 2011 Item No. 14
Education Capital Funding
Report by the Director of Children’s Services and Head of Finance
Summary
On 8th April 2011 the Government published a report on Education Capital funding, following a review by Mr Sebastian James. Having considered the ‘James review’ report, the Government has now published a statement setting out its response to the review’s recommendations. It accepts many of the recommendation but identifies a number for consultation and seeks views from interested parties before October 12th 2011.
The Government has also allocated additional mid-year capital funding for Basic Need, ie funding for additional pupil places, and is seeking expressions of interest on a private- finance scheme to address those schools across the country with the most urgent condition needs.
This report seeks Panel’s comments on a proposed high-level response to the James review consultation. It proposes a response to the government’s consultation questions which emphasises the importance of maximising the local dimension in the allocation of education capital, involving the increasing number of stakeholders in a collaborative allocation process hosted by the Local authority. This local dimension is also valuable in the benefits which accrue to the local economy from local procurement frameworks.
In terms of prioritisation, the report continues identify the need to seek every means of securing capital funding for the replacement Complex Needs School for the current Chapel Road school and proposes that this be bid for under the Government’s current one-off bidding mechanism.
In the early autumn, the County Council’s capital prioritisation process for 2012/13 begins, part of which involves the prioritisation of Children’s Services projects. Overview and Scrutiny Panels are required to endorse bids. This report proposes two bids for improvements, one at Sparrow Hall Farm children’s home, and the other for a playing field for Henderson Green Primary School Norwich.
Action Required:
The Panel is asked to
• endorse the points made in this report as a proposed response to the Government’s consultation on the James review;
• consider and comment on the capital priority criteria to guide the Capital Priorities Group for the 2012/13 capital round;
• endorse the proposed bids to the Government and the corporate capital prioritisation process.
1. Background
1.1. On 8th April 2011 the Government published a report on Education Capital funding, following a review by Mr Sebastian James. Having considered the James review report, the Government has now published a statement setting out its response to the James recommendations. It accepts many of the recommendation but identifies a number for consultation and seeks views from interested parties before October 12th.
1.2. The Government has also allocated additional capital funding for Basic Need. Basic Need funding is to provide for new pupil places in schools. The Government is also seeking expressions of interest on a private-finance scheme to address those schools across the country with the most urgent condition needs. It will be announcing shortly how allocations for Basic Need are to be made.
1.3. In the early autumn, the County Council’s capital prioritisation process for 2012/13 begins, part of which involves the prioritisation of Children’s Services projects.
1.4. This report seeks Panel’s comments on a proposed response to the James review consultation and the emerging capital prioritisation process in Norfolk for 2012/13 and beyond.
2. Implementation of the 2010-11 review of Education Capital
2.1 The James review of education capital focused primarily on schools, although its findings are relevant to capital spending on wider children’s and young people’s services. Its key recommendations are to: • better target funding to where it is needed most, using robust nationally aggregated data on need for places and the condition of buildings; • give local areas more flexibility on use of funding, with clear national priorities, through local decision-making processes involving all relevant local partners to generate an agreed Local Investment Plan; • take a much more standardised approach to the design of buildings; • procure and project manage larger works through an expert Central Body to generate financial efficiencies; and • simplify the school premises regulations.
2.2 The James review was not charged with making recommendations on the level of education capital funding.
Role of the County Council
2.3 The impact of the James review recommendations on the future role of the County Council is the focus of the comments in this report. The James review develops the concept of the Responsible Body, that is a provider of one or more buildings used for the purposes of state-maintained education. The County Council would be the responsible body for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools. Other current Responsible Bodies would include individual and grouped academy trusts, Dioceses in respect of Voluntary Aided schools, Sixth form college corporations and Surestart Children’s Centres (where not owned and provided by the County Council). There is no mention of whether County Councils can include non-school provision for children and young people (eg Children’s homes) in its local investment priorities and this point will be made in the response. There is also no specific or separate mention in the review documentation of Complex Needs schools
2.4 The role of Responsible Body is central to the future role of the County Council as a recipient of education capital for the improvement of its own buildings; the more schools become academies, the greater will be the number of Responsible bodies, although the actual number will depend on how many academies are in grouped trusts.
2.5 The Local Investment Plan is where the needs of all Responsible Bodies will be brought together. The Government asks that each local area develop an initial light-touch Investment Plan by March 2012, by means of the local authority bringing together local Responsible Bodies. This model has been in place for some years for Voluntary Aided schools capital, although without the need for a submitted plan. We would support a plan being in place as soon as possible, on an initial basis to at least establish the mechanisms with partner providers. Rather than create a new body, we would suggest that, as an established statutory body, the Schools Forum be given powers to oversee the process in the long term. In any case the government will be aware that its processes must ensure no conflict of interest between the roles of the County Council (ie as responsible Body in its own right) and any coordinating/decision-making role it may have for the system as a whole.
2.6 The Government is consulting upon timing – whether some or all of the 2012-15 period could be a transitional period to the new arrangements. From the County Council’s point of view, a project is underway on reshaping the capital and place planning function within Children’s Services as part of the Big Conversation budget proposals. The final shape of the function will need to take account of the final outcome of the DfE’s consideration of the James review recommendation. The current plan is that new management arrangements would be in place in Norfolk County Council by April 2013. Thus to bring in new Government capital funding arrangements fully by April 2013 would be the best fit with local organisational and financial change in Norfolk.
2.7 One change the government is proposing from the James recommendations concerns Devolved Formula capital for ‘small capital works and ICT provision’. Mr James proposed that individual institutional allocations should be aggregated to the Responsible Body, whereas the Government had decided to make ‘upward aggregation’ voluntary. This is not unexpected as it retains local decision-making and is helpful as the County Council no longer has the resources to manage large programmes of small projects. But it does run the risk of there being less capital available for major strategic projects which is the County Council’s primary responsibility, especially in terms of Basic Need.
2.8 The Government has agreed to start collecting data on school building condition immediately, and consultation questions ask about the data which should be used on the condition of the local estate as the basis of a fair allocation, what robust data is available, and what proposals there are on how it could be gathered and managed most effectively. Norfolk has a well-developed condition data collection and storage process used for capital prioritisation, based upon the requirements and definitions set out by the previous government as far back as 1999. Not all local authorities have maintained data in this way. It would not be in Norfolk’s interest to see the requirements and definitions change or the processes to be dismantled. We would support a local process of data collection but with external verification/moderation. This would then permit a simple upload process to meet the government’s national requirements. Individual Responsible Bodies in Norfolk could be part of the same local system on a charged basis if the Government did not commission direct surveys.
National contracting and procurement
2.9 Overall, the DfE wishes to move to the national model of procurement proposed by the James review, but recognises that some current contractual arrangements could not be changed immediately. The aim would be to establish a highly professional and increasingly experienced procurement body able to achieve continuous improvement. It has already been announced that the work currently done by Partnership for Schools (PfS) will continue under the Department’s new Education Funding Agency (EFA).
2.10 In terms of a general response reflecting local circumstances, Norfolk County Council is just moving into its third-generation contractor framework and has introduced some additional competitive elements (‘mini-competitions’) to secure financial efficiencies. This is a four-year framework and we would not wish to see national arrangements introduced which would undermine the efficiencies being sought from this framework for schools-related work. There is a strong link through the local framework to the local economy and direct training opportunities for young people, particularly through the Build Norfolk initiative. We would thus ask the DfE to consider that transitional arrangements be made by Government to allow local areas to move to any mandatory national procurement arrangements for major projects over a four/five year period, as best suits current local frameworks.
2.11 The DfE has accepted the principle of standardised designs for schools, prepared on a national basis, but has indicated that the development of these designs and specifications will include consultation. We need to make the point to them that this should include consultation with school leaders, subject specialists and children and young people, being the primary users, and planning officers. The Local Government Association is asking the Government to make standardised designs optional, and we would endorse that view, given the range and age of school buildings in Norfolk, many of which would not be well suited to standardised designs on planning grounds. Standardised designs would be well suited to brand-new schools on modern housing developments.
Further consultation proposals
2.12 The Government proposes further consultation later in the year on: • A revision of the school premises regulations • The method of environmental assessment of building improvements
3. Forward capital planning
School improvement priorities
3.1 The Government has invited bids for a privately-financed programme to improve schools in the ‘very worst condition’. The deadline for bids is 14 th October. The scale of the investment finance would be the equivalent of about 100 new/rebuilt secondary schools, but spread across all school types. It has also provided additional capital for severe Basic Need pressures, for which Norfolk would not be eligible
3.2 The essential criterion for the private-finance programme is that a successful bid would be for a scheme where refurbishment would cost at least 30% of the rebuild costs. There is an opportunity to include Basic Need factors exceptional factors based on suitability. There are very few schools in Norfolk which meet the 30% criterion but we are investigating these further. This bidding process would, however, be an opportunity to seek funding for the replacement Chapel Road school and we seek Members’ endorsement today that this should be the priority bid to go forward should the bid criteria be reasonably met and the Governing Body agree to the private-finance concept.
3.3 Irrespective of this bidding scheme, it is necessary to identify high-level criteria to guide the Capital Priorities Group as it develops more detailed proposals for a Children’s Services’ programme 2012/13, even though the level and conditions of funding are not yet known. We would therefore seek Members’ endorsement of the continuation of previous categories for future capital planning purposes • Basic Need (first priority) • Urgent Condition • SEN strategy, including Chapel Road school • Temporary classroom replacement either on condition grounds or where pupil numbers are likely to be sustained • Science and technology improvements in secondary schools • Carbon reduction • School reorganisation schemes demonstrating financial savings
3.4 The projects identified under these criteria will form the basis of the County Council’s element of the Local Investment Plan. Other than where Basic Need exists, academies are excluded from eligibility for NCC capital.
Corporate capital priorities
3.5 Children’s Services is required to submit bids to the 2012/13 corporate capital prioritisation process by the end of September 2011. Because in previous years, there has been separate schools’ capital, we have not submitted school- related bids. There are two bids, as follows: • Sparrow Hall Farm provides crisis intervention residential support for up to two young people. The aim of the Home is to provide residential care for children where family, foster care or other community placements are not desirable or appropriate at the time. This capital project will enable bed places to be increased at the unit from two to three thus increasing the local authority’s internal capacity and reducing the need to use very expensive agency placements. NPS have undertaken a feasibility study and costed the project as a maximum cost of £178,000, for a further bedroom and office, an enlarged kitchen, improved utility room, replacement windows, new doors, new floor coverings, soundproofing for staff office and fees. • Henderson Green Primary School – the school was reorganised from First to Primary in 2007 and does not have a playing field. There is derelict ground adjacent to the school and we have been discussing with officers of the NELM Trust, its owners, possible acquisition. Adaptation costs are significant, circa £250k, although cheaper alternatives are also being looked at. The matter was the subject of a question to Cabinet and a petition at Cabinet’s August meeting.
4. Resource Implications
4.1 Finance : The level of capital finance for 2012/13 is not known at this time. The Government has moved away from ring-fencing capital and from targeted capital funds. Thus any schools’ capital available in 2012/13 will depend not only on the method by which government allocates capital but also on decisions of NCC Cabinet on how it allocates any unringfenced allocations it receives.
4.2 Property : NPS Property Consultants will be commissioned to assess the property implications of individual capital schemes.
5. Other Implications
5.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
An EqIA is not necessary for the matters covered in this report
5.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The provision of additional school places in areas of growth and more general improvements to school buildings provide benefit to school communities and offer opportunity for improved teaching and learning strategies, which directly benefit children and young people.
5.3 Any Other implications
Officers have considered all the implications of which members should be aware. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
6. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
Schools’ capital contributes to the well-being of communities through improved buildings for school and community use. The design of school buildings seeks to improve the security of the site overall.
Action Required
The Panel is asked to • endorse the points made in this report as a proposed response to the Government’s consultation on the James review • to consider and comment on the high-level capital priority criteria to guide the Capital Priorities Group for the 2012/13 capital round; • to endorse the proposed bids to the Government and the corporate capital prioritisation process
Background Papers
Report of the Sebastian James review of Education capital – April 2011 Government response to the review – July 2011 Letter from Secretary of State – additional capital funding – July 2011
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name Chris Hey Tel No 01603 223467 Email address [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 15 September 2011 Item no. 15
Consultation on School Funding Reform: Proposals for a fairer system Report by Director of Children’s Services
Summary
This paper provides details of the recently published consultation document from the Department for Education on school revenue funding.
The consultation document sets out the Government’s proposals for o the mechanics of a new funding system; o the contents of a new national formula; o future funding arrangements for the Pupil Premium, early years provision and high needs pupils, and o the responsibilities of local authorities, schools and academies in relation to central services.
This paper sets out the Government’s views expressed in the consultation document and highlights Norfolk’s views and concerns with some of the proposals and suggests proposed responses.
Action Required Panel are asked to • note the proposed approach to schools funding in future years, and • comment on Norfolk’s proposed response to the consultation document.
1. Introduction to this second consultation document on school funding
1.1 On the 19 July the Secretary of State for Education announced the launch of the second consultation on the Government’s review of school funding. The consultation seeks views on proposals for a new, fairer and more transparent school funding system. The consultation document sets out: o Proposals for the mechanics of a new funding system; o The contents of a new national formula; o Future funding arrangements for the Pupil Premium, early years provision and high needs pupils, and o The responsibilities of local authorities, schools and academies in relation to central services.
1.2 In the initial consultation on school funding, Consultation on School Funding Reform: Rationale and Principles, which the Government published on 13th April, it was identified that the current system for funding schools has many problems. The money the Government gives to local authorities to fund schools relates not to the needs of pupils but to historical decisions about
spending made by previous governments and local authorities. The system results in similar schools in different areas receiving very different levels of funding. It does not respond well to changing characteristics of pupils and therefore does not help schools support pupils’ needs. The system is extremely difficult to understand. It is almost impossible to explain why a particular school receives the budget that it does.
1.3 This means that the current system for funding schools does not support the Government’s objective to raise the aspirations and attainment of all pupils. The Government wants a system in which good schools that parents choose are more easily able to expand. A key prerequisite is being able to understand the funding that would be available. Schools require a system in which funding is transparent; where funding follows the pupil and where pupils with additional needs attract additional funding. Similar schools, serving pupils with similar needs, should be funded in broadly similar ways, no matter where they are.
1.4 The Government has indicated the new funding system must therefore: o Support the needs of pupils; o Be clear and transparent; o Enable schools and Academies, sponsors and Free School proposers to make informed decisions about their provision; o Enable schools and Academies to be funded on a broadly comparable basis.
1.5 The consultation paper includes 47 separate consultation questions. The comments included in this report will form the basis of Norfolk’s response. Responses to the consultation papers are required by the 11 October.
1.6 A full copy of the consultation document can be viewed at http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDeta ils&consultationId=1765&external=no&menu=1
2. Summary of the proposed new arrangements
2.1 The new national funding system • Government to provide funding to local authorities via three main blocks – Schools, High Needs Pupils and Early Years and a small fourth block for non-delegated items within the Schools Budget. • Local authorities will be permitted in conjunction with the Schools Forum to move funding between the Schools Budget blocks to ensure that they are able to meet local pressures. • Continuation of funding provided through the Department of Communities and Local Government Formula Grant, or its successor as part of the business rates retention scheme. • Money may be moved between the blocks however existing restrictions on growth of funding centrally by local authorities and retention of the Minimum Funding Guarantee which determines the level of individual school budgets will continue.
• New national Schools Block formula to determine the level of resource for each local authority to consist of: a) A basic per pupil entitlement; b) Additional funding for deprived pupils; c) Protection for small schools; d) An adjustment for areas with higher labour costs. e) English as an Additional Language (EAL) may also be added. • The national Schools Block formula to be calculated either at school level formula, with a notional budget for all schools but subject to local flexibility, or a local authority level formula, with a budget for each local authority area. • Existing level of funding to be provided for High Needs Pupils and Early Years. Consideration to be given to the introduction of a national funding formula for both blocks. • Current funding arrangements to continue in 2012/13. • Shadow settlement in 2012/13 as part of continued consultation on school funding
2.2 School Funding • Local circumstances to be taken into account in the setting of schools’ and Academies’ budgets. • A role for local authorities and Schools Forums, including Academy representatives, in managing local pressures and priorities • Local authorities and Schools Forums to agree a formula to distribute funding locally between schools. • Simplification of the existing school formula by restricting the number and scale of additional local factors. • Improvement to the role of School Forums so they are more representative of all type of provision and have greater powers of challenge over proposals they consider unfair. • Transitional arrangements to apply to ensure stability of school funding during the implementation phase. • Local school formula to be used to calculate the budgets of Academies in the area. • Academies budgets to be calculated either by the new Education Funding Agency or by the local authority on behalf of the Agency.
2.3 Pupil Premium • The Pupil Premium will remain as a separate funding stream for this Spending Review period. • For 2012/13 the amount available per pupil will increase and it is intended to increase the number of pupils that attract the premium by extending eligibility of Free School Meals pupils.
2.4 Early Years • Local authorities will continue to be responsible for funding providers of early education and childcare for 3 and 4 year olds in the maintained, private, voluntary and independent sectors.
• Local authorities will be expected to continue to use a single funding formula to do this.
2.5 High Needs Pupils • Local authorities continue to be responsible for funding high needs pupils, ie children with high Special Education Needs and those in Alternative Provision.
3. The Government’s proposals for a new national funding system
3.1 The Government has up until now paid money to local authorities for schools through a number of different grants. The largest of these is the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The DSG is ringfenced – i.e. can only be used for schools, early years or certain services for pupils such as provision for children with special needs. The amount of DSG per pupil for each authority is calculated based on what the local authority received the previous year. Local authorities then fund schools using a local funding formula.
3.2 This method – called ‘spend plus’ - was started in 2006-07 and represented a reform from the previous method of school funding. When the DSG was created, in 2006-07, its initial level for pupils in each local authority was based on what each authority planned to spend on schools in 2005-06 – the last year before the introduction of the DSG and ‘spend plus’. Therefore, because the Government still base funding for the DSG on the previous year, current levels of school funding are, in fact, based largely on those in 2005-06.
3.3 So, current levels of school funding are based on an assessment of needs which is out of date, and on historic decisions about levels of funding which may or may not reflect precisely what schools needed then. It is inevitable that over time needs have changed and historic local decisions may no longer reflect local or national priorities.
3.4 The Government current proposals replace these arrangements with four separate streams of school related funding and each calculated by a different methodology. The four separate funding blocks relate to schools; high needs pupils; early years and centrally retained services.
3.5 The proposed formula to calculate the Schools Block consist of: a) A basic per pupil entitlement; b) Additional funding for deprived pupils; c) Protection for small schools; d) An adjustment for areas with higher labour costs. e) English as an Additional Language (EAL) may also be added.
3.6 The Government has identified two ways of calculating the national formula: o A school level formula based on the schools within the area and the pupils within those schools; or o A local authority level formula based solely on the pupils within the area.
In the first option the individual school budgets would be notional. The local authority school funding formula would determine the actual individual school budgets in both options.
3.7 The Government proposal is to consider moving to a formula basis for calculating both the high needs pupils funding block (based on pupils resident within each local authorities area) and the early years funding block (based on the number of children receiving free entitlement to early education). The centrally retained services and initially the high needs pupils and early years blocks will be based on existing spend.
3.8 The Government have decided to maintain the current funding system for 2012/13 in order to enable further full and detailed consultation, and to enable schools, local authorities and Academies to plan. As part of the consultation process the Government intend to issue a “shadow” settlement for 2012-13 in the spring of 2012.
3.9 The Government is committed to continuing the existing practice of providing multi-year settlements for local authorities.
3.10 The Government is considering either implementation of the new system from 2013-14 or waiting until the next spending period (from 2015-16). However, if reforms are not introduced until the next spending review, the Government would wish to improve the system by making a number of changes that would make the system more transparent in the short term.
4. Norfolk’s view on the new national funding system proposals
4.1 Norfolk welcomes the move to a formulaic approach to school funding. The use of the four block approach seems sensible. The methodology for the calculation of the four blocks is generally supported however the possible addition of English as an Additional Language is not supported. Whilst it is accepted that English as an Additional Language does attract additional costs it is more than outweighed by the funding required to off set the disadvantage caused by economic deprivation. 4.2 Norfolk has concern that the proposed formula has not sufficiently taken into the account the costs associated with rurality. Because of the rural nature of Norfolk it has more schools and more smaller schools than most local authorities. The proposal also ignores the real additional cost of small high schools. Norfolk does not believe the option of a £95,000 fixed sum for all primary schools adequately reflects the costs of rurality. The alternative narrow sparsity factor option may generate a more realistic level of resources when compared to the real costs of rurality, but detail costings are required to judge the validity of this initial judgement.
4.3 Norfolk continues to be of the view that free school meals is not the most effectively way of funding children from deprived backgrounds. Following two local consultations Norfolk has moved to deprivation funding allocations within the local formula based on Education Acorn. Norfolk schools agree that the
data produced by Education Acorn provides a better correlation with social deprivation than the free school meals entitlement proxy indicator.
4.4 In addition to the suitability of the free school meal criteria for measuring deprivation the Government has not acknowledged the effect of concentrated deprivation. The needs of some schools are greater than others because of the level of deprivation in a school catchment area and Norfolk has found that schools with significant levels of deprivation in their intake need pro rata greater levels of funding to overcome the disadvantage. Norfolk has found that the cost of managing a school with a high level of deprivation is significantly greater per pupil than a school which only has a small number of deprived children attending the school. Norfolk is concerned that this factor has still not been reflected in the current proposals.
4.5 Norfolk sees significant difficulties being created by a national school funding formula which produces notional school budgets. The notional budgets will not assist transparency as local circumstances will result in locally produced budgets driven by local formula being different from the notional budgets for individual schools. Norfolk would suggest if the local School Forum arrangement is robust the Forum will provide the necessary transparency in the system.
4.6 Norfolk continues to be of the view that the new arrangements should be implemented as soon as possible. If implementation is delayed until 2015/16 the proposals will have taken four years to start being implemented. The challenges will be different in 2015/16 and the chances of the reason for not implementing a distinct possibility. Norfolk therefore supports implementation of the new arrangement in 2013/14.
5. The Government’s proposals for a new school funding system
5.1 The Government have decided to introduce a national school funding system with local flexibility. Thus at a local authority level a local schools funding formula will still be required. However, the current level of flexibility of these local funding formulas is to be reduced by limiting the number and scale of factors that can be used in the construction of the local formula.
5.2 The Government propose the local formula factors could cover: o Basic entitlement per pupil (currently Age-Weighted Pupil Units) o Funding for additional educational needs (e.g. deprivation, SEN, EAL) o Rates o Exceptional site factors (e.g. split site, PFI and rent) o Lump sums for schools This is a reduction from 15 to 5 broad factors.
5.3 The Government intend to set the relative funding per pupil between primary and secondary at the national average of 1:1.27. This funding ratio would be used to set national funding distribution levels. The Government propose setting a range of allowable ratios around this average to ensure within local
formula there is some convergence of the basic entitlement per pupil towards this national average.
5.4 The Government recognise that funding changes will need to be implemented on a gradual basis and therefore are proposing transitional arrangements. In the current year the minimum reduction to school funding was set at 1.5%, if this was used to introduce proposed changes Government estimates that the maximum increase that could be afforded each year would be around 1% and therefore implementation of the changes would be very slow.
5.5 The Government see the opportunity to simplify the arrangements for calculating academy budgets with the most straight forward options being for local authorities to calculate the budgets on behalf of the School Funding Agency which would then fund the academies.
5.6 The Government proposals for ensuring accountability and fairness include proposals to increase the powers of Schools Forums and make them more independent. The Government wish to match this increased local accountability with increased central checking and review of local formula arrangements by the Education Funding Agency.
6. Norfolk’s view on the new school funding system proposals
6.1 Norfolk welcomes the Government’s decision to introduce a national formula for school funding with local flexibility. Norfolk however questions the proposed restriction of local formula factors. Of particular concern are the removal of a number of factors that support either small school, eg minimum funding level, salary cost adjustment, school catering and infant class size grant, or support structural arrangements, eg school partnerships and cluster funding.
6.2 Norfolk has calculated the impact the proposed reduction in flexibility in use of local formula factors would have on current funding arrangements. It is estimated that the range of variations in school budgets created by this change would in the primary sector be between +£235,000 and -£125,000 per school and in the secondary sector -£58,000 and -£738,000 per school. In total the change would result in a transfer of £14 million or 6% of total school funding from the secondary sector to the primary sector. This is based on 2011/12 budget allocations and does not take into account in any change in the per pupil funding ratio.
6.3 Norfolk would propose that the formula should allow a set percentage of funding to be distributed in accordance local discretion. This additional flexibility would enable some of the more extreme changes to be avoided. Such a proposal would avoid the need to be explicit about precise factors but it would still enable control to be exercised over the value of funding distributed in this way.
6.4 Norfolk’s recent review of its funding per pupil mainstream funding formula suggests that the 1:1.27 ratio is too low when account is taken of key stage 4
learning where exam fees are high, classes sizes are lower and practical learning costs are incurred. The current Norfolk ratio is 1:1.30. A move from a ratio of 1:1.30 to 1:1.27 would result in the transfer of an additional £1.4 million or 1% of this funding from the secondary sector to the primary sector.
6.5 As previously indicated Norfolk view on transitional arrangements takes into account the views of both losers and winners. Schools faced with reduced budgets as a result of formula distribution changes want changes to take place as slowly as possible the winners, who perceive they have been under funded for many years, want their funding entitlement as soon as possible. In recent funding changes in Norfolk this transition period has been set at five years and changes have been tapered to be fully implemented over this period.
6.6 It is never a good time to implement change that creates losers however given that no additional money is available within the school funding system during this Spending Review period any transition should start as soon as possible. To do otherwise turns the whole system against the process in that the losers who will lose cash and the winners who will see a delay in the extra cash they are entitled to will each claim to be losers!! Secondly, delaying implementing will create “planning blight” and cause difficulties making other changes to the system.
6.7 Despite the difficulties Norfolk would support introducing change during this Spending Review period at a speed significantly greater than 1% per year identified in the consultation document as being the maximum achievable whist protecting school budgets from greater than a 1.5% per pupil reduction.
6.8 The consultation document makes no explicit reference to special school funding formula. Norfolk special schools formula contains 36 separate factors which again ensure pupil specific characteristics are funded but also ensures site specific factors, including boarding, are funded. Norfolk questions why no reference is made to the arrangements for funding maintained special schools.
6.9 The role of the Norfolk School Forum has been essential to the smooth operation on Local Management of Schools within Norfolk – thus the proposal to increase the responsibilities of Schools Forums is seen as a natural development of the role and function. However, the Government suggestion that separate school groups within the Forum should all separately have to approve the local funding formula would be seen as a retrograde step. A mature Forum will, like Norfolk’s, have the ability to gel as a group and any suggestion that it should operate as individual school interest group will undermine the ability of a Forum to operate effectively. Such a move would therefore not be in the interests of any schools.
6.10 Norfolk would question the need for central involvement in checking local formula if the Schools Forum is to be given decision making powers over the local formula. The proposal seems to be adding an additional layer of
bureaucracy, undermining the role and responsibilities of the Schools Forum and adding a significantly delay into a timely local process.
7. The Government’s proposals for the Pupil Premium, Early Years Provision and High Needs Pupils proposals
The Pupil Premium 7.1 The Government introduced the pupil premium in 2011-12; the premium is worth £430 per child; with the total value of the premium being £625million. The intention is that by 2014-15, the premium will have risen in total to £2.5billion. The Government are now consulting of a proposal to increase the number of pupils that attract the premium for 2012/13.
7.2 The pupil premium is allocated based on known eligibility for free school meals. The Government intend to continue to use the free school meals eligibility criteria as it resulted in a simple and transparent premium which is clearly understood by schools and parents. The approach is to continue until the premium is fully implemented to ensure that funding is effectively targeted to raise the attainment of deprived pupils.
7.3 Currently eligibility is based on a single year measure of known entitlement to free school meals. The two options the Government are now considering are to include all pupils known to be eligible to free school meals over a three year period or over a six year period. These options are known as Ever 3 and Ever 6.
7.4 Either of the options will further the aims of the Pupil Premium by including a higher proportion of underachieving children than at present. Both options would address some of the issues of under-reporting but would not cover pupils whose parents have never claimed. Using an Ever 6 measure would better address the issue of the declining proportion in secondary schools as those eligible in Year 6, the last year of primary education, would continue to be eligible for the pupil premium throughout secondary education to Year 11.
7.5 Coverage would increase from the current 17% of pupil to 21% of pupils with Ever 3 and 24% of pupils with Ever 6. In either case the increase in available funding will still result in an increase in the level of the Pupil Premium for all eligible pupils.
Early Years 7.6 Early years funding is to provide the funding necessary to enable providers to deliver the universal free entitlement of 15 hours a week early education for three and four year olds. Currently providers are funded by local authorities through the newly introduced early years single funding formula. Funding for this comes from the DSG.
7.7 The current funding process was introduced so that funding allocations could respond to local needs and priorities, and because the role of local authorities in funding free early education was considered a crucial part of wider local authority early years responsibilities. It is for these reasons that the
Government intend to retain a model of local discretion in funding free early education, retaining the responsibility of local authorities for operating the early years single funding formula.
7.8 Recent feedback to the Government has indicated that the implementation of early years single funding formula had been a challenge but now that it had been implemented it should be allowed time to bed in. However the Government received strong feedback on how the early years single funding formula could be improved, focusing on the themes of variability between areas, complexity and lack of transparency.
7.9 The early years single funding formula was not intended to be complex. The intention was to ensure all providers were funded for the hours of free early education they delivered, and in doing so reflect their costs of delivering these hours. Alongside this, key policy objectives such as increasing the quality of provision, tackling disadvantage and increasing flexibility were to be supported. However, Government has had significant feedback that in operation the early years single funding formula was unnecessarily complex
7.10 As a result of this feedback the Government are now considering a number of proposals to: o simplify local formula by reducing local flexibility on the number of factors that can be used within local funding formulae; o introduce greater consistency between local formulas on the funding of disadvantage by changing the basis for determining the level of the disadvantage factor; o bring greater consistency to the level of early years funding between local authorities by introducing a formula driven funding allocation at local authority level, and o introduce more transparency to funding arrangements by central publication of local funding formula.
High Needs Pupils 7.11 The Green Paper on Special Educational Needs stated that local authorities would retain a key central role in dealing with SEN. The Government intend to fund local authorities to undertake this role through a high needs pupils funding block within the DSG.
7.12 Those children and young people who require high levels of support are a subset of children with SEN, post-school learners with learning difficulties and disabilities and those who require alternative provision. While there is no precise definition of “high needs”, the Government have indicated it covers those pupils whose educational provision costs more than about £10,000 a year, on average some four to five times the cost of a mainstream pupil.
7.13 The Government has set out the following principles that have informed the proposals for funding high needs pupils: • The funding provided should meet the impartially assessed needs of the child or young person for whom it is provided.
• So far as practicable, the preferences of the parents or young person should be followed in placing the child or young person. • The interests of the taxpayer require that funding and resources should be used efficiently and to best effect. • The funding should not be seen as fixed, but subject to review, and may change as the child or young person’s assessed needs change. • Where children or young people have social care needs or health needs, appropriate contributions should be made from the budgets for those services. • The commissioning body (usually the local authority) should meet the cost of the educational provision, in order that proper regard is given to financial considerations. • The commissioning body should have an open and transparent system for the allocation of high needs resources, which makes use of expert advice and is consistently applied. • The commissioning body should monitor the effectiveness of the provision, and that it achieves relevant and appropriate outcomes for the child or young person. • Because of the specialist nature and high cost of premises and staffing, funding systems need to provide some protection to institutions in which not all the places are filled. But this does not mean that indefinite protection should be given to unsuccessful institutions. • Pupil Premium and equivalent Post-16 disadvantage funding is additional to all other sums allocated.
7.14 The proposals for funding high needs pupils reflects the fact the sector is changing to reflect the Government’s aim of seeing greater diversity of provision, and the switch in the role of local authorities from providers to commissioners.
7.15 The Government want to remove perverse incentives for the commissioner (usually the local authority). The Government propose to do this by enabling high need institutions to be given a basic sum per place or per pupil, with top up funding from the commissioner for individual pupils. This will also help support transition to a diverse market where many providers are not maintained by the local authority.
7.16 Funding by place is the traditional way of funding special schools and most alternative provision, including Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). The argument is that provision of this cost and complexity cannot readily be switched on and off, so it is necessary to pay for the place and staffing and then look to fill the places so far as possible.
7.17 The traditional way of funding mainstream provision is by pupil. However, in respect of high cost pupils generally the maintained sector is funded on the basis of places and the non-maintained sector by pupil numbers. There is an argument that extending pupil funding into the special and alternative provision areas will give schools more of an incentive to fill their places, and to equalise the financial consequences of different placements for local authorities. The Government is thus seeking views on moving from funding
maintained schools and alternative provision units from place funding to a more pupil driven funding system.
7.18 The determination of the high pupil needs funding block should be driven by a funding formula most closely linked to the apparent numbers of high needs pupils with SEN in local authorities. Such a formula would primarily contain two factors: numbers of resident young people in the relevant age group, and the rate of resident young people in receipt of the Disability Living allowance.
7.19 However, the Government knows that any formula will fail to reflect closely the spend of individual local authorities on high needs pupils. Consequently, it is recognised that substantial damping arrangements would be required and thus movement to the new formula would therefore have to be slow.
7.20 The amount of funding going into alternative provision is much smaller in size than high needs SEN, but has traditionally been funded alongside it as high needs provision. The Government think that it is probably appropriate to continue to treat alternative provision alongside SEN as an element of high needs provision for funding purposes.
8. Norfolk’s view on the proposals for the Pupil Premium, Early Years Provision and High Needs Pupils
The Pupil Premium 8.1 Norfolk continues to be of the view that known eligibility to free school meals is not the most effectively way of funding children from deprived backgrounds. Following two local consultations Norfolk has moved to funding allocations based on Education Acorn. Norfolk schools agree that the data produced by Education Acorn provides a better correlation with social deprivation than the free school meals entitlement proxy indicator.
8.2 However, should the Government continue to use known eligibility to free school meals as the criteria Norfolk would support the wider measure, ie funding pupils known eligibility to free school meals over the last six years as that should ensure that the drop off in take up of free school meal of secondary aged pupils is covered.
Early Years 8.3 Norfolk was a pathfinder authority and the early years single funding formula has thus been operating since April 2010. The formula was subject to review during the autumn and minor changes made to the methodology for April 2011. The formula has been operating successfully and the changes implemented from 2010 are now accepted as the way all early years settings are funded.
8.4 Norfolk would support the principle of simplifying the early years single funding formula however we would be concerned about the impact this might have on individual providers. As always a balance needs to be struck between simplicity and fairness. Norfolk has built the local formula around the costs models of the different providers, in line with the Government’s
statement that the formula was intended to reflect costs of providers. Cost is affected by size, type of provider in terms of fixed cost, and pay of staff which is driven by qualifications as a proxy for quality of the various settings. If the formula is simplified too much some providers would receive less funding and may be unable to continue to operate.
8.5 Norfolk would support proposals to change the approach to ensuring disadvantage is targeted. However with the diversity of providers and cost bases it would be important to ensure some groups of providers were not losers in the process.
8.6 Norfolk again supports the introduction of a separate funding formula for the allocation of funding at a local authority level. Clearly the formula would need to be driven by the number of children in each area entitled to early years provision plus funding for differing levels of deprivation and differencing costs. Norfolk would also emphasis the need to include additional funding to cover the additional costs of a large rural county by the inclusion of an appropriate sparsity factor.
High Needs Pupils 8.7 Norfolk generally supports the proposals but has a number of serious concerns about the proposed operational model. Of particular concern is the possible cost and operational implications of moving to a funding model that is based primarily on funding pupils rather than places. In Norfolk’s view such a change will result in organisational changes to high quality special school provision because of the need to reduce fixed costs to respond to the change in nature of the funding model. Experience in Norfolk is that provision at independent and private providers is significantly more expensive that maintained schools. The model is also flawed in that maintained providers funding is capped whereas independent and private providers charge commercial rates and their funding cannot be capped by local funding formulae. Another consequence of such a change may be a requirement to maintain a greater number of basic places to ensure the sector are able to meet local needs. Norfolk would not therefore be in favour of moving from place to pupil funding of the maintained provision for pupils with high needs.
8.8 Norfolk would support the use of £10,000 to delineate a high needs pupil for funding purpose and the use of this sum for the base funding of these types of pupils.
8.9 Norfolk would support the extension of the principle of base funding to the post-16 sector and the acceptance that the local authority should be responsible for these high needs pupils. However, the administrative arrangements with the Education Funding Agency to achieve this objective should be as streamlined as possible.
8.10 Norfolk is concerned about the funding complexities created by the proposals to deal with funding special and alternative provision academies and free schools. The simplest option which best fits the Government’s guiding principles would be for the local authority to act as commissioner and funder.
This would result in all types of schools being treated in the same fashion and would keep the administrative arrangements as simple as possible.
8.11 Norfolk supports the development of high pupil needs funding block driven by a funding formula most closely linked to the apparent numbers of high needs pupils with SEN in local authorities. The formula should cover alternative provision as well as high costs special educational needs. Such a formula would primarily contain two factors: numbers of resident young people in the relevant age group, and the rate of resident young people in receipt of the Disability Living Allowance. Norfolk would support the introduction of such a distribution formula and the start of transitional implementation of the new allocations sooner rather than later.
8.12 Norfolk is surprised the Government make no explicit reference to arrangements for developing funding formula for maintained special schools which have traditionally been the subject of separate regulations.
9. The Government’s proposals on the responsibilities of local authorities, schools and academies in relation to central services
9.1 To make the funding system more transparent, and to calculate Academy budgets more accurately, the Government are proposing to define clearly the responsibilities of maintained schools, Academies and local authorities. From this, it is then possible to construct a funding model which would reflect these by being clear what is included within each of the funding blocks.
9.2 The funding blocks would be: • Schools block o functions which must be done or paid for by all schools o functions where there is local discretion to retain them centrally (for maintained schools) • High needs pupils block • Early years block • Central services block • Formula grant o General local authority funding - functions which must be done or paid for by the authority for all maintained schools and Academies o Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG) funding block – functions which must be done or paid for by the authority for maintained schools but would be within Academy budgets – this would be split between local authorities and Academies
9.3 Most of the funding in the Schools block represents functions which must be done or paid for by all maintained schools and Academies. Funding for these functions would always be delegated. The functions also include some services where there is currently local discretion on whether or not they
should be delegated, but where the Government now propose that these items be wholly delegated in a new system.
9.4 The Schools block also contains funding for functions which could either be delegated or centrally retained for maintained schools (if there is local discretion) but would be within Academy budgets. Again it is proposed that all these services would be delegated to maintained schools and Academies but subject to local agreement maintained schools could agree that this funding be retained centrally.
9.5 As the commissioner for provision for high needs pupils, the local authority is responsible for funding this. Much would in practice be managed directly by schools and Academies as part of their delegated budget.
9.6 Most of early years funding would relate to the funding of the free entitlement and is already delegated to maintained schools and private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers.
9.7 The central services block represents the DSG funding for central services within the Schools Budget which cannot be delegated to schools.
9.8 The formula grant is provided to the local authority by the Department for Communities and Local Government and represents what must be done or paid for by the local authority for all maintained schools and Academies. These are services which remain local authority responsibilities for Academies, or the pupils in them, as well as for maintained schools and their pupils. An example of this is home to school transport.
9.9 Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG) funding block represents functions which must be done by the local authority for maintained schools but would be within Academy budgets. These are functions which the local authority would have to hold funding centrally for, and would not be delegated to maintained schools, but for Academies would transfer to the Academies themselves.
9.10 Initially costing of the individual blocks would be based on budgeted spend in 2012/13.
9.11 Annex 1 shows details of the services which fall into each block.
10. Norfolk’s view on the Government’s proposals on the responsibilities of local authorities, schools and academies in relation to central services
10.1 Norfolk supports the attempt to clarify respective responsibilities and to introduce a degree of transparency into the calculation of Academy budgets.
10.2 Norfolk has long supported the principle of maximum delegation and already fully delegates all those functions which the Government are now defining as
must be delegated. Norfolk is however concerned with implication of delegating some of the functions in the second group. Norfolk will need to consider how this group of services are treated in 2012/13 to avoid any unintended consequences particularly the possible double funding of Academies as a result of current local authority financial practices.
10.3 Norfolk supports the split of functions within the other funding blocks.
11. Other Implications
11.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) There are no specific implications as the report is commenting on Government consultation papers.
11.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk The report highlights the Government proposals for the changing of school funding arrangements for beyond 2011/12. Norfolk’s responses are aimed at minimising the negative impact from any changes that the Government may propose.
11.3 Any Other implications Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report above, there are no other implications to take into account.
12. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act There are no specific implications.
13. Action Required Children’s and Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel are asked to • note the Government’s proposed approach to schools funding in future years, and • comment on Norfolk’s proposed response to the consultation document.
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Paul Fisher Tel: 01603 223464 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Annex 1 Proposed functions within each funding block
Schools block - Responsibility of Schools and Academies Staff costs* Premises costs* Learning resources* Supplies and services* Finance* HR* Payroll* ICT support* Legal services* Caretaking and cleaning* Building maintenance* Day to day health and safety compliance* Training and professional development* Governor training* Grounds maintenance* Staff absence cover* (except for limited central retention) Premature retirement costs (unless agreed otherwise by LA) Funding threshold and performance pay** 14-16 practical learning options** School meals** Extended services/community facilities (other than joint use)** Admissions authority functions (where a school is its own admissions authority) Securing careers guidance Support for pupils with low cost high incidence SEN below the threshold
Schools block - Functions that could be delegated or centrally retained for maintained schools, but would be within academy budgets Support for schools in financial difficulties Allocation of contingencies Free school meals eligibility Insurance Licences/subscriptions Supply cover – long-term sickness, maternity Support for minority ethnic pupils or underachieving groups Support for low cost high incidence SEN Behaviour support services Library and museum services
High Need Pupils block Provision for pupils above threshold - individually assigned resources (can be delegated) Special schools (delegated budget) Special units in maintained schools (delegated budget) Pupil Referral Units Independent special school fees Inter-authority recoupment
Support services for high cost low incidence SEN (could be contracted to special schools/special units) SEN support for children under five Education out of school and other alternative provision
Early Years block Early Years Single Funding Formula Central expenditure on under 5s
Central Services block Co-ordinated admissions scheme Servicing of schools forums Supply cover for LA-wide trade union and other public duties Carbon Reduction Commitment Schools forum approved DSG funding of non-schools budget items: Contribution to combined budgets SEN transport Termination of employment costs Capital expenditure funded from revenue Prudential borrowing costs
Formula Grant - Responsibility of local authority for all maintained schools and Academies Mainstream home to school transport Strategic capital and school place planning Management of PFI contracts (including academies which have converted since the contracts were signed) and landlord premises functions for relevant academy leases Education Welfare service – prosecutions for non-attendance, tracking children missing from education Responsibilities for home educated pupils Pupil support Co-ordination of early years provision and other duties under the Childcare Act Commissioning of children’s centres Strategic planning of children’s services including DCS Inherited ongoing termination of employment costs Provision for disabled children Specialist equipment Educational Psychology service (this does also support other pupils) Statutory assessment procedures SEN monitoring and quality assurance Securing information and mediation services, including Parent Partnership SEN home to school transport
Responsibility of local authority for all maintained schools, but within Academy budgets (LACSEG) School improvement Asset management (other than strategic capital planning) including health and safety Other landlord premises functions (in the case of community schools) Education
welfare service (excluding prosecutions) Redundancy costs (unless good reason to charge to school) Internal and external audit Financial accounting requirements – including accounts, returns, VAT returns Financial assurance Procurement advice and compliance Teachers pension returns and local government pension scheme administration Strategic HR employer functions (in the case of community schools) Appointment of LA governors Joint use arrangements Music services Visual and performing arts Outdoor education
NB - items in italics are currently within the schools budget - * already within delegated budgets
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 15 September 2011 Item No. 16
Fair Funding Consultation (Report by Director of Children’s Services)
Summary This report provides information on the issues that schools and other providers will be consulted on in respect of the funding arrangements for 2012/13 and seeks the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel prior to the consultation papers being completed. The three proposed changes to the funding distribution formula are • Formula review – primary and secondary schools • Funding for pupil with special educational needs • School cluster arrangements Action Required The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked for comments on the consultation proposals.
1. Introduction
1.1 Section 47 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, required local authorities to consult schools on changes they may wish to make to the arrangements for distributing resources to schools. The arrangements are known as Fair Funding.
1.2 The local Fair Funding system comprises of two elements, the Scheme for Financing Schools and the distribution formula. The Scheme for Financing Schools sets out, in respect of financial matters, the arrangements for the operation of Fair Funding in schools and the respective responsibilities of schools and Norfolk County Council. The distribution formula is the means by which the resources made available to schools within Norfolk County Council are allocated. Both aspects of the system are governed by detailed regulations.
1.3 The consultation period for the proposed changes will run until 15 December. At the end of the process the summarised results together with the views of the Schools Forum will be reported back to the January meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
1.4 As reported elsewhere on the agenda the Government are carrying out a second consultation on School Funding Reform. The outcome of this consultation will not be known until the late autumn. What the Government have already said is that changes to funding arrangements will not be made until 2013/14 at the earliest. It is likely that any changes the Government introduce will use 2012/13 as the base year for transitional funding purposes. It therefore remains in the interests of all Norfolk schools to ensure local funding allocations reflect need as accurately as possible.
2. Proposed Changes to Norfolk’s Fair Funding Arrangements
2.1 Only three changes affecting the funding distribution are proposed.
The three proposed changes to the funding distribution formula are • Formula review – primary and secondary schools • Funding for pupil with special educational needs • School cluster arrangements
Formula Review – Primary and Secondary Schools
2.2 A fundamental review of most aspects of the primary and secondary funding allocation was undertaken last year and subject to consultation with schools in autumn 2011. A number of aspects of funding have been subject to further review this last twelve months as part of that process. The same process was used to undertake this review as was used last year. A Formula Review Board was formed comprising members of the Schools Forum and officers. The result of their work was then considered by the Schools Forum, so that each of these proposals have been agreed by the Schools Forum as an appropriate way forward.
2.3 The areas reviewed which are now subject to further consultation are; • Diploma/Practical and Applied Learning funding – a proposal to extend the scope of the funding to include diplomas • Cash replicated School Development Grant – a proposal to move the remaining School Development Grant from cash replication distribution to formula distribution • Funding of all-through schools – a proposal to introduce a funding methodology for “all through” schools • Partnership funding – a proposal to increase the funding for partnerships.
Funding for Pupils with Special Educational Needs.
2.4 Within the school funding distribution formula are three main elements that provide schools with funding for pupils with special educational needs.
• The basic school allocation is provided to all schools to recognise the need for all schools to undertake certain activities relating to special educational needs. This funding is allocated on the basis of a fixed sum per school plus an amount per pupil. • The school specific allocation is provided to reflect the higher incidence of learning and behavioural support needs of pupils in individual schools. The funding is allocated on proxy indicators of need. • The pupil specific funding allocation which is provided for those pupils with the highest level of special additional need. This funding allocation is based on the specified teaching assistant support hours within individual Statements of Special Educational Need.
2.5 The proposal is to fully delegate all funding for special educational needs. This will result in a new funding methodology being adopted for the current pupil specific funding allocation. It is proposed that a percentage of these funds be delegated to groups of schools at cluster level. To complement this proposal the size, structure, governance and responsibilities are under review and subject to another aspect of this consultation process.
2.6 This proposal is an essential element of the delivery of the £1.9 million savings on special educational needs support functions that is built into the 2012/13 budget. The budget saving is part of the Norfolk Forward Transformation Programme. The budget saving proposal will result in the reshaping of the following special education needs support services, casework, Educational Psychology, Parent Partnership, tribunal activity and statutory assessment and review.
2.7 The proposals have been developed in conjunction with the Special and Additional Needs Funding Sub-Group of the Schools’ Forum and are supported by the Schools Forum.
2.8 To enable schools to be able to access special educational needs services once these changes have been made it is also proposed to created special educational needs traded services and add these to the range of services currently offered to schools on a traded basis.
School Cluster Arrangements
2.9 As indicated about it is also proposed to consult on a new strategy for school clusters. Currently all Norfolk maintained schools are grouped into 45 clusters. These clusters are local, fairly geographically coherent groupings consisting of a secondary school and its feeder primary schools and may or may not have a special school in it.
2.10 School clusters have become more important in the management of funding in recent times. Initially clusters only received £2000 each to support a limited number of activities such as transition to secondary schools and joint training, however more recently additional funding streams such as Parent Support Advisers and extended schools resources were allocated to clusters to manage. With the mainstreaming of significant grants this year the funding allocations are no longer ring fenced for specific activities and thus the responsibilities of clusters on resource management has increased.
2.11 The proposal to delegate a percentage of the special educational needs funding to clusters together with the responsibilities related to identifying local low incidence special education needs need and then allocating these additional resources will further enhance the role of the cluster in the management of delegated funding.
2.12 This proposal will identify a number of different options for future cluster arrangements including size, governance, responsibilities, accountability, etc.
Consultation Arrangements
2.13 As previously indicated the consultation period will end on the 15 December. Three twilight and three evening consultation meetings have been arranged for November. Formal consultation with the Schools Forum will take place in December.
2.14 The outcome of the consultation process will be reported to this Overview and Scrutiny Panel for comments in January before recommended changes to the funding arrangements are presented to Cabinet at the end of January for a decision.
3. Resource Implications
3.1 The financial implication for each proposal will be set out in the individual consultation papers.
3.2 The overall funding will be contained within the Dedicated School Grant funding available for 2012/13.
4. Other Implications
4.1 Equality Impact Assessment
Whilst this report is not directly relevant to equality in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct negative impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups, it is making changes to school funding arrangements to ensure available funding is best matched to the needs of individual pupils.
4.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The proposals overall aim to ensure that the available funding is both equitably distributed and directed towards those pupils with greatest needs.
4.3 Any Other Implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
5. Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Act
5.1 The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.
6. Action Required
6.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked for comments on the consultation proposals.
Officer Contact: Paul Fisher 01603 223464 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 15 September 2011 Item No 17
Trends in Pupil Exclusions from Norfolk Schools
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary
Following the recent publication of national data on school exclusions Members requested a report on the data and what response the council and schools are making. This will inform Members to see whether further scrutiny is required.
The report provides analysis of the Norfolk data for exclusions and describes actions currently being taken.
Action required The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note the analysis of the data provided, the actions currently being taken and to identify if further scrutiny is required.
1. Background
1.1 The Department for Education (DfE) published the Statistical First Release on permanent and fixed period exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England 2009/10 at the end of July 2011. (http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00192714/school-exclusion- statistics-for-200910 )
1.2 It reported on national trends in the number and rates of exclusions together with information about pupils and reasons for exclusions.
1.3 The headline figures for Norfolk for the year 2009/10 showed a reduction in the number of permanent exclusions but an increase in the number of fixed term exclusions.
1.4 These and previous exclusions data for Norfolk show that Norfolk schools overall are not high excluding schools within the national context particularly where permanent exclusions are concerned.
2. Analysis of Norfolk data for exclusions
2.1 The attached sheet provides a breakdown of exclusions, both permanent and fixed term, for the academic year 2009/10, giving details by school type, reason and numbers of pupils involved.
2.2 The data shows that the reason most pupils are excluded both permanently and for a fixed term period is due to persistent disruptive behaviour, with the next most common reason being for verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an adult.
2.3 The fixed term exclusion figure of 5073 relates to the number of incidents rather than the number of pupils which is shown separately (2656 or 2.5% of the school population in Norfolk).
2.4 Norfolk has for a number of years been considered by the DfE to be a low excluding authority and the exclusions data shows a changeable trend over each year from 2007. When comparing the data for 2009/10 with 2008/09 as an authority Norfolk had a reduction in the number of permanent exclusions although fixed term exclusions increased. This could indicate that schools have tried to find alternatives to permanent exclusion and keep children in school.
2.5 The data for the academic year 2010-11, although not complete yet, provides an early indication that there appears to be an increase in the number of permanent exclusions but a decrease in fixed term exclusions. This may be attributed to a range of factors including reporting arrangements. When a school becomes an Academy, although they have a duty to inform the Local Authority of any permanent exclusion, they do not have to inform us of any fixed term exclusion.
3. Actions being taken – New Short Stay School for Norfolk
3.1 The Short Stay School for Norfolk (PRU) has been set up to provide a consistent approach and response for pupils at risk of exclusion or excluded. This will be open from 1 September 2011 with an Executive Head Teacher responsible for the overall management of behaviour support to pupils in schools and for alternative provision for those excluded from schools. The staffing of the Short Stay School follows the re- organisation of the pupil referral units during the academic year 2010/11 with new roles and teams to provide behaviour support and provision for excluded pupils.
3.2 Schools have been sent the attached document, Short Stay School for Norfolk - Services to Schools, which sets out a core offer of services available to support pupils with behaviour difficulties and challenges. This has been developed following discussions with Head Teachers about the range of support they require. All schools will be able to access support including immediate advice and support, staff working directly with pupils in school and pupils attending the Short Stay School.
3.3 The Short Stay School will work closely with school leaders to develop provision that ensures county wide consistency as well as reflecting local needs for specific groups and individual pupils.
3.4 The aim is to work with schools to identify pupils’ behaviour needs and plan to support at the earliest opportunity so as to avoid exclusion. Where there are exclusions pupils will receive their full entitlement to education and work towards reintegration back into school or suitable alternative provision as a priority.
3.5 Norfolk County Council has committed to being a restorative authority by 2015. All Short Stay School staff will be trained in restorative approaches during the academic year 2010/11. This will complement the work outlined in paragraph 4.2 to ensure a consistent way of working in schools to reduce the level of persistent disruptive behaviour which can then escalate into more serious behaviour resulting in permanent exclusion.
4. Other Actions
4.1 Specialist Resource Bases (SRBs) for behaviour . Currently there are three secondary school age bases (The Hewett School, Attleborough High School and Methwold High School) and three primary school age bases hosted by schools (Manor Field Infant & Nursery School, St George’s CE Junior School and St Michael’s CE VC Primary School), all of which are designed to offer ten places for assessment and intensive support and early intervention with a view to re-integrating children to their mainstream schools at the end of their placement (normally two terms).
4.2 Eaton Hall School is a residential school in South Norwich which provides specialist education for 40 boys aged 7-16 with Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD). It is the only provision for children with BESD in the county and is rated outstanding by Ofsted. The school is regularly oversubscribed. Another paper on this agenda, item 17, refers to the development of the former Church Hill First and Pott Row First schools as satellite accommodation for Eaton Hall School. This will enable the school to provide up to a maximum of 36 places for boys and younger girls from the western half of the county who require specialist BESD education. This will reduce the overall number of children who are placed outside the county in specialist provision.
4.3 Restorative Approaches in Norfolk Schools ( http://www.rain-norfolkschools.org.uk/ ) Following on the successful restorative approaches work being carried out in schools across Norfolk, which has included one school reducing exclusions by 50% in an 18 month period, there are a range of developments to work with more schools to ensure that restorative approaches underpin all of our behaviour policy and practices. The ‘hub-schools’ model will focus on supporting other schools to gain advice and support from schools who are already committed to using restorative approaches. This will be launched in September 2011 and will support schools in training and development, implementation and evaluation.
4.4 The Norfolk Behaviour Strategy is being further developed to bring together a range of local authority support available to pupils and schools to ensure a co-ordinated response to behaviour needs. The strategic direction is to focus more resources and provision at the early intervention stages, whilst continuing to meet the needs of those who have recognised high needs and more complex difficulties.
5. Other Implications
5.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) There are no specific implications. Children’s Services places diversity, equality and community cohesion at the heart of service delivery and service development and aims to ensure that services are accessible to diverse groups in Norfolk and that all policies, practices and procedures undergo equality impact assessment.
5.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk Monitoring of performance data and analysis to inform service changes and ways of working will ensure those at risk of exclusion or excluded will be able to access a range of support services and education provision to ensure improved outcomes for children and young people.
5.3 Health and Safety Implications : As pupil exclusions can be as the result of abuse and/or threatening behaviour to school staff Health and Safety advice should be sought at an individual school level. Pupil risk assessments are routinely developed to manage pupil behaviour and inform those staff working with them about specific issues. The Short Stay School is required to carry out regular health and safety checks in relation to pupils, staff and buildings. Concerns are reported to line managers and the management committee. Pupils attending the Short Stay School will have individual risk assessments when required but this would not be routine for all children attending the Short Stay School.
5.4 Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
6. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act By working to provide earlier assessments and interventions for children with behaviour difficulties to ensure they remain in school it is less likely that they will become involved in anti-social behaviour and criminal activity. By working closely with partner agencies where a pupil has been excluded it is likely to reduce young peoples’ involvement in anti-social behaviour or criminal activity.
7. Action Required The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note the analysis of the data provided and the actions currently being taken and identify if further scrutiny is required.
Background Papers
I. Appendix A Exclusion data spreadsheet II. Statistical First Release Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2009/10 (Department fro Education SFR 17/2011) http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00192714/school-exclusion-statistics- for-200910 III. Short Stay School for Norfolk - Services to Schools
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name: Val Creasy 01603 307736 [email protected] Christopher Butwright 01603 638049 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A
Exclusions data for Overview and Scrutiny Panel September 2011
Exclusions 2009/2010 Incidents 2007/2008 2008/2009 Informed 214 Incidents Incidents Withdrawn 25 Managed moves 92 Re-instated 2 Permanent Permanent Permanent Primary 7 9 5 High 84 64 95 Academy 2 0 0 PRU 0 0 0 Special 2 5 4 95 78 104
Fixed Term No of Incidents No of Pupils Fixed Term Fixed Term Primary 595 374 695 584 High 4336 2178 3776 3798 Academy 8 8 0 0 PRU 105 72 19 92 Special 29 24 62 52 5073 2656 4552 4526
By Reason Fixed Term Permanent Bullying 72 1 Damage 89 2 Drug and Alcohol related 120 6 Other 157 3 Persistent disruptive behaviour 1555 35 Physical Assault against a pupil 1059 12 Physical Assault against an adult 251 6 Racist Abuse 61 0 Sexual misconduct 62 2 Theft 59 0 Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against a pupil 246 10 Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an 1342 18 adult
Totals 5073 95 Appendix B Appendix B
The short stay school for Norfolk (SSSfN) is the Norfolk provision for young people out of school due to challenging behaviour. We offer a range of services to schools to support the management of students and pupils with emotional, social and behavioural difficulties. This booklet is provided to offer clarity over the types of support available and the methods of accessing such support.
The Short Stay school comprises four constituent schools • The Brooklands School (Gorleston) • The Douglas Bader School (Coltishall) • The Locksley School (Norwich) • The Rosebery School (Kings Lynn)
The services listed in this booklet are not exhaustive and represent our core offer which can be accessed from any of the four constituent schools. Each of our four bases will offer addi- tional services and these can be discussed individually with your local Short Stay School.
The details within this booklet are correct at time of writing (July 2011) but may be subject to revision and alteration over time.
Appendix B
Helpline
Your first point of call for support and help from the Primary Phase is the dedicated Primary Helpline Each constituent school within the SSSfN has its own primary helpline number
The Brooklands School 01493 660427 The Douglas Bader School 01603 737764. The Locksley School 01603 508523 The Rosebery School 01553 612027
Types of Work Undertaken
The SSSfN offers a range of services for the Primary Phase
Advice and Support
Offered primarily through the Helpline but also by consultation with the Primary team we can offer the following : • Professional Consultation • Support with creation of Pastoral Support Plans • Support with creation of Positive Handling Plans • Advice on creation of risk assessments • Advice and Support on the Statementing Process • Support with accessing SRB placements • Support with initiating CAF process • Arranging and supporting Managed Moves
Outreach
The Primary team can offer an outreach service to support schools with managing the needs of vulnerable and challenging young people.
The outreach support is accessed through completion of a referral form. The referral will generate an initial conversation or observation from a member of the Pri- mary team who will suggest initial strategies or interventions. In some cases this will be supplemented by a time limited series of interventions by a spe- cialist support assistant. SSA time will be used to implement specific strategies or train school staff in approaches likely to help the child. Appendix B
Types of Work Undertaken
Onsite Sessions Each constituent school within the SSSfN will offer time limited placements onsite for primary aged pupils. Onsite sessions may be for short periods each week such as a couple of afternoon sessions, or for longer such as a three week placement. The length and nature of the onsite session will be by negotiation with the individual school and will be based upon the needs of the child.
Staff Support Primary staff are available from the Short Stay school to offer observation and ad- vice to colleagues working with challenging and vulnerable young people. This will usually take the form of three visits from a member of the local primary team during which time observations and consultations will take place with staff to suggest appropriate strategies and interventions.
Staff Training Training is available to schools in a variety of skills surrounding our core expertise in Behaviour Management. All training courses are delivered at cost price and can be personalised the needs of your school. Appendix B
Helpline A dedicated helpline is available for secondary schools seeking advice and guidance on dealing with difficult and challenging young people.
The Brooklands School 01493 660426
The Douglas Bader School 01603 737764. The Locksley School 01603 508525 The Rosebery School 01553 612027
We offer a range of interventions with young people, both on and off the school site. These are intended to provide a continuum of involvement from light touch support to intensive work.
Types of Work Undertaken
The SSSfN offers a range of services for the secondary phase
Advice and Support
Offered primarily through the Helpline but also by consultation with the secondary leader we can offer the following : • Professional Consultation • Support with creation of Pastoral Support Plans • Support with creation of Positive Handling Plans • Advice on creation of risk assessments • Advice and Support on the Statementing Process • Support with accessing SRB placements • Support with initiating CAF process • Arranging and supporting Managed Moves
Outreach
The SSSfN can offer a consultation service to support schools with managing the needs of vulnerable and challenging young people.
The outreach support is accessed through completion of a referral form.
The referral will generate an initial conversation or observation from a member of the SSSfN team who will suggest initial strategies or interventions.
From this consultation other SSSfN services can then be suggested.
Appendix B
Key Stage Three Assessment Placement Part time placement for upto three weeks for assessment
We can offer a three week placement within our setting to conduct a series of baseline as- sessments on a student who is causing concern to the school.
At the end of the placement the school will be provided with an individual learning plan for the student along with suggested support measures and strategies . This placement is best suited as an early intervention method and will best suit those stu- dents whose issues are embryonic.
This type of placement is part time and the student continues to access their home school for the remainder of their provision.
Preventative placement Part time placement for upto half a term
This is a longer placement for a student which operates for up to one half term. Students attend the SSSfN each week and receive a broad and balanced curriculum. At the end of the placement a package of ongoing support is offered to the school to successfully reinte- grate the young person into full time mainstream provision.
This type of placement is part time and the student continues to access school their home school for the remainder of their provision.
Sessional Activities Onsite positive activities programme Ranging from one to three half day sessions per week per child
Each part of the SSSfN will offer a range of sessions which students can attend These ses- sions run for typically 1½ hours and are aimed primarily at Key Stage 3 students. The sessions vary in content and are largely intended to offer respite and positive reinforcement for students who find a full week at school difficult to maintain.
KS4 Brokering Service At Key Stage 4 the local SSSfN Engagement Leader can provide a brokering service to de- velop and monitor bespoke packages of education for students in danger of Permanent ex- clusion. Our staff will work with your school as well as the student and family to create a tailored pro- gramme of study for a young person. This will work around any successful lessons within school and maximise the academic achievement of the young person whilst also providing opportunities for young people to experience success in non traditional settings. All students within the brokering service remain on the school roll of their home school and all provision is funded by the home school. Packages can include as much as five days a week off the school site if necessary.
Appendix B
The SSSfN can provide help and support to students who are medically unfit for school.
This support is based upon a planned intervention working alongside the home school to provided educational provision for up to 5 hours a week either at home or in hospital. We will also support the reintegration of that young person back into school once they are well enough.
The Medical needs team can also provide help and advice in working with teenage preg- nancy and mental health issues.
With the exception of Teenage Pregnancies, access to all other provision is reliant upon clear evidence from a medical professional that the young person is medically unfit for school.
In all cases the young person remains on roll with their home school who maintain overall responsibility for their educational outcomes.
For a referral to be successful the Medical Needs Team will need access to the pro- grammes of study used within a young person’s home school. Typically a named link per- son at school along with copies of the young person’s IEP’s or care plans should be made available
The Short Stay School for Norfolk is committed to providing a core offer of services to all schools in Norfolk.
However the SSSfN has a statutory responsibility to provide full time education for those students who are subject to permanent exclusion. This statutory duty may mean that in peri- ods of high permanent exclusion capacity for behaviour support work will be reduced.
The Short Stay School for Norfolk will undergo a regular review of its services and capacity in order to make informed judgements about the level of support available to school part- ners. The SSSfN will welcome feedback from schools about the level and nature of services provided.
Appendix B
Students who are subject to permanent exclusion become the responsibility of the Local Authority from the 6th school day after the date of the permanent exclusion (1st school day in the case of looked after children)
The Short Stay school holds this responsibility on behalf of the local authority and endeav- ours to provide educational provision for all permanently excluded students from day six.
In order to assist with this all schools are asked to ensure that at the point of perma- nent exclusion a referral pack for the short stay school is completed and sent promptly to allow us to commence contacting the child and family.
Although the education of the young person becomes our responsibility from the 6th school day after the date of the permanent exclusion, they remain on the roll of the home school until either
15 school days after the governors disciplinary panel have met and upheld the decision to exclude
Or
The day of the governors disciplinary panel meeting if both parents have confirmed in writ- ing that they do not wish to undertake an independent appeal.
In the case of a managed move (see separate section) the child remains on the roll of the home school until they have commenced their new placement at their new school.
Students with Statements
The Central Government guidance is very clear that wherever possible every effort should be made to avoid permanently excluding a student with a statement of Special Educational Needs. However where this must happen an emergency statement review must be called.
The emergency statement review must take place before the Governors Disciplinary Panel can meet. A representative from the local constituent short stay school should be invited to attend the Emergency Statement Review.
Appendix B
Primary Phase Within the primary phase managed moves can be organised through the local Primary Team. They should be contacted on the helpline to discuss the possibilities.
Secondary Schools The managed moves protocol is a county wide policy which sets out the circumstances and procedures for the completion of a managed move at secondary level. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the formal protocol.
Organising a Managed Move. Under the protocol managed moves can only be organised for students who have reached the point of permanent exclusion. In order to facilitate a managed move the school must first issue a permanent exclusion.
At the point of permanently excluding the student the home school should complete a refer- ral to the SSSfN along with the associated risk assessment. Failure to promptly complete these documents will hinder the response of the SSSfN and cause unnecessary delays. These forms should be completed simultaneously with the completion of the permanent ex- clusion letter and the notification to the Local Authority.
If the school wishes to pursue a managed move for the student, the SSSfN should be in- formed as soon as possible after the issuing of the permanent exclusion letter. Again a managed move cannot be considered unless the referral form and risk assessment have been received.
Upon notification from the school of the desire to pursue a managed move the local SSSfN staff will begin the process of finding an appropriate school. They will also discuss the op- tion of a managed move with the parent and ensure that they are aware of their legal rights.
If the SSSfN is successful in placing the student with a new school, a letter of confirmation will be sent to the home school indicating that the permanent exclusion can be withdrawn and presented as a managed move at the governors hearing (if accepted by the parents). The local authority exclusions team will also be informed.
Timing For a managed move to be possible the new placement has to be agreed prior to the gover- nors hearing. It is therefore vital that governors panel meetings are scheduled to allow suffi- cient time for the managed move to be organised. Legally 15 school days is allowed for this and the recommended period should be allowed in full wherever possible.
If no suitable placement has been found at the point that the hearing commences the home school must continue with the permanent exclusion as no managed move has been possible.
The Norfolk Managed Moves Protocol makes no allowance for “managed moves to the PRU” and the SSSfN will not be engaging in such practices. Appendix B
Direct Commissioning
All SSSfN services are available through direct commissioning with the school. Within each phase, schools or groups of schools may contact their local SSS direct to seek support with individual young people or groups of challenging pupils. In the first instance our Primary and Secondary Helplines are designed to facilitate this process.
After an initial telephone conversation you will be asked to complete a SSSfN Referral Pack. This allows us to gather all the relevant information we require to work with the young person or family.
It is very important that all referrals are accompanied by the appropriate contact details so that they can be swiftly followed up by staff.
Dual Registration
Dual registration is only used by the SSSfN when a young person who has been previously permanently excluded is being reintegrated from our provision into a new school. In these case a short period of dual registration is used to support the school in accepting the young person.
Home School responsibilities
With the single exception of permanently excluded students, all other young people access- ing support from the SSSfN must remain on roll with their home school.
Where a young person is receiving provision from the SSSfN the overall responsibility for that young persons education continues to lie with the school with whom they are on roll.
Home schools continue to be responsible for ensuring good attendance, tracking academic progress and monitoring student welfare. The SSSfN will provide all relevant information to support schools in fulfilling these obligations.
Where the provision provided by the Short Stay School is not full time, the responsibility for providing the remainder of the young person’s provision lies with the school where the young person is on roll.
Schools who fail to provide full time provision for students on their roll leave themselves li- able to litigation from young people and families. Appendix B
Local Authority Schools The following services are offered FREE of CHARGE to Local Authority Schools.
Primary Phase • Advice and Support • Outreach • Onsite Sessions • Staff Support • Medical Needs
Secondary Phase • Advice and Support • Outreach • Onsite Sessions* • Staff Support • Medical Needs
*Where brokered services at KS4 are use alternative provision providers the full costs is passed to the school. Onsite provision at the SSSfN is free of charge.
Academies
Advice and Support are offered Free of Charge to Academies. All other services are available at a cost recovery basis.
Training and Additional Services
The Short Stay School is keen to offer further services to schools including training.
These services will be charged at a cost recovery basis
Typical costs Specialist Teacher : £40 per hour Specialist Support Assistant £10 per hour
Transport All costs associated with transporting students to or from the SSSfN remain the sole re- sponsibility of the home school unless students have been subject to permanent exclusion.
Appendix B
Each High School cluster within Norfolk is allocated to a specific element of the Short Stay School for Norfolk.
This allocation is not based on geography or any council boundary but provides an equita- ble split of work for the four schools taking into account levels of permanent exclusion, size of school and pre-existing relationships.
The Brooklands School The Douglas Bader School
Litcham High Great Yarmouth High Alderman Peel High
Lynn Grove High Fakenham High
Sheringham High Venture Academy Reepham High Cliff Park High Northgate High Dereham Neatherd High Caister High Stalham High
Flegg High Aylsham High
Broadland High Acle High North Walsham High Hobart High Cromer High
The Rosebery School The Locksley School
St Clements High Archbishop Sancroft Thorpe St Andrew High High Marshland High Hewett High
Downham Market High Taverham High City of Norwich School King Edward VII Sprowston High Hethersett High Springwood High Hellesdon High Framingham Earl High Kings Lynn Academy Open Academy Wymondham High Smithdon High Swaffham High Ormiston Victory Wymondham College Academy Methwold High Long Stratton High Wayland High Sewell Park College Diss High Thetford Academy North Notre Dame High Attleborough High Thetford Academy South City Academy Norwich Old Buckenham High Appendix B
Principles The allocation of work is based primarily on the home school of the child Each constituent school will serve a number of high school clusters and will take responsi- bility for children who attend high and primary schools within that cluster. By default providing all support for a child including full time provision if the child becomes subject to permanent exclusion will be the responsibility of the listed school.
Exceptions In order to cater for difficulties around boundaries the following exception will apply.
Where the home address of a child is within 5 miles (as the crow flies) of a constituent school other than that normally responsible for it, the school closest to the home address will provide provision.
Where a child resides at two addresses the home address will be that at which the child spends the majority of the week or the most days in a month.
Children in Care Where a child is taken into care the foremost priority will be to maintain any current place- ment within the Short Stay School. Children should not transfer to another constituent school unless they have been in care for at least one term and there is no short term pros- pect for their return to home. Before any transfer is undertaken for a looked after child, ad- vice must be sought from Social Worker and Looked After Support Teacher.
Children with Statements Before any child with a statement is transferred between constituent schools in the SSSfN a full statement review must be undertaken.
Arbitration The final decision on allocation of work will lie with the Executive Head. Appendix B
The Brooklands School Shrublands Gorleston Great Yarmouth NR31 7BP
Tel : 01493 662923 Fax : 01493 651373
The Douglas Bader School Filby Road Badersfield Norwich NR10 5JW
Tel : 01603 737764 Fax : 01603 738616
The Locksley School Locksley Road Norwich NR4 6LG
Tel : 01603 508520 Fax : 01603 508521
The Rosebery School Field Lane Kings Lynn PE30 4AY
Tel : 01553 612000 Fax : 01553 612030
Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 15 September 2011 Item No. 18
Consultations on proposals to change the current pattern of school organisation in 4 separate locations
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary
This paper provides the background to four separate statutory consultations which are currently being undertaken on school organisation issues:
• A proposal to expand Rackheath Primary School in order to provide places for the growing number of children in the catchment area • A proposal to create an all-through 4-16 school in Litcham, by closing Litcham Primary School and extending downwards the age range of Litcham High School • A proposal to expand Eaton Hall School by using the premises recently vacated by Church Hill First and Pott Row First as “satellite” sites to extend the specialist provision for children in the western half of the county who have Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD) • A proposal by the federated governing body of St John’s Roman Catholic Infant School and St Thomas More Roman Catholic Junior School, to close both schools and open a new Roman Catholic Primary School on the site of the present St Thomas More Junior School
At the end of the statutory consultation period for each of the first three proposals, the Local Authority must decide whether or not to publish a public notice of intent, which will be followed by a statutory period for representation to be made to the Decision Maker. At present responsibility for both these functions lies with Cabinet.
As Voluntary Aided Foundation Schools, the responsibility for publishing a public notice in the case of St Johns and St Thomas More rests with the governing body.
However, the Local Authority is the final Decision Maker for all four of the proposals. In coming to a decision, the Decision Maker is required to consider the following factors: • Effect on standards and school improvement • Diversity • Need for places • Impact on travel and community • Special Needs provision
Recommendation :
Members are asked to consider and comment upon each of the four proposals in order to help inform Cabinet in its role as publisher of the public notice (for the Rackheath, Litcham and Eaton Hall proposals) and as Decision Maker for all four proposals.
1. Background to the Rackheath Proposal
1.1 Rackheath Primary School moved to its new building in September 200 4, and at that time there were 114 children on roll. In January 2011 there were 148 pupils on roll, and this number is forecast to rise to 238 by 2013.
1.2 The proposal that is being consulted upon (see Appendix A) would see the school’s capacity increase from 150 to 210. This would enable the school to have 7 single- age classes, and will necessitate the building of two new class bases, for which funding has been approved from the 2011/2012 allocation.
1.3 The first phase of the Joint Core Strategy’s proposal for significant housing, known as the exemplar scheme, of 200 houses, could generate a further 60 primary aged children which will require a further increase to 270 places. It is likely that this would be done using temporary accommodation pending the need to commission a new primary school for the wider housing proposals, when this goes ahead.
1.4 Timeline for consultation
12 September 2011 Initial consultation starts (6 weeks) 15 September 2011 CSOSP consulted Sept/Oct 2011 Parent/public drop in session 21 Oct 2011 Initial consultation ends 14 November 2011 Cabinet for permission to publish public notice 18 November Publish public notice 16 December 2011 Four week representation period closes 23 January 2012 Cabinet meeting – decision maker September 2013 Implementation
2. Background to the Litcham proposal
2.1 The schools in Litcham have been committed to working closely together for a number of years, and in September 2010 took a step towards more formal collaboration by creating a single governing body to give strategic direction to both the High School and the Primary School. Following the success of this federation, the governing body determined on 20 June 2011, that they would like to proceed to all-through status with effect from 1 September 2012. (For consultation document, see Appendix B)
2.2 The main advantages to all-age schooling were set out in a report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel in May 2011. The schools have already been able to make appointments across both schools (including a business manager, a special educational needs and disabilities coordinator, a data manager, extended school coordinator and a parent support adviser)
2.3 The governors and staff at both schools are persuaded that all-age schooling creates a sustainable model of organisation for two relatively small rural schools, and a considerable amount of time has been spent sharing the philosophy and educational principles behind all-age schooling with parents, pupils and the wider community.
2.4 There are two routes to amalgamating schools • Close both schools and open a new one (which would have to be an Academy) • Close one school and extend the age range of the other Governors are not interested at the moment in seeking academy status, and have therefore expressed a preference for the second route
2.5 Timeline for Consultation
12 September 2011 Initial consultation starts (6 weeks) 15 September 2011 CSOSP consulted Sept/Oct 2011 Parent/public drop in session 21 Oct 2011 Initial consultation ends 14 November 2011 Cabinet for permission to publish public notice 3 January Publish public notice 14 February 2012 Six week representation period closes 5 March 2012 Cabinet meeting – decision maker September 2012 Implementation
3. Background to the Eaton Hall Proposal (see Appendix C)
3.1 Eaton Hall is a residential school in South Norwich which provides specialist education for 40 boys aged 7 – 16 with Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD). It is the only provision for children with BESD in the County and is rated Outstanding by Ofsted. The school is regularly oversubscribed. Every year, there are boys who fail to get a place, who have to enter mainstream schools. Many of these boys are subsequently excluded from school and may then have to be placed outside the county in expensive residential provision.
3.2 There is no provision within the County for girls who often need to take up expensive placements outside the county. Similarly, boys in the west of the County, because they are unable to access specialist provision locally, must either become boarders at Eaton Hall or travel out of the county.
3.3 We know that early intervention is the most effective way to help children with BESD overcome their difficulties, and yet there is currently no provision for the youngest children.
3.4 In September 2011, the new Holly Meadows School opened on the site of the old Grimston Junior School in Vong Lane. The buildings vacated by Church Hill First and Pott Row First are leased by Norfolk County Council from the Grimston Schools Trust, which specifies that the premises must be used for educational purposes.
3.5 With a few minor alterations to the interiors of the buildings, the two schools can be adapted in order to create “satellite” accommodation for Eaton Hall School which will Provide up to a maximum of 36 places for boys and younger girls from the western half of the county who require specialist BESD education
3.6 Capital funding to bring about the necessary minor alterations to the two existing schools has already been earmarked from the Special Educational Needs Strategy budget. Eaton Hall formula funding would be increased to fund the additional places being created. To fund this increase in cost, the non-maintained budget will be reduced as a result of the consequential decrease in pupils placed in non-maintained schools. The average cost of an out-of-county placement is currently £60,000. This compares to an average of £20,000 for a non-boarding place at Eaton Hall.
3.7 Timeline for Consultation
12 September 2011 Initial consultation starts (6 weeks) 15 September 2011 CSOSP consulted Sept/Oct 2011 Parent/public drop in session 21 Oct 2011 Initial consultation ends 14 November 2011 Cabinet for permission to publish public notice 3 January Publish public notice 14 February 2012 Six week representation period closes 5 March 2012 Cabinet meeting – decision maker September 2012 Implementation
4. Background to the St Johns Roman Catholic Infant School/St Thomas More Roman Catholic Junior School Proposal (see Appendix D)
4.1 The federated governing body of these two schools is conducting a consultation on a proposal to amalgamate the schools in order to create a new all-through Catholic primary school on the premises currently occupied by the Junior School. At the end of the consultation period which ends on 14 October 2011, the governors will decide whether or not to make a formal proposal. The Local Authority is ultimately the Decision Maker.
4.2 As described in Section 2.4 above, there are two routes to amalgamation. The governing bodies have chosen to close both schools and open a new one. Under section 10 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the approval of the Secretary of State has to be sought in order to open a new school without a competition. However, a proposed amendment within the Education Bill currently going through Parliament removes this requirement for straightforward amalgamations of infant and junior schools.
4.3 Currently, there is a mismatch between the number of places offered at the two schools. St Johns is a two form entry school, offering 60 places in every year group. St Thomas More offers 90 places in each year group. The proposal is to create a school of 420 places (60 X 7), thus reducing the number of places available at Key Stage 2. There is currently capacity within the system to accommodate these extra pupils in nearby schools.
4.4 It is the preferred policy of the R.C. Diocese of East Anglia to promote the amalgamation of Infant and Junior Schools to create all through primary schools in order to secure the future of Catholic education. Norfolk County Council has stated a preference where “practicable and affordable” for all through primary schools.
4.5 Timeline
12 September 2011 Initial consultation starts (6 weeks) 15 September 2011 CSOSP consulted Sept/Oct 2011 Parent/public drop in session 14 Oct 2011 Initial consultation ends w/b 17 Oct Governors decide whether or not to publish public notice 31 Oct 2011 Publish public notice 9 December 2011 Six week representation period closes 23 January 2012 Cabinet meeting – decision maker September 2012 Implementation
5. Resource Implications
5.1 Finance Implications
Rackheath Litcham Eaton Hall St Thomas More/St Johns Capital funding has No capital funding Capital funding Capital costs will be been identified from required. There will identified from SEN financed by the the 2011/2012 be no change to the Strategy budget. Catholic Diocese. A allocation to provide revenue costs Revenue costs would single fixed sum will 2 new class bases be met from the represent a small savings on the non- revenue saving maintained budget
5.2 Staff:
Rackheath Litcham Eaton Hall St Thomas More/St Johns Additional staff will be Staff will need to be Additional staff will be Jobs in the new recruited as required appointed to the recruited as required school will be extended all-through ringfenced to staff in school. The the existing two expectation is that schools. these posts will be filled by staff from the closing primary school.
5.3 Property:
Rackheath Litcham Eaton Hall St Thomas More/St Johns No implications No implications The proposal seeks The St Johns site, to use the properties belonging to the leased by Norfolk Roman Catholic County Council, and Diocese, will be recently vacated by surplus to Church Hill and Pott requirements Row First Schools
6. Other Implications
6.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Consideration of equal opportunities issues is an integral part of the decision-making process for school organisation. An assessment of the equalities issues in these proposals indicates that they have the potential to make a significant contribution to equalities issues, and choice and diversity of provision.
6.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
Each of the four proposals is fundamentally based on the premise that the creation of new arrangements will offer young people a better quality of educational provision than exists at present and arrangements that are sustainable in the long term. All these proposals focus in particular on raising standards of achievement.
6.3 Any Other implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
7. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
It is not anticipated that the recommendations of this report will have any direct or immediate impact on the reduction of crime and disorder. However, the quality of education, and improved services for children and families are known to influence some aspects of behaviour.
8. Risk Implications/Assessment
Rackheath Litcham Eaton Hall St Thomas More/St Johns The Local Authority is No significant risk There is a risk that There is no under an obligation to attached to this the savings predicted significant risk provide good quality proposal, although a will not be sufficient attached to this places. Unless this single education to cover the costs of proposal. expansion of establishment in this proposal. The Rackheath Primary is Litcham could be growing demand for implemented, the seen as a more this specialist Local Authority could sustainable provision, and the be at risk of failing to organisational model high cost of uphold its obligation than the two existing residential and out of schools county places for children with BESD mitigate against this risk.
9. Action Required
Members are asked to consider and comment upon each of the four proposals in order to help inform Cabinet in its current role as publisher of the public notice (for the Rackheath, Litcham and Eaton Hall proposals) and as Decision Maker for all four proposals.
Background Papers
“A Strategy for All-Age Schooling” (Report by the Director of Children’s Services to Children Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel May 2011) DCSF Statutory Guidance on School Organisation Proposals
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Officer Name: Alison Cunningham Tel No: 01603 223480 email address: [email protected] If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A
Consultation on a proposal to increase the number of places at Rackheath Primary School
What are we proposing?
We are proposing to increase the number of places for children at Rackheath Primary School from 150 to 210.
In order to do this the County Council needs to follow a legal process. This consultation is the first stage of that process and we need to hear your views before we proceed to the next stage.
Why are we proposing this?
Since Rackheath Primary School moved to its new site in September 2004, the population of the village has continued to grow. The school opened with 114 children on roll. By January 2011, this number had risen to 148 and we know that this number is forecast to rise still further.
We want to ensure that the school has enough places for the children who live in its catchment area.
Will a larger school mean larger classes?
In Norfolk we have many excellent small and very small schools. However, we believe that a school of around 210 is the ideal model. Although in each year group up to 30 children will be admitted, it does mean that the children can be taught in single age classes. This is likely to have a positive effect on standards.
Will the existing school building be extended?
The building currently has five classrooms. As a 210 primary school, it will need seven. Norfolk County Council has approved funding for a scheme which has been agreed with the school, to build two additional classrooms as well as a group room. Some minor interior re-modelling and provision of additional toilets will enable better community access to the school.
What are the financial implications?
About £1 million has been put aside by Norfolk County Council to fund the extension. As the number of pupils at the school increases, so will the budget available to run the school. This will enable the school to employ additional staff.
Will the school retain sufficient playing field?
The two new classrooms will be built on playground to the rear of the school. This means that some of the playing field will need to become hard play area. Norfolk Appendix A
County Council is currently negotiating to acquire an extra 0.2 hectares of land to bring the site up to the size recommended for a school of 210 places.
Will Rackheath School become even larger in the future?
At the present time we have no plans to extend the school beyond 210 pupils. However, when further houses are built, it may be necessary to expand the school on a temporary basis until a new school can be provided to cater for growth in the area.
Who will make the final decision and when would the change happen?
After this consultation ends on 21 October, Norfolk County Council will decide in November 2011 whether to make these changes. If they decide to go ahead, by law we have to publish a statutory notice outlining our proposal. People would then have four weeks to write to us either supporting or opposing the proposal. The final decision would then be made by Norfolk County Council in January 2012.
The earliest these changes could take place would be in September 2012.
How can I learn more about the proposal and have my say?
Come and talk to us: There will be meetings for parents/carers and other interested members of the community at
Rackheath Primary School on:
Wednesday 12 October at 9 am, and again at 6 pm
You can also tell us your views online at www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation or by using the attached form. You can also email your response to [email protected]
We need all responses by Friday 21 October 2011
If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact 01603 223480
Thank you for your interest.
If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 01603 223905 Fax: 01603 222119 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help. Appendix A
Public consultation – have your say
We are proposing to increase the number of places at Rackheath Primary School and would like to hear your views.
There is an electronic version of this reply form on the website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.
Do you agree with our proposal?
Yes
No
Please give your main reasons for your answer.
Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make to help us with this decision and in planning for the future of education in Rackheath? Are there any alternatives that should be considered? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Appendix A
Please tell us who you are:
Tick box:
I am a pupil at one of the schools.
Which school? …………………………
I am the parent/guardian of a pupil at one of the schools.
Which school? ………………………………….
I am a member of staff at one of the schools.
Which school? …………………………………..
I am a governor at one of the schools.
Which school? ………………………………….
None of the above
Please give other connections/interest (eg local resident, member of Parent Teacher Association, local sports group or business).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
First name: ………………………………Last name: …………………………… (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)
Your address: ……………………………………………………………......
Postcode: …………………………….
Your comments will be anonymous and your name or anything that could identify you will not be included in any report. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Your views will help County Council Cabinet Members to make a decision about the future of schooling in this area. This consultation ends on 21 October.
Please return by 21 October via your local school or post to: Rackheath School Consultation, FREEPOST, IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR. You don’t need a stamp. You can also email your response to [email protected]
Appendix B
Proposal to amalgamate Litcham High School and Litcham Primary School into one school on two sites for pupils aged 4 - 16 from September 2012.
What are we proposing?
Since September 2010, Litcham High School and Litcham Primary School have been federated under a single governing body, working across the phases for the benefit of all the pupils. This partnership has been successful and the governing body is now wishing to legally combine the two schools into a single organisation, while continuing to operate as now on the existing two sites. In order for this to happen, legal steps have to be taken to “close” Litcham Primary School as a separate organisation and formally extend the age-range of Litcham High School.
As both schools are community schools, Norfolk County Council is leading the consultation process, and will publish the proposal and will act as the final Decision Maker.
Why are we proposing this?
We agree with the governing bodies that there would be significant advantages to creating a single school. The main ones are that this would enable:
• Improved standards in teaching and learning throughout the primary and secondary age-ranges • Even closer cooperation between teachers building on the most effective approaches to helping children learn • The curriculum to be planned coherently to support pupils’ learning as they move through the school • Excellent pastoral support for all children from the time they start school up to the age of 16 from staff who know them and their needs extremely well • Stronger relationships with parents • Sharing of resources and facilities and more effective use of the funds available to strengthen the sustainability of what are at present two small schools.
Appendix B
What differences would there be?
The initial changes will be to the legal position and to the way the schools are managed and financed. As it will be a single school, there will be:
• One larger governing body to enable a broad representation from all parts of the school • One headteacher and leadership team and one budget. This will help the schools to work even more effectively, and to ensure a high quality of school leadership for the children of Litcham.
What would be the effect on pupils, parents and the wider community?
Children in years Reception to 6 currently attending Litcham Primary will continue with their primary education on the same site, but would not need to apply to move to the secondary part of the school at the end of Year 6. There would be no change to the catchment areas, Reception Year or Year 7 secondary admission. Children attending other local primary schools will be able to apply for secondary admission as at present. Transport arrangements would remain exactly as they are now.
What would it mean for staff?
The proposal would provide all staff with opportunities to extend their experience and expertise. There would be little impact on the staff at Litcham High School as it currently is, but the governing body would need to appoint staff for the primary years. The expectation is that these would be appointed from the present staff of Litcham Primary. We have a Code of Practice that sets out an agreed way of working with staff when planning changes to school organisation, which has worked successfully in the past. Our human resources staff and local trade union officers would work with the school to make sure that staff were fully involved and consulted about proposed changes.
What are the financial implications?
The government is preparing to consult on a new formula for funding schools and may introduce a national funding formula. In the meantime, the Schools’ Forum has agreed that the new school should be funded in exactly the same way as the two schools are at present – no gain or loss. However, a single school would provide opportunities for economies of scale.
Appendix B
What impact would this amalgamation of the Litcham schools have on the other schools in the cluster?
There would be no change to the current admission arrangements for the cluster schools. The governors of the Litcham Federation are determined that the all-through school would have a positive effect on its relationship with feeder schools in the cluster. A better understanding of the primary system will add value to the transition work that is carried out and there can be closer links particularly in the areas of ICT and Modern Foreign Languages which will benefit all children.
Who will make the final decision and when would the change happen?
After this consultation ends on 21 October 2011, Norfolk County Council will decide in November 2011 whether to make these changes. If they decide to go ahead, by law we have to publish a statutory notice to close Litcham Primary School and extend the age range of Litcham High School. People would then have six weeks to write to us either supporting or opposing the proposal. The final decision would then be made by Norfolk County Council early in 2012.
These changes would take place in September 2012.
How can I learn more about the proposal and have my say?
Come and talk to us: There will be meetings for parents/carers and other interested members of the community on:
29 September 2011: 4 pm at Litcham Primary 7 pm at Litcham High School
You can also tell us your views online at www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation or by using the attached form. You can also email your response to [email protected]
We need all responses by Friday 21 October 2011.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact 01603 223480.
Thank you for your interest.
If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 01603 223480 Fax: 01603 222119 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help. Appendix B
Public consultation – have your say
We are proposing to amalgamate Litcham High School and Litcham Primary School and would like to hear your views.
There is an electronic version of this reply form on the website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.
Do you agree with our proposal?
Yes
No
Please give your main reasons for your answer.
Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make to help us with this decision and in planning for the future of education in Litcham? Are there any alternatives that should be considered? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Appendix B
Please tell us who you are:
Tick box:
I am a pupil at one of the schools.
Which school? …………………………
I am the parent/guardian of a pupil at one of the schools.
Which school? ………………………………….
I am a member of staff at one of the schools.
Which school? …………………………………..
I am a governor at one of the schools.
Which school? ………………………………….
None of the above
Please give other connections/interest (eg local resident, member of Parent Teacher Association, local sports group or business).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
First name: ………………………………Last name: …………………………… (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)
Your address: ……………………………………………………………......
Postcode: …………………………….
Your comments will be anonymous and your name or anything that could identify you will not be included in any report. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Your views will help County Council Cabinet Members to make a decision about the future of schooling in this area. This consultation ends on 21 October 2011.
Please return by 21 October via your local school or post to: Litcham School Consultation, FREEPOST, IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR. You don’t need a stamp. You can also email your response to [email protected] Appendix C
Consultation on a proposal to expand the specialist education provided currently by Eaton Hall School, Norwich using the premises recently vacated by Church Hill First School and Pott Row First School
In September 2011 a new school, Holly Meadows, will open in Vong Lane to provide primary education for pupils aged 4 – 11 from the local community.
The buildings previously occupied by Church Hill First School and Pott Row First School belong to the Grimston Schools Trust and are leased by Norfolk County Council. The Trust specifies that the buildings should be used for educational purposes.
We are proposing to use these buildings in order to extend the specialist education provided currently by Eaton Hall School in Norwich, for the benefit of children in the western half of the county.
Eaton Hall School in south Norwich is a residential school, judged Outstanding by Ofsted, which caters for boys aged 7 to 16 who are diagnosed as having Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD).
For some time, the Local Authority has wanted to increase the number of places available for children with BESD, and to enable children in the western half of the County to access this provision close to home.
What are we proposing?
On the Church Hill site: an expansion of Eaton Hall School to provide daytime specialist education for boys and girls aged 5 – 11 with BESD
On the Pott Row site: an expansion of Eaton Hall School to provide daytime specialist education for boys aged 11-14 with BESD
Why do we need this facility?
At the present time, the only specialist facility within the county for boys with BESD is at Eaton Hall School in Norwich. For girls, there is no provision at all, and in some cases, it has been necessary to place girls in residential schools outside the county.
We know that early intervention is the most effective way to help children with BESD overcome their difficulties, and yet there is currently no provision for the youngest children.
We believe that this is an opportunity to build upon the excellent work being done by Eaton Hall School to ensure access to outstanding specialist provision for children in the western half of Norfolk.
Appendix C
How big would the schools be?
It is anticipated that initially there would be two classes of 5-6 children on the Church Hill site (Key Stages 1 and 2), with the potential to expand to a maximum of 18. A similar number of children would be accommodated on the Pott Row site.
Would the existing schools need to be extended?
It would not be necessary to extend the existing buildings. We may seek to make a few interior alterations with the prior approval of the Grimston Schools Trust. Any structural change to the buildings would be subject to planning rules and building regulations.
How would the schools be governed?
Both sites will be “satellite” provision of Eaton Hall School, under the governance and leadership of the school.
Who would be responsible on a day to day basis?
The proposal is to appoint an assistant headteacher of Eaton Hall School who will be permanently based in Grimston and will run both sites. In addition, there would be a teacher and 2 support staff for each of the small classes (maximum 5-6 children).
Where would the children come from?
Eaton Hall School is a county-wide facility. However, the majority of the children who would be based in Grimston are likely to come from the western half of the County, and live within a 45 minute taxi ride of the schools.
What would this mean for school transport and traffic?
All the children attending this satellite provision would come by taxi, and would be escorted onto and off the school premises. At Church Hill, the taxis would use the playground for turning and waiting. At Pott Row, we would seek an arrangement similar to that which was negotiated with the First School, to use the car park at the village hall.
What would it cost to establish and run this facility?
Any alterations to the buildings would be funded by money already set aside for the Special Educational Needs Strategy Project. The running costs would be covered by the savings that would be made as a result of needing fewer expensive out of county placements for children with BESD.
Who will make the final decision and when would the change happen?
After this consultation ends on 21 October 2011, Norfolk County Council will decide whether to proceed with these changes. If they decide to go ahead, by law we have to publish a statutory notice. The County Council will be seeking to:
Appendix C
• Alter the lower age limit of Eaton Hall School (to include KS1 pupils) • Increase the number of places available at Eaton Hall School from 40 to 76 • Enlarge the physical capacity of the school by using the accommodation vacated by Church Hill First and Pott Row First • Change the gender to include girls at KS1 + KS2
People would then have a further six weeks to write to us either supporting or opposing the proposal.
Norfolk County Council will then make the final decision as to whether or not to implement the proposal.
The earliest that any change could take place would be for the Summer Term 2012.
How can I learn more about the proposal and have my say?
Come and talk to us: There will be a meeting for parents/carers and members of the community on
6th October 2011 at 6pm at Holly Meadows School
You can also tell us your views online at www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation or by using the attached form. We need all responses by 21 October 2011. You can also email your response to [email protected]
If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact 01603 223480.
Thank you for your interest.
If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 01603 223480 Fax: 01603 222119 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help.
Appendix C
Public consultation – have your say
We are proposing to expand the specialist education provided currently by Eaton Hall School in Norwich using the premises recently vacated by Church Hill First School and Pott Row First School, for the benefit of children in the western half of the county.
There is an electronic version of this reply form on the website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.
Do you agree with our proposal?
Yes
No
Please give your main reasons for your answer.
Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make to help us with this decision to extend the specialist education provision currently provided by Eaton Hall School in Norwich, for the benefit of children in the western half of the county? Are there any alternatives that should be considered? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Appendix C
Please tell us who you are:
Tick box:
I am a pupil
Which school? …………………………
I am the parent/guardian of a pupil
Which school? ………………………………….
I am a member of staff
Which school? …………………………………..
I am a school governor
Which school? ………………………………….
None of the above
Please give other connections/interest (eg local resident, member of Parent Teacher Association, local sports group or business).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
First name: ………………………………Last name: …………………………… (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)
Your address: ……………………………………………………………......
Postcode: …………………………….
Your comments will be anonymous and your name or anything that could identify you will not be included in any report. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Your views will help County Council Cabinet Members to make a decision about the future of schooling in this area. This consultation ends on 21 October 2011.
Please return by 21 October via your local school or post to: Eaton Hall School Consultation, FREEPOST, IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR. You don’t need a stamp. You can also email your response to [email protected]
Proposed Amalgamation of St John’s Catholic Infant School and St Thomas More Catholic Junior School
Thank you to everyone who contributed to our consultation regarding the federation of the governing bodies of the two schools. From September 2011 there will be one governing body overseeing both schools. We are now keen to gather your views on the possible amalgamation of the two schools into one new primary school. This document tells you what we are proposing and how to have your say.
What is being proposed?
The governors are proposing that we create a new all-through Catholic primary school, which would offer 420 places (two form entry) for pupils aged four to eleven (Reception to Year Six).
The new school would utilise the current buildings on the St Thomas More site and would involve some remodelling of the existing facilities. The St John’s site would be sold to fund any necessary building work needed to create the new school.
The amalgamation would be achieved by both schools closing and the new primary school opening at the earliest on 1 st September 2012. All children currently attending both schools would be offered places in the new school. The school would open with 17 classes initially; this would be reduced to 14 over a period of 3 years.
Why do we need any change?
It is the preferred policy of the R.C. Diocese of East Anglia to promote the amalgamation of Infant and Junior Schools to create all through primary schools in order to secure the future of Catholic education. Moreover, it is also a long standing policy of the County Council, because all-through primary schools ensure greater continuity in curriculum and pastoral support to pupils. Issues, such as loss of learning following the transfer from Infant to Junior school, are removed.
Pupils, staff and parents would have the opportunity to develop relationships for seven years rather than three to four years. There would be opportunities for family learning and for social interaction between the older and younger children.
Amalgamation provides an opportunity to unite the strengths of the two schools into one and so secure a more viable and flexible organisation from which to raise standards further.
There would be a larger team of staff to share experience, expertise, skills and responsibilities, and they would have access to a more flexible range of teaching resources.
What are the main benefits?
o A common approach for all children across the primary age range. o Improved standards in teaching and learning through the closest co-operation between staff o Resources and best practices combined o Improved new facilities for ICT and PE o Continuity of curriculum and progression: it is easier to track children’s progress and attainment in one school o There is no dip in children’s performance at school because they do not have to move from one school to another o Seamless transition from KS1 to KS2 o Continuity of pastoral support o Financial benefits of the economies of scale o Children benefit from a wider range of teacher expertise to draw upon o It would be easier for parents/carers to drop off and collect children from a single school o Possible reduction in traffic flow overall due to children travelling in family groups to one site
What would it mean for the organisation of the school?
The new school would be opened with a new name. There would be one headteacher and one governing body. The expectation is that staff of the new school would be appointed from the present staff of the two schools. The school would have a single budget.
To begin with, the school would have 17 classes in order to accommodate all current pupils; we would have to use temporary classrooms during the transition period until the school has reduced from three forms to two forms in each year group. This would take three years to achieve.
During the academic year 2011-12, phased building work would take place to make the learning environment more suitable for the younger children.
What are the possible disadvantages of amalgamation?
o Loss of the St. John’s site o Possible staff adjustments over a three year period o Increased volume of traffic at new school site during the transition period o Short-term disruption at St. Thomas More School during building work
How can you make your voice heard or get more information?
If you wish to comment on this consultation, please send your response in writing, using the attached form to the ‘Clerk of Governors’ via either school office 1. Completed forms should be sent in a sealed envelope, clearly marked ‘Consultation’. These should be received no later than Friday 14 th October 2011. All responses should be signed and will remain confidential to the Clerks who will report to the Governing Bodies.
Your views are very important. Please do let us know what you think.
1 If you wish to respond via email please send a request for an application form from the Clerk of Governors at [email protected] You are also invited to attend a public meeting, which has been arranged for XXXXXXXXXXX (date Sep 2011).
What happens next?
This consultation period will end on Friday 14 th October 2011. The Governing Body will meet to consider the responses and whether to proceed further. If the decision is made to proceed, the Governing Body will publish the proposal to close two schools and open a new one. This will be followed by a statutory six-week period of ‘representation’, which gives all interested parties a further opportunity to write to us either supporting or opposing the proposal. The decision would then be made by the Norfolk County Council cabinet whether or not to accept the proposal.
The proposals set out in this document are being put forward as a basis for consultation only. It should be emphasized that NO decisions have yet been made, and none will be made until the consultations have been completed and all views have been carefully considered. Our main objective is to ensure that the proposal has community support and is in the best educational interests of the children involved.
Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 15 September 2011 Item No. 19
Update on Strategy to Combat Racism and Promote Inter-cultural Understanding Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary
O&S Panel last received a report on this strategy on 19 March 2008 and requested an update.
This report describes the current procedure used for the reporting of racist incidents and invites members’ comments.
The report goes on to describe ongoing work to promote inter-cultural understanding and how this will link to new ways of working in partnership with colleagues across the County Council and with external partners. Members are asked to comment.
Changes in legislation affecting this area of work are noted, followed by a proposal to develop our procedures regarding the reporting of racist incidents to bring them in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, which came into force in April 2011. Members are asked to support this approach and consider what further scrutiny they would like to see.
Action Required
In noting the areas of work undertaken since the last report of 19 March 2008, members are asked to support the proposal to extend and develop reporting procedures to cover the “protected characteristics” of the Equality Act 2010.
1. Background
1.1 O&S Panel last received a report on this strategy on 19 March 2008. This report describes work which has continued since then, highlights the effect of changes in legislation since that date and proposes a change to procedures to reflect the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010.
2. The reporting of racist incidents
2.1 Our system of reporting was established in 2001. In 2007 we revised the procedure to reflect the establishment of Children’s Services and extend reporting responsibilities to settings other than schools. An important point to make is that schools are required to report incidents to the local authority as soon as possible. (In other authorities the report to the local authority is submitted as an annual return.) This means that where a school is unable to resolve an incident we are able to make an early intervention and provide assistance.
2.2 Additionally, we ask schools to confirm the number of incidents reported to us at the end of each financial year. (Local Government regulations require us to report by financial year.) This part of our procedure was added more recently (2004). This means that schools submitting no reports of racist incidents are asked to confirm a nil return.
2.3 A sample of schools submitting nil returns are challenged each year. The reasons for challenging a nil return are usually: • if they are the only school in a particular locality reporting no racist incidents; • if their reporting does not correlate with police reports from police Hate Crime Officers; • if we have heard of racist incidents occurring through third party reporting
The challenge is carried out in a professional manner, as our work is to support schools in meeting the duty, and is done by email, phone call or personal visit.
3. Promoting inter-cultural understanding
3.1 Children’s Services maintains ongoing work to promote inter-cultural understanding. Such work includes: • Improving access to services for minority families through targeted information and training for staff • Reviewing complaints from ethnic minority service users and carers, to identify any themes and ensure appropriate feedback • Maintaining links with black and ethnic minority community associations, and those supporting the needs of refugees and asylum seekers to tailor appropriate support for the young people of those communities • Much of the direct social work and community support in these new and emerging communities is undertaken by the dedicated Specialist Social Work Service – Diverse Communities, which undertakes assessment and support of private fostering arrangements, and supports unaccompanied children seeking asylum and refugees seeking resettlement, as well as having specialist skills in work with those affected by HIV/AIDs. The Service also offers advice; guidance; sign-posting; Human Rights assessments; co-working; resources and Home Office checks to other sections of Children’s Services to capacity build, sensitise and skill up other staff groups in cultural competence. • There are also a number of actions and activities that are being undertaken to address specific areas for development and improvement following the recent unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment in March 2011 and the announced inspection of safeguarding and looked after children in June 2011. The areas identified by inspectors for improvement included: • Ensuring that assessments fully consider issues of ethnicity, religion, culture and identity and that services are responsive to these needs to enable full engagement by children and their families • Culture and ethnicity are not consistently taken into account in assessment and planning The improvement plan which is set out in a separate paper to this Panel, identifies the actions that have / are being undertaken to improve professionals’ knowledge and understanding.
3.2 Support for schools and other settings includes:
• Ensuring schools and other settings are aware of their duties under the legislation by providing management information • Providing a draft model policy which schools can customise for their own school • Conducting an annual analysis of reported racist incidents and advising other sections of Children’s Services where action needs to be taken • Maintaining specialist support services such as the English Language Support Service (ELSS) and the Traveller Education Service (TES) to ensure that young people whose first language is not English, and young people from Gypsy Roma Traveller backgrounds are encouraged and supported to further their education in Norfolk schools • Encouraging schools and other settings to respond positively to national special events such as Black History Month, Refugee Week, Holocaust Memorial Day, Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month, and providing sample lessons and topics for assembly.
3.3 We extend our work to build productive partnerships with organisations outside of Children’s Services such as: • Working in partnership with voluntary and community sector organisations and the Police on initiatives to combat “hate incidents” and “hate crime” • Working more closely with Equalities Lead Officers Group (ELOG) to contribute more fully to Norfolk County Council initiatives and joint County/District Council initiatives such as a campaign to increase public reassurance regarding hate crime. • Specific work to help staff respond to hate incidents as part of a Council wide initiative including an e-learning training course for all staff. • Raising issues of equality and diversity at Effective Schools Group.
4. Changes in legislation affecting this work
4.1 In response to the Equalities Bill of April 2009, Children’s Services provided support for schools to replace their separate race, gender and disability schemes with a Single Equalities scheme. The support was in the form of management information to headteachers, training sessions for staff and governors, and self-evaluation checklists.
4.2 The Public Sector Equality Duty was created by the Equality Act 2010. The general duty came into force in April 2011 and covers age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. These are referred to as “protected characteristics.” Those subject to the general duty must have due regard to the need to: • Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation • Advance equality of opportunity between different groups • Foster good relations between different groups We currently have no clear mechanism for schools and other settings to report incidents under “protected characteristics” other than race.
4.3 In order to ensure that Children’s Services is meeting the Public Duty to ensure that schools and other settings are aware of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 we propose to develop and extend our proven procedure for the reporting of racist incidents to cover the other “protected characteristics” described in the act.
5. Resource Implications
We believe that the proposed change can be made within existing resources.
6. Other Implications
6.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
An Annual Equalities Assessment for Children’s will be presented to Panel in November 2011, setting out the significant inequalities for protected groups within Norfolk and appropriate recommendations for the Panel to consider. This report proposed to implement the findings of the Equality Impact Assessment, and enable us to fulfil our duties under the Equality Act 2010.
6.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
The actions outlined above are very important to the well-being of children and young people in Norfolk both in their communities and in their schools. The proposal would enable us to monitor, and plan action to counter all situations where a young person’s identity causes them to be subject to abuse.
6.3 Any other implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
7. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act Under Section 17 of the Crime & Disorder Act, the County Council has a statutory duty to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in Norfolk: • Duty to take account of the possible crime and disorder implications in making decisions and in how services are provided • A need to consider all policies, strategies, plans and budgets from the standpoint of their potential contribution to the reduction of crime and disorder.
The crime & disorder implications are explicitly stated in this report. Extending the collection of data to all types of hate incidents will ensure that we both comply with the Equalities Act, and fully consider the range and volume of hate incidents that take place in Norfolk schools and other establishments, enabling improved awareness, early intervention and support. There will need to be effective linkage with anti-bullying work, which will prevent further victimisation.
This will also enable data sharing with partners to better understand the type and location of hate issues in Norfolk, which will lead to improved partnership responses to strengthen Norfolk’s communities and improve safety and cohesion
8. Risk Implications/Assessment
The risk is that Children’s Services, as part of Norfolk County Council would not be fully meeting the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010. The recommended option would mitigate that risk.
9. Action Required
9.1 In noting the areas of work undertaken since the last report of 19 March 2008, members are asked to support the proposal to extend and develop reporting procedures to cover the “protected characteristics” of the Equality Act 2010.
Background Papers
Equalities Act 2010
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
David Sheppard 01603 303343 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.