Phil Norrey Chief Executive

To: The Chairman and Members of County Hall the People's Scrutiny Topsham Road Committee Exeter Devon EX2 4QD

(See below)

Your ref : Date : 25 August 2016 Email: 01392 382486 Our ref : Please ask for : Stephanie Lewis

PEOPLE'S SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Monday, 5th September, 2016

A meeting of the People's Scrutiny Committee is to be held on the above date at 2.00 pm in the County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter to consider the following matters.

P NORREY Chief Executive

A G E N D A

PART I - OPEN COMMITTEE

1 Apologies for Absence 2 Minutes Minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2016 (previously circulated).

3 Items Requiring Urgent Attention Items which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered at the meeting as matters of urgency.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION OR REVIEW [NB: Please note that the times shown below are indicative and while every effort will be made to adhere thereto they may vary although, normally, items will not be taken before the time shown]

4 Public Participation: Representations 2.05 pm Members of the public may make representations/presentations on any substantive matter listed in the published agenda for this meeting, as set out hereunder, relating to a specific matter or an examination of services or facilities provided or to be provided. 5 Call In of Cabinet Member Decision: Post 16 Education Transport Policy for 2017/18 (Minute 51, 13 July 2016) (Pages 1 - 72) 2.15 pm In accordance with Paragraph 17 of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, 5 Members of the Council (Councillors Brazil, Connett, Dewhirst, Hook and Way) have invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the decision of the Cabinet (Minute 51, 13 July 2016), relating to Post 16 Education Transport Policy for 2017/18, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Scheme of Delegation as set out in Part 3 of the County Council's Constitution, on the grounds that in taking this decision the Cabinet has ‘failed to consider the ability of colleges to make funding available for Post 16 student transport to 'plug the gap' created by the council decision. Further, the proposed new county scheme is so vague that it is wholly unclear what the benchmark is for students or their families to evidence there is no suitable transport for college. Additionally, the county states it will not provide transport even where, for example, where inconvenience is caused to the family. This fails to consider the potential economic and social impacts of each applicants own circumstances and is, therefore, unreasonable. The Cabinet has failed to consider the potential impact of this decision on discouraging young people from rural areas and/or families on low incomes from continuing in education’.

The Committee’s views will be reported to the Cabinet at its next meeting on 14 September 2016.

Electoral Division(s): All

6 Call in of Cabinet Member Decision for Adult Social Care and Health Services - Closure of Compass House Creche (Pages 73 - 94) 2.45 pm In accordance with Paragraph 17 of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, 5 Members of the Council (Councillors Hannan, Westlake, Hannaford, Hill and Owen) have invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the decision of the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care & Health Services, notified to councillors on 23 August 2016, relating to the proposed closure of the Compass House crèche, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Scheme of Delegation as set out in Part 3 of the County Council's Constitution, on the grounds that the decision ‘fails to take sufficient account of the fact that women suffering from post-natal depression are routinely in need of on-site care for their children, as is available at Chestnut Children’s Centre where Depression and Anxiety Service sessions are run alongside childcare provision. The existence of this arrangement other than at Compass House is actually denied in the Impact Assessment’.

The decision notice and accompanying documentation (consultation and impact assessment) is attached.

The Committee’s views will be reported to the Cabinet at its next meeting on 14 September 2016. Electoral Division(s): Exeter Priory & St Leonard’s

7 Children's Standing Overview Group (Pages 95 - 96) 3.15 pm Report of meeting held on 12 July 2016 (CS/16/30), attached. Electoral Division(s): All

8 Adult's Standing Overview Group (Pages 97 - 98) 3.20 pm Report of meeting held on 6 July 2016 (CS/16/29), attached. Electoral Division(s): All 9 Election of the Commissioning Liaison Member 3.25 pm In line with the recommendations of the ‘Scrutiny in a Commissioning Council’ Task Group Report, the Committee be asked to select a ‘Commissioning Liaison Member’, whose role it will be to work closely with the relevant Cabinet Members and Heads of Service, developing a fuller understanding of commissioning processes, and provide a link between Cabinet and Scrutiny on commissioning and commissioned services.

The full report and recommendations of the ‘Scrutiny in a Commissioning Council’ Task Group can be viewed here: http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/s1830/Scrutiny%20in%20a%20Commissionin ig%20Council.pdf

Electoral Division(s): All

10 School Exclusions Review: Educational Outcomes Task Group (Pages 99 - 104) 3.30 pm Chairman of the Task Group to Report (CS/16/32).

Electoral Division(s): All

11 Small Schools Task Group Report (Pages 105 - 124) 3.50 pm Chairman of the Task Group to Report (CS/16/31).

Electoral Division(s): All

12 Residential and Nursing Care: Market Sufficiency and Commissioning Approach (Pages 125 - 128) 4.10 pm Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning (SCC/16/50).

Electoral Division(s): All

13 Children's Performance Report (Pages 129 - 148) 4.30 pm Report of the Strategic Director, People (CP/16/03)

Electoral Division(s): All

14 Adult's Performance Report (Pages 149 - 178) 4.50 pm Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning and Head of Adult Social Care (SCC/16/51).

MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

15 Briefing Papers, Updates & Matters for Information Members are asked to advise the Scrutiny Officer if they wish to raise any matter or ask any question in relation to this item in order that arrangements may be made for appropriate Heads of Service or their representatives to be available. 16 Dates of Future Meetings Details of future meetings of this Committee may be viewed at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/calendar/

PART II - ITEMS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS

Members are reminded that Part II Reports contain confidential information and should therefore be treated accordingly. They should not be disclosed or passed on to any other person(s). Members are also reminded of the need to dispose of such reports carefully and are therefore invited to return them to the Democratic Services Officer at the conclusion of the meeting for disposal.

MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER

Membership

Councillors S Randall-Johnson (Chairman), E Barisic, F Biederman, A Connett, A Dewhirst, A Eastman, R Hannaford (Vice-Chair), A Hannan, J Hone, R Hosking, J Mathews, R Rowe, P Sanders, M Squires and C Channon

Mrs Christina Mabin and Mr John Mannix

Declaration of Interests Members are reminded that they must declare any interest they may have in any item to be considered at this meeting, prior to any discussion taking place on that item. Access to Information Any person wishing to inspect the Scrutiny Work Programme or any Reports or Background Papers relating to any item on this agenda should contact Stephanie Lewis on 01392 382486. The Work Programme, Agenda, Reports and Minutes of the Committee are published on the Council’s Website Webcasting, Recording or Reporting of Meetings and Proceedings The proceedings of this meeting may be recorded for broadcasting live on the internet via the ‘Democracy Centre’ on the County Council’s website. The whole of the meeting may be broadcast apart from any confidential items which may need to be considered in the absence of the press and public. For more information go to: http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/

In addition, anyone wishing to film part or all of the proceedings may do so unless the press and public are excluded for that part of the meeting or there is good reason not to do so, as directed by the Chairman. Any filming must be done as unobtrusively as possible from a single fixed position without the use of any additional lighting; focusing only on those actively participating in the meeting and having regard also to the wishes of any member of the public present who may not wish to be filmed. As a matter of courtesy, anyone wishing to film proceedings is asked to advise the Chairman or the Democratic Services Officer in attendance so that all those present may be made aware that is happening.

Members of the public may also use Facebook and Twitter or other forms of social media to report on proceedings at this meeting. An open, publicly available Wi-Fi network (i.e. DCC) is normally available for meetings held in the Committee Suite at County Hall. For information on Wi-Fi availability at other locations, please contact the Officer identified above. Public Participation Devon’s residents may attend and speak at any meeting of a County Council Scrutiny Committee when it is reviewing any specific matter or examining the provision of services or facilities as listed on the agenda for that meeting.

Scrutiny Committees set aside 15 minutes at the beginning of each meeting to allow anyone who has registered to speak on any such item. Speakers are normally allowed 3 minutes each.

Anyone wishing to speak is requested to register in writing with Stephanie Lewis ([email protected]) by 0900 hours on the day before the meeting indicating which item they wish to speak on and giving a brief outline of the issues/ points they wish to make. Alternatively, any Member of the public may at any time submit their views on any matter to be considered by a Scrutiny Committee at a meeting or included in its work Programme direct to the Chairman or Members of that Committee or via the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Secretariat ([email protected]). Members of the public may also suggest topics (see: https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/committee-meetings/scrutiny-committees/scrutiny-work- programme/

All Scrutiny Committee agenda are published at least seven days before the meeting on the Council’s website. Emergencies In the event of the fire alarm sounding leave the building immediately by the nearest available exit, following the fire exit signs. If doors fail to unlock press the Green break glass next to the door. Do not stop to collect personal belongings, do not use the lifts, do not re-enter the building until told to do so. Mobile Phones Please switch off all mobile phones before entering the Committee Room or Council Chamber If you need a copy of this Agenda and/or a Report in another format (e.g. large print, audio tape, Braille or other languages), please contact the Information Centre on 01392 380101 or email to: [email protected] or write to the Democratic and Scrutiny Secretariat at County Hall, Exeter, EX2 4QD.

Induction loop system available

Agenda Item 5

EL/16/5 Cabinet 13 July 2016

POST-16 EDUCATION TRAVEL POLICY FOR 2017-18

Report of the Head of Education and Learning

Please note that the following recommendation is subject to approval by the Cabinet and confirmation under the provisions of the Council’s Constitution before taking effect.

1. Note the travel policy was proposed and consulted on by the Local Authority. 2. Consider the recommendations at section 3.1. 3. Determine the recommended policy for 2017-18 at www.devon.gov.uk/admissionarrangements

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Local Authority (LA) has statutory responsibilities to provide free transport to and from school for children of statutory school age who meet set criteria. It may also exercise its discretion to provide assistance for children in other circumstances, for which it may charge a fee or contribution. The LA must also support travel for post-16 students where there is a need to do so and may charge a contribution for that support. Under Section 509AB(3)(a) of the Education Act 1996, the LA must have regard to the needs of those post-16 students who would be unable to access education or training provision if transport arrangements were not made by the LA to support them.

1.2 A policy was proposed under which the LA would become the safety net for transport for post-16 students rather than the scheme provider. The LA would only support transport where no other options are possible to enable a student to access education post-16. The proposed policy would not lead to post-16 students unable to travel to school or college to continue in education. The process detailed below at sections 4 and 5 can be summarised as below with LA support below the dotted line:

private arrangements to get to and from college: public service routes walking, cycling, vehicle provided by family or friends

vacant seats on contracted vehicles (guaranteed for the passenger) OR concessionary seats on contracted vehicles (not guaranteed if required by an entitled passenger)

assessment of need: support by the LA where need established

two-stage appeal process

Page 1 Agenda Item 5

1.3 The County Council’s Education transport budgets are under severe pressure and a range of management actions are being implemented to reduce costs to be within the budget envelope. The budget for 2016-17 is £21,564,000 and taking into account savings targets at the end of month 2, there is a predicted overspend of £1,080,026.

The post-16 transport budget is £449,000 with a predicted overspend based on month 2 of £80,000. By increasing the post-16 contribution over recent years and with the 2016-17 proposed change it is anticipated that this will contribute towards reaching a balanced budget.

2. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 2.1 This paper is to report the outcome of a consultation on amendments to the education travel policy for post-16 students which would affect travel during the academic year 2017-18 and to seek approval for the amended policy.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Members are requested to:

1. Increase the contribution level for all subject to pay a contribution from £560 to £580 per annum; and 2. Remove an automatic entitlement to transport support for post-16 students, with support being available from the Local Authority only where students1 can evidence that they could not access education or training provision without support being given by the LA.

4 CONSULTATION 4.1 The Education Transport Policy for 2016-17 was determined by Cabinet in April 2016 and included arrangements for Post-16 Transport within that policy. Where a contribution towards costs of the LA was required, this was increased from £520 to £560 per annum. A reduction for children and students from low-income households was removed. No other changes were made from the 2015-16 policy.

4.2 The LA consulted on the proposed policy for 2017-18 between April and June 2016. The consultation was hosted at www.devon.gov.uk/admissionarrangements. Information was sent to all schools and colleges in the county and close to the county border. Letters were also sent to schools and colleges for distribution to the parents of children in Year 10 to inform them of proposed changes to the 2017-18 policy affecting new post-16 applicants. Children of current Year 10 age will enter post-16 education for the first time in 2017-18. Parents, children and colleges were invited to comment on the proposals with the consultation ending on 30 June.

4.3 A large number of responses have been received to this consultation. The principal concern of parents is that their child would not be able to get to college without transport provided by the LA. The view from a number of colleges has been that the level of funding available through the College Bursary Scheme would be insufficient to meet the needs of all of their students. The responses are detailed at Appendix A.

5. TRANSPORT WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM THE LA 5.1 The overarching principle is that students and parents have the primary responsibility for travel to and from college. They would be expected to have explored all options and in order to request support from the LA, to provide evidence that no other means of travel or sources of support are available. They may seek support through the Bursary

1 In most cases it is the student’s parent or carer who makes applications and pays contributions towards the LA costs.

Page 2 Agenda Item 5

scheme and, if that is not available or is insufficient, in the last resort from the LA as a safety-net. Students and their parents would be expected to: . walk to and from college; or . use a bicycle; or . use a motorcycle or moped; or . use a car provided by family or friends; or . access public transport; or . make other arrangements.

In many cases, the student will be able to walk to and from college or travel using public transport. Where this is the case, there is no need for the LA to assist in any way.

6. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 6.1 Under the proposed policy, support would not be available from the LA unless satisfactory evidence is provided that the student could not travel to college independently or by using public transport. This approach is based on the following:

. there is no universal entitlement to travel assistance from the LA for post-16 students; . parents are responsible for making travel arrangements for their children; . colleges are provided with bursary funds to support students with travel, clothing, books and equipment for a course; . where there is financial difficulty, parents or students should approach colleges for assistance through the bursary scheme; . the LA should only be seen as providing assistance where there is a barrier to accessing or remaining in education and where all other options have been investigated and are not available, as evidenced by the parent or student; and . where travel assistance is provided by the LA, a contribution towards costs will be required.

6.2 In determining whether there is a need for the LA to provide support for an individual student, the LA would retain eligibility criteria. The student must:

. live in the Devon County Council administrative area; . attend the nearest appropriate post-16 establishment; . live further than three miles from the establishment; . be in full-time education; and . be under 19 years of age on the 31 August before the beginning of the academic year2

6.3 There would be no automatic entitlement to support from the LA and the LA will not arrange for transport support to be put in place without contact from the student or parent. The LA will continue to operate an advice service which will be able to signpost students to sources of support for transport arrangements, principally through sixth forms and other colleges. The LA will continue to work with transport providers to develop sustainable travel options for students.

6.4 Where a student or parent seeks support from the LA, it will require satisfactory evidence:

2 Or he or she must be attending a specific course for those with learning difficulties and be required to attend beyond the age of 19 in order to complete the course. Support would then continue until the end of the academic year during which he or she reaches 21 in order to attend the same course at the same establishment.

Page 3 Agenda Item 5

. that they have applied to their college for financial assistance, with details of the level of support offered; . of the cost to them if they were to make the necessary travel arrangements;3 . of a medical condition or other circumstance that would prevent the parent making the other necessary travel arrangements, and . of their financial circumstances, for instance, proof of receipt of means tested benefit.

6.5 The LA would then consider the evidence and reach an individual decision whether there was a need for assistance to be provided. There would be a very clear expectation that where a public service vehicle could be used by the student to get to and from college, it would be used, paid for by the student or parent. Students from low income households especially are able to seek financial support from the college through the Bursary scheme.

In the absence of a public service route, the student or parent would be expected to provide evidence that there are no other arrangements that could be made to get the student to and from college – such as a car or other means of transport within the family. It would not be sufficient to state that it would be inconvenient for the family to use its own resources. In some circumstances, it may be accepted that there is a need for the LA to assist a student to get to a public service route.

6.6 It is expected that there will be a number of students with additional needs for whom transport arrangements will require specialised or individual transport. The expectation that parents will transport students would apply equally in these circumstances, including where a vehicle has been made available for the student’s transport needs. The LA will assume that where public funds have been used to provide a Motability vehicle for the student’s direct benefit, this will be used for home to college travel. However, where it is evidenced that the family is unable to make arrangements for transport, the LA would continue to provide support over and above any support provided by the college through the Bursary scheme. Bursary funding may be used to help the family pay the contribution towards the costs of the LA.

6.7 Similarly, where the cost of transport is higher due to rurality and isolation, the LA recognises that it may be required to assist the student. This may be through an allowance to support a family vehicle or to pay other costs or, in more exceptional cases, the provision of a seat on a vehicle contracted by the LA.

6.8 Transport support from the LA may include the offer of Independent Travel Training to enable the student to get to and from college either without the need for a vehicle or by using a cheaper option. Independent Travel Training offers financial savings and enables a student to be more self-reliant in other areas of life.

6.9 In all cases where the LA provides support, there will be a requirement to pay the contribution towards LA costs. This cost is to be met by the student or parent and would apply equally to all students, including those from low-income households and those with additional needs. Students will be advised to approach the college for financial assistance through the Bursary scheme. Under the 2016-17 transport policy, post-16 students and their families are expected to pay a contribution towards LA costs. They can approach colleges for assistance from the Bursary scheme. This is targeted towards the most disadvantaged but available for all families to request.

6.10 Under a revised policy, LA support would be the most cost-effective possible and consist in:

3 This should be the most cost-effective arrangements possible.

Page 4 Agenda Item 5

. provision of a seat on a LA contract vehicle or . a financial allowance to assist with travel costs to and from college or to and from an appropriate pick-up/drop-off point for a public service or LA contract vehicle; or  Independent Travel Training.

The LA will use the most cost-effective option that would enable the student to benefit from the education provided at college. By targeting support on those with an identified need, the LA would be operating a more flexible, responsive policy for the benefit of those with genuine need. The ongoing pressure on LA finances requires that Devon steps back from making discretionary provision for all students who meet eligibility criteria.

6.11 The proposed change to policy recognises the trend over recent years towards post-16 transport becoming more college-sponsored and for fewer students to access LA transport support. It is anticipated that the LA will continue to support a core of students with an identified need for support because or their additional need, the rurality of their home location or because there is another identified need for assistance.

Number of students receiving LA transport support

Year 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 FE college 2460 2042 1769 1446 1243 1336 sixth form 1149 974 834 819 785 715 Special school 130 119 116 124 140 126 Total 3739 3135 2719 2389 2168 2177

7 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Details of the current overspend are at section 1.3 above.

7.2 The proposals in this document are intended to reduce the financial liability of the LA. By removing some discretionary entitlement and increasing the expected income from contributions, the LA would be seeking to lower the overall spend on education transport. It would be for colleges to deploy Bursary funding to reduce or remove any financial impact on families.

7.3 Post-16 students can request support from school sixth forms and Further Education Colleges which are funded through the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund. This is money from central government that students or the college can use to pay for transport, lunch of study days or clothing, books and other equipment necessary for the education course.

The Bursary Fund is available to students through a Vulnerable Student Bursary which allows for up to £1200. This is means tested. There is a further fund, a Discretionary Bursary for which colleges will set their own criteria to decide which students will receive assistance. Details of the funding available to colleges under this scheme in 2015-16 are given at Appendix B.

7.4 It is anticipated that there would remain a number of students who, with higher costs due to rurality or additional need require transport support from the LA either in the absence of Bursary support or in addition to it. For the majority of cases, students will receive financial support from the college or from the family’s own resources.

Page 5 Agenda Item 5

7.5 The post-16 transport budget for 2016-17 is £449,000. From the increase in the contribution level4 it is anticipated that £54,000 will be saved in the current financial year. This takes into account the impact of changes being introduced part way through the financial year.

The proposed changes from September 2017 would save £98,000 within year making at total saving including the increased fees of £159,500 for 2017-18. As the revised policy is gradually introduced it is anticipated that the saving by 2019-20 will be £254,000 per annum.

8 SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 The travel policy supports the principle of promoting access to education and meeting the LA’s statutory responsibilities. It is anticipated that students will continue to travel by the same means to college in most instances. The costs of transport would be met either by the student or by the college through the College Bursary scheme rather than by Devon County Council.

9 EQUALITY CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 Equality of access to education opportunities is a fundamental feature of transport arrangements. The policy for consideration has been subject to an Equality Impact Needs Assessment, at www.devon.gov.uk/admissionarrangements

10 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 10.1 Local authorities must have regard to the transport needs of post-16 students. Devon must comply with statutory guidance of the Department for Education: Post-16 Transport to Education and Training, February 2014. Setting fair and transparent arrangements ensures that the LA meets its duty and enables parents, colleges and other interested parties to have confidence in them. The policy has been proposed and the subject of consultation.

11 RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 11.1 The key risks are that the LA will not have a lawful policy for Post-16 Education Transport and that a policy is not determined by the LA ahead of arrangements being made for post-16 education and applications for transport from September 2017 submitted during the 2016-17 academic year by parents and post-16 students.

11.2 The LA does not anticipate an increase in the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) as a result of this amendment. It would continue to be a provider of transport assistance for post-16 students as a safety net.

12. CONCLUSION 12.1 The LA has a statutory responsibility to provide transport support where the absence of support would prevent a student from remaining in education. This responsibility is confirmed under the proposed policy.

The recommendations in this paper recognise ongoing pressure to reduce costs and to withdraw from provision that is not statutorily required. Sue Clarke Head for Education and Learning

4 Determined by Cabinet in April 2016.

Page 6 Agenda Item 5

ELECTORAL DIVISION: All

Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Skills: Councillor James McInnes Strategic Director People: Jennie Stephens

Contact for enquiries: Andrew Brent Education and Learning Policy Officer 01392 383000

Local Government Act 1972. Background Papers:

Cabinet Report EL/16/3 (Minute *7/13 April 2016)

Page 7

Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Concerns Anthony Tschuk I am a social worker with the Community Health and Social Care team based in Newton Abbot. I am  Specialised Social Worker (ASYE currently supporting Mr SG. I have been advised that there has been a consultation with regard to provision for Disability focussed) school transport, whereby DCC will not offer any assistance with travel unless there is no other means students with for the young person to access education. SEND

S has previously been assessed by DCC Behaviour Support worker as unable to access any other means of transport to get him to college. I feel that this is the case at this moment in time. I am working with S in conjunction with the Community Enablement Team to reassess him and support him to use public transport. However, he may not be ready to use an alternative before returning to college in September Dr Phil Le Grice Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consultation on education transport policy for 2016/17  Impact on choices Principal Bicton College and 2017/18. for students and Director of Rural  Access to Economy The Cornwall In overview, anything that makes the decision to embark upon further study cumbersome or financially specialist courses

Page 9 Page College Group challenging will affect participation at our college. In particular, at a time when the raising of the  Signposting to participation age is having the unintended consequence of leading families to the belief that learners advice and might need to stay on in their current schools with 6th forms, any bureaucracy that tends to reinforce support that misconception, or emphasise alternatives is unhelpful. I make this overview and point two and three below, with particular reference to the Impact Assessment (Version 2016) which helpfully references the social and environmental impact of policy changes that these points will help mitigate.

Point 1 Section 5- Eligibility for travel assistance.

Where a student does not attend the nearest establishment because of their chosen course, they will be required to provide evidence that the course is essential for entry to Higher Education. 13 It must be evidenced that a similar alternative course is not available closer to home.

As a specialist provider of land-based education is it possible to work with your team to formalise a block position for our suite of specialist vocational courses that lead to HE in land-based disciplines to avoid repeated representations on evidence requirements?

Nearest appropriate establishment. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Landex, the national association of Landex Colleges (www.landex.org.uk) audits the facilities, staffing and resourcing that allows an institution delivering land-based programmes to be recognised by funders and stakeholders as ‘specialist’ colleges. Bicton College and Duchy College along with Bridgewater are the only colleges covering Devon that have this designation. I seek assurance that a learner seeking to travel to these establishments is supported to do so even if, ostensibly, the title of the programme of study at a non-specialist college suggests that a nearer college is a ‘designatable’ alternative.

Point 2 Residential Bursaries are currently available (means tested) for learners taking part in Specialist Land- Based Provision. I seek advice on how we bring residential bursaries and the opportunities for post 16 residential study options to public attention through travel advice and guidance issued by the Local Authority. Promotion of residential places will help impact upon road travel problems, mitigate travel costs for some families and offer a very rich educational experience for some learners. Page 10 Page Point 3

Alternatives in post 16 study. Travel Policy guidance might seek to draw attention to apprenticeship opportunity as an alternative route to post 16 participation. As a reminder that travel to some form of college is not the only available route to education and training. Alan King Okehampton College’s strategic philosophy has always been to provide and outstanding education  Impact on the Business Manager, opportunity for all of the young people who live in our catchment area. Our results we feel demonstrate most rurally Okehampton College that this strategic aim is realised consistently year on year. It is therefore difficult to understand why our isolated families County Council would wish to put forward a proposal that undermines the “outstanding opportunities for  Impact on choices all” philosophy adopted by one of their own maintained secondary schools. I am of course referring to for students the proposal to remove access to school transport for Post 16 students. Given the rurality of our  Sufficiency of catchment area and the extremely inadequate public bus services into Okehampton, the decision Bursary funds would be catastrophic both in terms of disenfranchising future generations of local young people from  Safeguarding access to outstanding education provision and the viability of Post 16 provision at Okehampton responsibilities College.

The majority of public transport routes from our area head towards Exeter and the inevitable outcome of the County’s proposal would be to create a thriving independent sector within Post 16 educational provision to the detriment of its’ own maintained sector. Transport, inevitably in a rural area, is a key ingredient for students and parents when choosing which Post 16 provision they will enrol with. Surely Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

the Government initiative to raise the leaving age for young people to 18 will also mean more courses and options being needed for them to access. Post 16 providers, such as Okehampton College, can support this expansion of places if it can rely on all the other key ingredients following suit. Logically then County ought to be considering how it can support the increase in the required expansion and inevitably that will mean overcoming access issues in terms of transport.

The majority of Post 16 students and their parents/guardians recognise that transport to the educational provider of their choice will require a financial contribution on their part. However, what they don’t understand is how the County proposal will create greater efficiency and save the County money when school buses continue to run through their village but with empty seats? Assuming that County will maintain transport provision for 11-16 year old students and in most cases continue to use the same bus companies and the same buses as at present. If this assumption is correct then school buses will be travelling to Okehampton College with empty seats, seats currently occupied by fee paying Post 16 students. How will this save the County money?

Page 11 Page On the point that parents can provide or arrange lifts for their Post 16 child can we ask if this a serious option or simply an alternative suggestion someone in County thought of? It is true that most of our families do have access to a private car but for the majority it is one car per household and this is used by the main bread winner to travel to work. This will rarely be in the direction of Okehampton. The suggestion that parents/guardians could rely on friends and/or neighbours to transport their children to school is in direct contradiction of safeguarding principles we adhere to and fully endorse. Are County proposing that parents, through schools, could have the friends and neighbours DBS checked? Equally to think that personal transport provision or transport provided by friends can be sustained for 190 days each year is also way off the mark. What happens when the car is off the road or is needed for other purposes such as emergencies? Post 16 students, through no fault of their own will miss significant parts of their learning and subsequently be penalised through the grades they can achieve as a result of missing topics.

Within our current Post 16 cohort we have a number of young people for whom the thought of having to travel anywhere to access learning would be a journey too far. They need a significant level of support and encouragement on a daily basis, especially during the early stages, to get them through the door. They do not possess the confidence, organisational skills or academic ability to access education provision anywhere but on their doorstep. These will truly be the disenfranchised in education terms by any decision that threatens to remove the support structures available to them in their local school. Staff who know them and with whom they have become familiar with are essential to the potential success of this particular group of young people. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Whilst we fully appreciate that local authorities are facing challenging times in budgetary terms we don’t accept that removing Post 16 transport is a means to reduce the fiscal pressures. Some of the arguments above demonstrate why we strongly feel that alternatives need to be discussed. Any decision which denies future generations of young people access to outstanding education opportunities has got to be a cause of concern. Currently 65% of our Post 16 cohort require school transport to access education at Okehampton College. No transport provision to our College will inevitably mean students accessing the limited public transport services available in our rural patch and that will not, as previously mentioned, be towards Okehampton. The end result is likely to be the closure of Post 16 provision at Okehampton College and for some young people the opportunity to participate in ‘education’ beyond the age of 16. Further, it is likely to reduce the educational aspirations of many young people and impact on their GCSE performance as they settle for what they need to enter further education rather than what they are capable of and striving to get the grades to undertake A level courses. Page 12 Page A final point is whether Cabinet members have considered the possible impact of this proposal on rural communities across Devon, of which Okehampton is typical. Consider the scenario of transport routes being focused on the major cities of the County and young peoples’ only choice of education provision going the same way. Bus companies will no longer be able to maintain rural bus routes or need to think about rural communities. Young people will be given the impression that their education and employment needs can only be realised in larger cities. Families wishing to support their children will want to move closer to the provision and support they need. The impact on local businesses and service providers, such as schools, would be significant and in many cases bring into question the viability of them continuing. The community of Okehampton relies on its young people and their families coming to the town to enjoy their social/leisure time nearly as much as it needs them to attend our schools. Any factor which diverts them away will inevitably lead to less reasons to make the journey.

No one at Okehampton College underestimates the challenge Cabinet members’ face but equally we strongly feel they need to reflect on their proposal in terms of maintaining quality education opportunities for all young people in their local communities. Lynne Williams Proposal to remove the concessionary rate of travel for low income households  Sufficiency of Finance Manager Bursary funds Bidwell Brook School We are a special needs school and a lot of our families have huge stress and difficulties associated with having children or young people with complex needs. This can impact on family finances with it being difficult to work full time and find suitable child care. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

This move would put additional stress and financial pressure on families.

Schools have very limited amounts of discretionary funding and would possibly not be able to meet all requests for financial help

If we were able to meet all requests, it would mean that we have no bursary funding to meet other requests for specialist equipment or help towards residential etc

When young adults are entering post 16 education, it would be a retrograde step for parents to start bringing them in to school as they need to start learning independence. I am not sure how many of our post 16 students would be able to access independent travel training, although this would be a welcome initiative.

Darren Armstrong I am writing in response to Devon County Council’s proposed changes to the Post 16 Transport  Signposting for

Page 13 Page Head of Learner Scheme for 2017/18. advice and Services, Petroc The rural nature of our location at both Barnstaple and Tiverton Campuses means that our learners rely support heavily on transport that is supplied and supported by Devon County Council. We have serious  Impact on the concerns about how the proposed changes are likely to affect learners both logistically and financially. most rurally isolated families We have a number of learners who access Devon County Council’s Transport Scheme each year using either feeder buses or contract coaches; without this scheme their ability to get to college, and thereby their access to education, will be seriously impaired. Although the proposed changes have included an appeals process to support learners in exceptional need, having no defined scheme or application process is likely to discourage learners who cannot easily access public transport. Of particular concern is how relevant families will be made aware of the appeals procedure, and how long an appeal is likely to take, as well as what will constitute ‘exceptional need’. A major concern is that some learners will be left with no means of getting to a public transport route, and therefore no means of getting to college in time for the beginning of term, which is a crucial time for learners (both academically and in building relationships with their tutors and peers). We strongly believe that the proposed withdrawal of funding and services over the next couple of academic years will inevitably build significant barriers to many learners being able to continue with their education. Government policy is clear that all 16-19 year old learners should be given the opportunity to take a study programme which reflects their prior attainment, education and career goals. Petroc is unique within the area that we service, in that we are able to offer a variety of Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

programmes, both academic and technical to suit all abilities. Removing transport and financial support ultimately removes choice for those learners, and we strongly urge you to reconsider. Peter Gregory Having considered your consultation document on education transport policy for 2017/18, we would  Sufficiency of Director of Finance, raise the following concerns: Bursary funds Ivybridge Academy Trust  Impact on the 1. We believe your proposal to remove the FSM subsidy of post 16 transport will place a serious barrier most rurally to participation in post 16 education for many disadvantaged students (particularly those living in rural isolated families areas of Devon). Removal of the subsidy would undermine the Government's policy of closing the gap in our education system (underpinned by such initiatives as Pupil Premium funding) and of offering all students equal opportunity to partake in higher education. Your suggestion that the subsidy could be funded from schools' Post 16 Bursary is mis-guided as these funds are already limited and fully utilised in supporting the less advantaged attend sixth form.

2. Whilst we acknowledge the fiscal constraints in which education transport must operate and

Page 14 Page reluctantly accept that, with the exception of the FSM subsidy referred to above, post 16 students will have to pay for their transport to school; we do not support the proposed removal of a student's entitlement to education transport (provided they pay for it) from 2017/18. The current public transport service is simply inadequate to readily transport students living in rural Devon to school. The removal of the entitlement would therefore again place a significant barrier to such students attending sixth form, contrary to the Government's policy of widening participation in post 16 education.

Alison Pollentine As a secondary school we would not be able to fund the whole cost for a post 16 student on DCC  Sufficiency of Business Manager provided transport, as it will be much more cost effective to provide students with money to buy their Bursary funds Sidmouth College own season tickets on service busses if they are available.  Availability of Bursary to My concern is for those students with SEND; please be aware in your deliberations that policy students with surrounding the Bursary funds means that discretionary support is only available to those in financial Special need, and does not take into account disability or other needs. Educational Needs or The Guaranteed Bursary Award of £1200 per year for Vulnerable Learners is available to young people Disability (SEND) 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. In my experience no disabled students at Sidmouth College have received both ESA and DLA, so many students with special needs or disabilities may fall through the cracks if policy makers rely on schools’ Bursary funds to support their transport costs. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Penny Clark The effect of the changes to the current transport policy will be extremely detrimental to our Sixth Form  Sufficiency of Communications Officer, intake. Bursary funds South Dartmoor  Impact on sixth Community College We currently have a higher than average proportion of rural families who struggle to afford transport form numbers Post-16. This year we have had 42 students who successfully applied for our Bursary fund, 19 of those  Impact on the to cover the full cost of transport as families are on low-incomes, and 14 to cover part of the cost most rurally (where the rest is born by Devon County) – a total of 33 students who would not be able to attend isolated families otherwise. This represents our full Bursary entitlement this year, and has eroded our contingency for administrative costs.

If next year’s application for the Bursary rise substantially, we will effectively have to refuse some students who are deserving of a place here, on the grounds that they cannot afford the transport costs. As an Academy, about the join a multi-Academy trust, we hope that there will be ways to generate more funds or reduce admin costs, but in the current climate we are already having to advertise further

Page 15 Page afield and encourage applications from more external students each year as there is competition from other local education providers. We are already bearing the cost of transporting students in by minibuses for the Sports Academy, where families have proven low income.

The costs of these reductions to transport are not just about our intake or finances. This is likely to affect students opportunities to continue in education and force more into low paid jobs instead.

Kirsty Matthews I have copied in Mel Stride, Member of Parliament for Central Devon, Graeme Cock, our Chair of  Sufficiency of Deputy Principal: Director Governors at South Dartmoor Community College and Hugh Bellamy, Executive Principal of South Bursary funds of Sixth Form, Dartmoor Multi Academy Trust in order to inform them also of my disquiet regarding the proposed  Administrative South Dartmoor policies. burden on Community College colleges to I am concerned that there is an implicit assumption on the part of DCC that Post 16 providers will use manage the the Learner Bursary grants to block subsidise the increased transport costs for our disadvantaged Bursary scheme learners. Not only would this transfer an extra administrative burden to school staff it would also have  Impact on the the effect of creating a significant strain on the fixed bursary grant the college can otherwise use to most rurally overcome a range of factors that are barriers to access and attainment for vulnerable learners. The isolated families bursary was designed by the government to be used not just for transport costs, but also for books,  Impact on low learning resources, meals and costs of open day visits and interviews. The proposed suggestion would income families surely lead us to “rob Peter to pay Paul”. In a time of increasing hardship for many of our poorer Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

families this could lead to necessary short-term economic savings removing the chances of longer term benefit. By any definition this must be a false economy. Not only our students but also the country would lose by this.  The transport policy proposals would seriously impact our ability to ‘close the achievement gap’ for disadvantaged students – a current DFE priority. To illustrate this point, this year we have used £1500 towards the payment of six students’ concessionary transport costs. Assuming the same number of students continue into next year we would experience an increase of cost to £3360 [2016-17] and in the following year to £3600 [2017-18]. In total we support thirty three students with transport costs using the learner bursary and we would be unable to sustain this level of support if the overall costs are raised. To exacerbate this even further schools, in Devon, are still receiving less per capita income than the rest of the UK.  As a predominantly rural school, with a two-hundred and fifty square mile catchment area, efficient and affordable transport is a matter of social necessity. There is no workable public transport alternative to bring students from the moor to our site. If our poorer families do own cars they usually

Page 16 Page rely on them to get them to work and so a school run is often out of the question. Their poverty is compounded by the, quite frankly, urban-biased calculations used to denote areas of deprivation taking rate of car-ownership into account.  Finally, in a sector where social responsibility is a core value, how is it fair? how is it equitable? how is it just to treat the poorest families in the same way disreputable utility companies are being chastised for? by asking them to pay more than the rich? by offering a £30 discount for paying an up-front lump- sum of £560? a sum which represents a huge amount to a family on the average family income here in rural Devon?

Thank you for taking the views of South Dartmoor Sixth Form into account as part of this consultation process. Laurence Frewin Proposed changes for 2017/18:  Sufficiency of Vice Principal Corporate There has been a lot of emphasis placed on the use of College bursary funds to meet the increased Bursary funds Service and Deputy CEO, cost of travel assistance in the proposed withdrawal of a universal Post-16 assisted travel scheme. We  Assessing need South Devon College want to make it clear that the College bursary funds are limited and, in light of continued Government austerity policies, our allocations have been reduced significantly year on year and have not reflected the significant increase in demand from those learners who are most in need and qualify for this funding. Therefore, we have also had to make some difficult decisions about what level of support we can offer learners to help them overcome barriers to learning. It is highly unlikely that we will be able to subsidise the full cost of assisted travel even for those households who qualify. It would appear from the proposal that learning providers will need to also play a key role in assessing Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

and evidencing whether the lack of local authority support will prove an unsurmountable barrier to education. This will bring an additional administrative burden and cost to the College. We would like to know from Devon County Council how this additional burden will be funded? Within the list of circumstances deemed by the local authority not to be exceptional we would like further clarification please on what is meant by 'an unavailable route, assessed by the local authority' We also feel that it is important that parent's working patterns are taken into account when assessing "unsurmountable" reasons. We consider this approach to be counter to Governments policies for supporting parents to engage in employment to support their families. Finally, please will you provide the College with a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment undertaken when drafting your proposals? We would also ask that this is provided prior to the end of the consultation period to ensure that we have received all of the relevant information to provide a fully informed response. Helen R I was very concerned to read the above consultation/proposed policy. We live on the edge of the moors  Impact on the on the outskirts of Lustleigh and have three children (in years 8, 10 & 12) who attend South Dartmoor most rurally Community College and catch the School bus from Lustleigh. Our eldest son is in year 12 (post 16) and isolated families we pay £500 for him to catch the bus which has plenty of seats and is travelling to/from school

Page 17 Page anyway. This seems to be a perfectly sensible arrangement rather than “the last resort” proposed under the Policy. There is no public transport from Lustleigh, it is too far to walk from, too dangerous to cycle from (A38/dual carriageway) and the assumption that a parent could take their child to/from school on a daily basis would preclude the parent from having a 9-5 job. All of the children catching the bus from Lustleigh would be in the same position in terms of their inability to catch public transport, walk or cycle. South Dartmoor Community College has a catchment area consisting of schools from rural communities which means that the majority of its pupils arrive by school bus and given that the majority of post 16 students will come from the school, by definition they will also come from those catchment areas and, I imagine, walking and cycling (and probably public transport) are unlikely to be feasible options for them, too.

I therefore urge you to reconsider the proposed policy.

Alistair C I write regarding the Devon County Council proposed post 16 education transport policy for 2017-18,  Lack of statutory affecting current Yr 10 pupils. I am very concerned by this proposal. entitlement to transport for post- On a personal level, Liverton is served by the X38 bus service, as the only means of public transport to 16 students in line Ashburton. It is too far to walk, and cycling along the A38 is not a safe option, particularly in the dark. with Raising of The current bus timetable lists stops in Liverton at 0648 and 0918 Mon - Fri, arriving in Ashburton at the Participation 0659 and 0929. Age (RPA) Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

 Evidencing Clearly, neither of these bus services is suitable for the school hours operating at South Dartmoor inability to make Community College. private arrangements It is not acceptable to expect a young single female (or male for that matter) to hang around in  Students Ashburton for more than an hour prior to the start of school. In winter time, much of that would be in continuing to the dark. Likewise, it is not acceptable for the child to be forced to miss the first hour of the school day. access contracted vehicles I am sure there are countless other areas with a similar problem, particularly after the council has cut funding, resulting in a reduced bus timetable on many routes, including the X38.

I feel that a statutory requirement to provide a transport solution should be in place post 16, following the change in FTE leaving age to 18. It seems that one piece of legislation has not caught up with another, and Devon County Council are using this loophole to try and cut costs. I would hope that

Page 18 Page legislation is introduced, to require LA provision up to FTE leaving age at 18.

In my younger daughters case (Yr 10), who will be affected by the proposal - she will not be able to drive, prior to starting 6th form, as her birthday is in August - it is not reasonable to expect her to pass a test and procure a car in a 2 week period following her 17th birthday! There is then the issue of parking in the school area which is another can of worms!

The council suggest Parents should change their work hours to suit. A nice theory, however as an example, if a have a legal duty to be in a place of work as a responsible phamacist during the business hours of the Pharmacy- eg 9am and 6pm, the choice is to drive my child to school and back, and stop working as a pharmacist, and presumably look for a different job, probably less well paid, meaning a reduced tax contribution to the state or indeed state support via job seekers allowance or similar; OR continue working, and have an alternative means of transporting my child. Until now that was the LA bus service. With that removed, there is no choice. There will be countless similar jobs where flexibility is not an option. Maybe we should all get jobs at the council, and enjoy such perks!

Practically, we already pay a contribution for our eldest (yr 12) daughter to travel on the school bus. Whilst not covering the full cost of the service, it is money that the council will no longer get if she were no longer allowed to travel as a 6th former. In her case, 4 or 5 6th form children travel each day on the bus. That bus would still run for yr 7-11's with no reduction in cost, as it is not quite full, but a smaller bus would not be suitable, so in fact, it seems that the council would be losing money with this proposal. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

The only way this policy makes sense, is if a suitably timetabled public bus service was introduced. That would presumably require funding or incentivising by the council, so again - where is the saving?

I would hope that the school would consider running a service for affected pupils to travel on. Obviously this could be chargeable, in a similar way to the late bus service currently operated by SDCC. Is this something every school can operate, and to every area? I doubt it.

Please pass these comments on to the council as part of their consultation process.

I hope they and other such comments will force a rethink.

I have CC'ed our local MP into the email, as I feel there are issues here that he, and the government should be getting involved in.

Page 19 Page Sue and Pete V We are writing to express our concern at proposed changes in post 16 transport. Without the provision  Specialised of door to door transport our son would be unable to attend college and have access to further provision for education and would be unfairly disadvantaged. students with Our son is 18 and currently attends South Devon College on a Level 1 course. He has a taxi to and SEND from our home in Kingsteignton to the college in Paignton and without this provision would be unable to attend college. He has various disabilities including Worster Drought Syndrome, keratoconus (a degenerative eye condition), communication difficulties, global delayed development, asthma and is severely dyslexic. After leaving school he did a one year vocational course at the college in the Learning Opportunities Section which helped him settle into college life and with their support he has felt confident enough to undertake a Level 1 course this year. He is hoping to progress to a Level 2 course in September but unless he is provided with transport this will be impossible. Due to his medical conditions he is unable to travel independently - he would become lost or confused and may not be able to communicate with people. It would be grossly unfair if our son was not allowed to continue making progress in his education and training due to changes in the transport policy.

Mr AR & Mrs HJ M. Having been notified of this policy change by a third party and having read through both documents, we  Specialised are left feeling alarmed and dismayed. provision for students with In particular, the policy for the 2017/18 school year would result in our daughter in being unable to Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

complete her education to an extent that she would'nt then have the best chance of securing some kind SEND of employment. She will be 19 at 31st August 2017 and will be looking to begin a new course in September 2017. She has a complex diagnosis which includes learning difficulties, resulting in her being unable to begin the course in 2016, rather she is to do an individually tailored course. Her English GCSE grade was an F and her final Maths GCSE grade was U at the end of year 11. She is still at Entry 1&2 for Maths and English and is not expected to be able to get up to GCSE level within the next academic year ... This would mean her leaving education without usable qualifications, this would be solely down to the changes in transport policy should this new document go forward.

There is no way we would be able to provide transport as we live a minimum 45 minute journey from the college our daughter currently attends as what employer would tolerate an employee being at least 45 minutes late to work every day and then leaving early also? The result would be the loss of parental employment, which would result in there being no family transport anyway due to financial hardship. Page 20 Page At present she depends on a taxi to get her to college and back. But it would seem that she would not qualify for a taxi should this document be approved as we have already established that she would be 19 and looking to start a new course on September 2017, due to her Learning Difficulties.

This policy is very short sighted and far too restrictive for those who live so far from the college that provides the course that would have the best chance of our daughter succeeding. She will ultimately end up claiming Job Seekers Allowance or ESA, and probably have to attend some kind of course aimed at bringing up her Numeracy and Literacy skills, which would seem to be a failure on the part of the LA, when it comes to a young person with extra needs.

We also feel that the lack of public awareness to this consultation, combined with the short time period for this consultation, is very underhand.

Fiona C Having read through the transport policy for 201617 and 201718 the following observations can be  Impact on the made: most rurally isolated families  Students residing in rural areas have no public transport options to choose from; there are no buses or trains  the use of a bicycle, motorcycle or moped is dangerous more so on rural roads especially with winter icy conditions on untreated rural roads Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

 a car cannot be provided to a student who does not have a driving licence  There will be huge transport bottle necks on roads surrounding the schools with even more cars parked improperly or illegally dropping/collecting students to school  Many redundant buses being used for what purpose?  Parents don’t oppose to paying for post 16 transport, but wiping it out completely is not a solution for any student who now has to stay in education until they turn 18 years old.

Rachel A I have read the consultation document for the proposed changes to Post 16 school transport provision  Impact on the by DCC and would be grateful if you could clarify a point for me. Are you proposing there will be no most rurally DCC school transport provided for students from September 2017/18? My son is currently in Y10 at isolated families South Dartmoor Community College and we plan for him to attend the school's sixth form. As we live in Bovey Tracey, there is no possibility of him getting to and from school on public transport; a a bus does not run from Bovey Tracey to Ashburton. I work in Kenton and my husband is in the Royal Navy and will be working away from home. How will my son travel to and from school sixth form under these proposed changes? Page 21 Page Janet F I was really shocked to receive this letter concerning changes to transport, regarding my daughter SF.  Specialised S is partially sighted and also has developmental delays. It would be very dangerous for her to use provision for public transport. I have recently lost my husband to cancer, who was the main wage earner. I have students with worked part time for many years in Newton Abbot. I am now the sole earner with only part-time wage. SEND Not only am I trying to live every day without my husband, and S without her dad, but if S didn't have transport I would have to give up work, which would be detrimental to both S and myself. I hope you will consider our circumstances, as S needs education and we need income. Liz J I am writing as I have just received a letter from South Devon College (Laurence Frewin – Vice  Specialised Principal Corporate Services and Deputy CEO) concerning your Post 16 Transport Consultation and provision for the significant proposed changes to the current services. students with SEND My son MJ who is 18 years of age currently attends South Devon College and, M has special  Impact on the educational needs, is on the autistic spectrum and has recently been diagnosed with Crohn’s disease. most rurally He is currently transported via a taxi (with other students) at a subsidised cost. I currently contribute isolated families financially to this service. This has worked well for M needs, as he has around a 25 minute journey and is dropped directly at the door of the College. Any changes to this scheme will have a dire effect on M’s ability to attend College in the almost independent way in which he currently manages using the taxi service. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Over the past 8 months M has had several hospital admissions and has missed a great deal of the course he has been attempting to complete. His poor attendance records mean that he would like to stay on at College for at least another 12 months/24 months from September 2016 in order to have any chance of obtaining some kind of meaningful qualification if he is to have any chance of future employment. Obviously this will be subject to his health improving and he is currently undergoing regular infusions at hospital which we are hopeful will bring him into remission. If the current service was to be discontinued it would mean that M would almost certainly be unable to attend college due to the difficulties in getting there using public transport – even if this were attempted utilising a travel pass scheme or bursary scheme. Whilst the difficulty is partly due to the geographic rural nature of our home, the nearest bus stop to our home is over 1 mile away and due to M’s conditions, autism and Crohn’s disease, he would not be able to make this walk unaided to the nearest bus stop. In addition this journey would also mean crossing the main A381 and Myles would need at the very least someone to accompany him on the journey and ensure his safety, assuming he was well enough to make this

Page 22 Page long walk, through narrow rural lanes. I believe his safety would be highly compromised if he were to have to make this walk on his own during all seasons (it would be dark at 4.30pm during the winter months). In addition the nature of his Crohn’s disease means that he can have frequent and uncontrollable urges for the toilet and as such there are no such facilities on route. The bus journey would also involve changing buses at least once and utilising public transport. Something which is outside of his current ability. Whilst this might be something he could learn with a great deal of support, in particular the toileting issues mean that the best and safest way for M to make the 25 minute journey directly to college is by car or taxi, door to door. Using a bus is not reasonable considering his conditions and due to the extended journey times involved, safety issues and the lack of available public toilets on route.

I would urge the authority to continue the support currently offered for students like M by utilising a taxi service, I can accept that the most cost effective way to organise this will be for a drop off by 9am and a pick up at 4.30pm which I feel is reasonable. If the current taxi service is withdrawn then M will almost certainly be unable to attend College as the transport issue would be a barrier to independent learning, and I feel he would be unfairly disadvantaged by both his special needs, health issues and rural location of his home.

Heather L I have been looking at your proposed changes to the post 16 transport policy. Our daughter enters  Continuity for sixth form in Sept this year and it looks like she will still be eligible for travel assistance until Sept 2017 students already at an annual cost of £560. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

However, if I understand the proposed changes, she will have to look to get to college by alternative receiving support means from next year. Whilst I understand the need to review these things, it seems unfair that she will possibly not be able to use the same transport she has had since entering secondary education and be expected to look at a service bus that may not run at appropriate times and all at full cost to ourselves if we aren't eligible for assistance. As education is now compulsory until 18 these proposals seem exceedingly unjust. What if the only alternative is a service bus that runs at totally unsuitable times? Are we then entitled to assisted travel? We would welcome some clarification on these matters and await a response from you. Karen K (Mrs) I am writing to express my deep concern over the proposed changes which Devon County Council are  Specialised looking to make to Post 16 Transport which will affect all Post 16 students who need or normally get provision for assistance with travel from the local authority. I am a single parent and sole carer to 3 boys all with students with autism and additional needs. My eldest who also has complex physical and medical needs is now at a SEND specialist residential college in Exeter for young people with visual and sensory impairments although  Impact on the he previously attended Ellen Tinkham School up to the age of 19. The proposed changes DCC are most rurally looking to make in the next 2 years will not affect him but will certainly go on to affect his 2 younger isolated families

Page 23 Page brothers – both of whom have significant but very different special educational needs and 2 attend different special schools. My 12 year old attends Ellen Tinkham School in Exeter and my 13 year old attends Ratcliffe School in Dawlish. We live in Moretonhampstead which has an extremely limited bus service to Exeter and no buses to Dawlish. Like all parents, I wish all my sons to continue their education for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the best possible life chances – certainly Post 16. Both of my sons are unable to travel unaccompanied without supervision because of their behavioural issues, lack of awareness in all areas making them extremely vulnerable and communication difficulties. My youngest who is severely autistic doesn’t talk and engages in obsessive, repetitive and inappropriate behaviours which could upset others and my 13 year old suffers with anxiety issues, for which he receives psychiatric support and medication from CAMHS, which also cause obsessive and inappropriate behaviours. At present, they both travel in taxis with an escort which, given their level of needs, is appropriate. Once they turn 16, I understand DCC are proposing that their current arrangements change and that families look to their own resources. I don’t have any resources. We don’t have a reliable bus service in Moretonhampstead and even if we did neither of my 2 sons could travel on their own and would each need an escort each way. My 13 year old will no longer attend Ratcliffe School Post 16 – however he will be looking to further his education and career prospects by attending a specialist college either in Dawlish or Bicton and neither of these 2 establishments can be accessed via public transport from Moretonhampstead. I cannot cut myself in half and transport my 2 sons in different directions at the same time and I need to be able to work so how do my sons get to their educational settings? We have lived in Moretonhampstead for many years Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

and the environment and our home is sympathetic to my sons’ autistic difficulties and needs and also to my older son’s physical needs (wheelchair access, downstairs bedroom, etc) – to have to up and move would cause my sons great distress. I accept that savings need to be made and, in this respect, the increase in parental contributions and the removal of low income waiver, which will affect me, I can see are necessary. However, living in a rural area, and having 2 sons with significant behavioural/learning difficulties attending specialist educational establishments in different directions it is neither possible or practical to remove their current transport arrangements without having to end their education Post 16. Both children already share their taxis with 2/3 other young people who attend their schools so they do not travel in a taxi alone. I think DCC should look at the young people who travel alone in taxis and try to combine them with other young people who are travelling to the same destination thereby increasing the number of pick ups but reducing the number of cars and escorts which are used. Young people living in cities close to their educational establishment Post 16 should be encouraged to use public transport but only if they can cope with it or are able to access independent travel training. Obviously, it is easier for 2 parents living in the city to get their young person to college than a single

Page 24 Page parent in a rural area who has more than one child with special needs going to a specialist educational establishment Post 16 so every individual case should be judged on its merits. This will be affecting young people’s and families lives and futures and Devon County Council need to consider the impact this will have on extremely vulnerable young people before sweeping changes are made. What is right for one person’s situation won’t be for another’s. From a parent’s point of view, my life as a single carer is already extremely exhausting, worrying and stressful where everything has to run like clockwork because of my sons’ needs. The impact of having my sons’ educational transport taken away from them once they reach 16 would be enough to tip me over the edge which would result in 3 young people having to go into expensive, specialised full time residential care and the cost of that financially to Devon County Council & Social Services would be astronomical not to mention the emotional cost it would have on each of my 3 sons being apart from each other and their mother. I know I am not the only parent who is in such a difficult situation so their could be dire repercussions throughout Devon as a result of these changes, and, ultimately, more cost to Devon County Council and Social Services. Andrew B Dear Sir/Madam ,I read with deep concern your proposed changes for college transport . My daughter  Specialised as a disability and learning difficulties . and the reason I use the current transport for her is because provision for she is just not able to use public transport safely . the prospect of travel training her apparently was students with rejected by a gentlemen who works for DCC , for reasons of safety . These changes are very SEND unreasonable as not only will it increase the number of vehicles using the road it will also put my daughter and other children and young adults in great danger , I would urge you at county hall to reconsider these changes and hope you can see the danger you will be putting these people in . Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Yvonne C I have just read your proposed Transport Policy for Post 16 education at state schools. This would  Impact on the severely affect ourselves and many others in our locality as we wholly rely on the school bus service to most rurally ensure our children can continue their education at their local school. We currently pay for our son to isolated families use the school bus service which is fine but if this provision is no longer available then we do not know how he and latterly his sister who is currently in Year 10 will be able to travel to and from school.

It seems ludicrious as it is obligatory that children should remain in some form of education until they are 18 years of age that transport for those over 3 miles from their local education provider cannot make use of a bus service that literally passes their property.

I note that your policy has extremely limited exceptions and that the work commitments of parents is not one of them - my husband starts work at 3.30am and myself at 7.15am. He is unable to even collect the children in the afternoon and I am only able to from 5.00pm onwards. It is mentioned in the policy that those over the age of 16 should use public transport or a moped. There nearest village to

Page 25 Page us has a bus once a week that goes in the wrong direction. The idea of using a moped against is not always a practical or safe solution if you live in amongst narrow, country lanes that many use as a short cut to the local village and ignore all realms of safety. Even if a moped was a possibility we would certainly not let our children go to school through the country lanes during the winter months as there is not one route from our property that is salted by highways.

I understand that the Council are under pressure when it comes to budgets but surely it makes sense to continue allowing parents to pay for their children to access transport passing their door. Parents do not expect this to be subsidised.

Please reconsider your proposed policy. Wendy H The address for correspondence is the same so I hope you do not mind me raising my concerns about  Impact on the post 16 transport with you; perhaps you can forward it on if necessary. most rurally isolated families We live in Moretonhampstead and our daughter attends South Dartmoor in Ashburton and intends to stay on in the sixth form in September. Ashburton is 16 miles from our home and at present two buses take the children to school, I understand public transport is not an option as it would involve buses from Moreton to Bovey Tracey and then onto Ashburton, the latter journey alone taking 50 minutes via Newton Abbot!

Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

We are very concerned that transport may not be provided, we are both working parents and to know that our daughter is on safe, timely transport locally is very important to us in our rural location. Children have to stay on in education until age 18, which we support but we need to know she can get there easily and safely given the distance involved and lack of other options.

We would be grateful if you could ensure our comments are noted and that we are kept up to date with any developments as September will come round quickly and we need to plan as this will affect our daughter considerably. Can we seek assurance that transport will continue for those in year 11 now entering year 12 in September? Tina B Having received the proposal letter on Friday I have to say I am rather shocked !  Lack of statutory entitlement to free The government have made the decision that these children should stay on at school until 18, therefore transport the transport to get them there should be available the same as the younger children.

Page 26 Page I am a single parent of twins and couldn't possibly afford over £1000 a year to get the children to college, I work full time and leave the house at 6am.

Whilst I note your comments for subsidised travel in certain circumstances, this will not cover many like myself.

Rosie W. Hello, thanks you for your letter highlighting the proposed changes to transport arrangements for post  Impact on the 16 education from 2017. most rurally I would like to make the following comments isolated families The rise in school leaving age to 18 that took place a couple of years ago means that all post 16s will  Lack of statutory need to continue in education unless they manage to secure one of the few apprenticeships on offer or entitlement to have a part-time job/ do voluntary work and carry on with part time education. I know from experience transport for post- that the opportunities for 16/17 year olds are very minimal and the wages very low even if they do get a 16 students in line job, so that most post 16s will need to continue in full time education as there is little provision for them with RPA to do anything else and the law says they have to. The lack of provision of A-level courses in our local area will mean that our daughter will need to travel for over an hour to Exeter every day and whilst the college should be able to offer a bursary to help with travel costs, it is unlikely that their budget will be enough to cover the proposed shortfall in which case they will no doubt change their criteria so only students from the lowest income families will be eligible. We are getting fed up with the way young people are penalised in this country. Not only do they get no longer get financial assistance towards the cost of attending college, they now have to pay for Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

university tuition. Those that are not academic and were not lucky enough to know what career to pursue and obtain a place on an apprenticeship scheme then have no choice but to try to find work. Job opportunities are minimal for them as they have little work place experience and whilst they could potentially do volunteer work, there is no financial reward for this, so it will be up to parents to continue to support their children despite having their child benefit removed as their kids are no longer in full time education - only possible if they have a good income themselves. Young people continue to be penalised by low wages when they can work, no benefits when they can't, and having to pay full fares on public transport. I am therefore objecting to the proposed changes. It is wrong that the central government are reducing the budget for county councils when they have yet to be repaid from bailing out the banks following the financial crisis a few years ago - CEOs continue to be on exceedingly high salaries and receive 'bonuses' at the expense of our children's education and I think it would be wrong for DCC to support this. So getting rid of the college transport assistance will mean that not only will we be penalised for where we live, but also our income, and by the lack of funding to our local college so it can no longer offer A-

Page 27 Page level courses. If we are expected to pay for getting our daughter to Exeter because the government says she needs to stay in education and there are no other options for her, then it is unlikely that we will be able to afford the bus fare and she will therefore be forced to stay at home and we will presumably be breaking the law. She is too young to drive and doesn't have the finance to run a car even if she could and as we live in a rural area, opportunities for her to do anything other than go to college don't exist. I hope you consider the implications of this proposal carefully as it will considerably affect a large number of families which have already been affected by other government cuts and will mean that a proportion of students will no longer be able to attend college. Helen H I am writing to express my disquiet with the way transport provisions are heading. You allow parents to  Lack of statutory choose whichever secondary school meets their child's needs but then refuse to provide transport to entitlement to that school. When I complained that I had to pay for my son Pierre's transport when he started transport for post- secondary school I was told to move him to a closer school! 16 students in line Since I am already paying for my son, your changes won't actually make much difference to our family. with RPA However for people on low income who have bright children, transport costs may now play a factor in  Impact on low whether they choose to send their child to the grammar school. This is discrimination by the back door. income families I believe all school transport will become private in the long term as councils struggle to balance the books but feel you should put in place support for all pupils on low income who choose to go to schools other than their nearest one. Lisa C I have just received the above letter suggesting changes that may be made to travel arrangements for  Lack of statutory Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

students who now HAVE to attend either education or an apprenticeship between the ages of 16-18. entitlement to Not only has this been forced upon them, it seems that the proposal is that family members or friends transport for post- now have to take them to the place of education, rather than them being able to apply for a concession 16 students in line bus pass? Does the council think that we are all 'at leisure' so able to ferry these children around? with RPA Does the council not realise that we have to work? Does the council not realise that some of us are one-parent families (through widowhood) and may have to also work shift work? We are not all free from 8 in the morning until 6 at night? Maybe a good idea would be to provide all 16-18 year olds with a bus pass or a reasonably priced weekly/monthly ticket for transport - thus enabling the coffers to be filled and the use of public transport figures to rise? This should even be extended to younger members of Devon - maybe from the age of 11 upwards? I would be happy to discuss this matter - or be 'put right'! Gail Y I am writing in response to the consultation on proposed transport arrangements for 2017/18.  Lack of statutory entitlement to I currently have a son doing A levels at Exeter College and have paid £520 for a travel pass. I did transport for post-

Page 28 Page accept this as my son could have gone to Petroc College in Tiverton to do his A Levels but it was his 16 students in line choice to go to Exeter. with RPA  Impact on the However, I have a son who will be going to college in September 2017 and would make the following most rurally comments: isolated families

1. The school leaving age is no longer 16 but is 18 (children have to remain in education or training until 18). 2. With the closure of Petroc College Tiverton to A Level students, there is NO provision for A levels in the Mid Devon area (we are in Cullompton). All the schools are to GCSE level only. 3. Therefore students wishing to do A levels have no choice but to travel 4. It is fundamentally not fair that students in the Mid Devon area have to pay for their schooling (by way of transport costs) when children in Exeter can walk, cycle or pay less for a travel pass. 5. Yet again students in a rural area with no provision for Post 16 education in their area (A Levels), through no fault of their own are having to bear the burden.

Rachael H I am in receipt of your letter dated 8 April 2016 and note that it invites me to share my views.  Lack of statutory entitlement to I feel it is extremely unfair cutting services for post 16 students when it is a stipulation made by the transport for post- government for students to remain in further education until the age of 18. It is extremely daunting for 16 students in line any child going on to further education let alone a child with learning difficulties and for them to have with RPA Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

the added pressure of arranging their own transport is just awful. Education for my son has been a  Specialised huge struggle and one that he has not been very fond of and if he has to arrange travel himself I know provision for for a fact he will be purposely dragging his feet and will be late on every occasion. He does not have students with much concept of time and I can already foresee that whatever further education he chooses will be SEND very short lived.

I am a working single parent and I just simply would not have the time to escort my son to his college placement. My son is currently awaiting travel training, however due to his visual impairment he does struggle with spacial awareness and dim lighting and I really do not know how he would manage on public transport.

It makes me very sad that every single cut which seems to be made to County funding always seems to have an impact on those more needy who desperately need the extra support to be in place for them. K G Parents are expected to send their children to college post schooling. However in rural areas such as  Impact on the

Page 29 Page Lynton (20 miles to Petroc and a one hour journey time) at a cost of £3.20 on public transport return most rurally every day we are definitely penalised for living where we are. isolated families  Lack of statutory Colleges are not ‘round the corner’, as they are in larger conurbations. Why is it that free transport is entitlement to provided for ages up to 16, but when you are over 16 you are discriminated against because of your transport for post- age? Who knows. 16 students in line with RPA More cuts are forced on local authorities by central government as government misspend their income and fail to balance their books. Local authorities are soft targets as they cannot fight back. A bit of bullying going on.

Dawn Thank you for the letter regarding charges for transport to school for my son, who travels now to school  Impact on the for which we as his parents pay for now, he is a year 10 student. It is a lot of money for which we have most rurally to find to pay for my sons /travel/education. Obviously we want the best for him and he does not go to isolated families his 1st feeder school.

I agree on paying for so much but I do feel that there should be some kind of contribution that should be made via the school/education/council and that seems to be less and less each year.

There is an ever increasing cost to putting your child through school at the moment and i suppose this Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

is going to increasing each year, from books, uniform, trips and travel etc......

We live in a rural location, I do not live near a bus stop and find it really difficult at the moment to get him to the nearest bus stop on time, because the bus timetable is clear but the buses do not run everyday the same time by 10/15 minutes difference some days. Then if the bus is early then he misses the bus and I have to take him to school which is an inconvenience because I have work and get another child to get to school.

I already pay for his travel, I would be not be happy to have to pay more for his travel than I do. I have always had to pay and never get anything for free. I think there is a lot of people out there that play the system and get a lot help when they don’t need it and could do more for there own children but chose not too and think that society should pay. Maggie S I am writing in response to the recent letter regarding proposed changes to Post 16 transport  Providing evidence of need

Page 30 Page Please could you advise what evidence you require to confirm that there are no alternative options to transport my children to school ? We live rurally (EX6 7QX) with no access to a bus service. My working hours necessitate that I am in work by 8.30am This means that I would be unable to give my children a lift (in the opposite direction) to school. Equally my husband needs to be on site for work at 8.30am

The bus would (I presume) still be coming to Higher Ashton for our younger son (currently year 7) so it would seem ludicrous if his bus is continued (which I sincerely hope it will be) for my 2 older children not to be allowed on the same bus (which is not full to capacity anyway. Please can you provide some specific reassurance about our particular bus service and whether our elder two children (currently year 10 and year 12) will be able to continue getting a lift on that bus (albeit with a substantial cost to ourselves)?

Katie H Hi there as a parent currently with son in 6th form we couldn't afford bus so Tom cycled every day and I  Impact on low drove him when able .... income families I think it's herendous we have to pay so much my daughter will be in the same boat it's cheaper for me to drive than pay herendous bus fayre middle man struggled we both work long hours and it's hard to get pennies to cover it all terrible costs thanks Mrs S I find it shocking & upsetting to learn of the proposal to withdraw financial support to post-16 students  Lack of statutory at the very time it is compulsory for them to remain in education. It would be a real hit to the majority of entitlement to Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

families such as ours who's income is not low enough to get help but not high enough to cover all our transport for post- needs as it is & is no where near high enough to cover this sort of cost for our two teenagers. As it 16 students in line would mean, on your suggestion, that one year we would have travel costs of £1120. It is just beyond with RPA us to afford this. As I am not clear if we would qualify for help through the college Bursary scheme. So the thought fills me with deep concern & dread. My husband takes the car early to work & I work mainly nights to make ends meet & share the car, so to transport them ourselves would be impossible. Please consider these points before you act. Lee E My daughter attends Okehampton College and is currently in Year 10. We received the consultation  Access to letter via the school yesterday. I have one simple question as I am confused as to what this means for contract vehicles my daughter and her 6th form choice.

She lives outside Lydford and currently gets a school bus. She has to travel into the village to get it and it is free. Will she still be able to pay for a seat on that bus post-16 or has that option been removed and will we therefore have to transport her the 8 miles to college every day ourselves? Page 31 Page Ruth B Dear Sirs, thank you for your letter, received through my daughters' school yesterday about the  Providing proposed cuts to the post-16 transport costs for 2017-18. evidence of need  Lack of statutory I am only too aware of the cuts needed in local government spending at the moment, however, these entitlement to particular cuts do concern me. transport for post- 16 students in line I cannot see how these particular measures will be administered or measured. You state that you will with RPA support where there are no other transport options available, but how will you work that out? Such a  Operation of the high proportion of Devon students live in very rural areas without public bus services, so will you Bursary scheme always expect the parents to take the children in? Would there be an assumption that they would have  Impact on the to find a lift somehow? How will you take into account parental working patterns or car availability? How most rurally can we demonstrate 'evidence of no alternative options' I can see this being an administrative isolated families nightmare!

Post-16 is no longer optional, so it is just as important for these students to be able to reach their place of study as it is for earlier years.

It is also important that this vital study time is used well. I am only too aware of how quickly these 2 years go by, & how much time the students should be giving to studying, without the stress of having to Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

arrange lifts every night!

Not all schools have bursary schemes & it is unfair to put the onus back on them to enable disadvantaged young people to study when their own budgets are so tight.

I have been happy to pay a contribution to my sons transport costs (he is in post-16 study at the moment. But all out removal of transport is short-sighted. Our school bus has all our village secondary age children on it & there is room for post-16s as well. It will be uneconomical (for everyone involved, especially you, not to mention un-environmentally friendly) to have a bus with spaces leaving at the same time as lots of cars all going to the same destination. This will also have quite an impact on congestion around schools & colleges with everyone making their own way in - an issue that I am sure many other County departments will be concerned about.

I can see that there would be an economic case for these cuts within an urban authority where public

Page 32 Page transport can fulfil the needs of post-16 students but you are talking about vast amounts of rural pupils who you will either end up helping anyway (if you can't get the measurements of need clear) or it will have a big financial & environmental impact. These are poorly thought-through proposals & I would urge you to look at the wider implications again, not to mention the real cost of these proposals versus any cost savings you may make short-term.

Mr & Mrs C Today I have received a letter informing me of the proposed changes to transport 2017-2018 academic  Lack of statutory year. entitlement to My daughter is currently in year 10 and intends to continue with further education. If this transport isn't transport for post- available this may alter her plans. 16 students in line As students now have to stay in education of some sort, without earning on an apprenticeship scheme, with RPA she would have no way of paying for this transport and we couldn't afford to pay for it. With this in mind, this would be effectively forcing her into a corner and onto an apprenticeship so she has enough funds available not only for extra books etc but for transport as well. I appreciate that there has to be savings made, but taking this from our young students, our future workers, is not either fair or right and when I hear that the council will match funds raised for a bronze otter in Bideford, as well as other ridiculous matters where money doesn't need to be spent, it certainly beggars belief. I certainly hope that this will be reconsidered or an agreement can be made to secure futures for our youngsters. Sarah S Thank you for the letter you sent regarding changes to your Post 16 Transport Policy.  Impact on the Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

I would like to provide my feedback on the subject, and request you reconsider. most rurally isolated families I feel that the new policy will adversely affect children living in rural areas since the public transport available is sketchy at best, and non-existence at worse. I support County Council making sensible cuts but to penalise parents and children living within very rural areas seems a mistake.

Could you perhaps ask Post16 students for a contribution to transport costs on transport provided by the Colleges?

I do hope you will reconsider this change. Karen S I am writing in response to a letter that came home from Chulmleigh Community College. My daughter  Lack of statutory will be taking her GCSE’s in the summer of 2017, it is my understanding that the law on leaving school entitlement to has changed and she will need to stay in education until she is 18 (and to continue to study English transport for post- and Maths should she not pass them at school). As there is no provision for this at Chulmleigh, she will 16 students in line need to go elsewhere, the nearest provision is Barnstaple which is 16 miles away. My older children, with RPA

Page 33 Page who did not have to continue in education, travelled to college on a subsidised pass which we paid £500 for this which I considered fair, as we were able to afford this. However I do not consider it is fair that families with children living in rural areas should be expected to provide transport and have no alternative except to pay £560 if they have no other means of transport. If these children have to stay in education why not give them a suitably subsidised transport pass (after all pensioners get free transport) they would then be able to use it, if they wanted or needed to, to get to areas where they could work at weekends to subsidise their education – this would make good sense giving them the opportunity to get work experience too. Mrs K C I am writing with concern about the transport proposal for 2017-2018.  Lack of statutory entitlement to The new government rules are that children up to the age of 18 have to be in either full-time education, transport for post- on an apprenticeship or in full time employment. This changed from the age of 16. Therefore I cannot 16 students in line understand why transport support is not offered to children, in whichever situation, up to the age of 18 with RPA or 20 if in full time education.  Choice of course location This would help children, parents and carers, as £560 a year for a term time only bus pass, to be used  Operation of the at restricted times, days and places is a substantial amount to afford. Bursary scheme

For a child to have to depend on an adult to get them to their place of education, apprenticeship or place of work is not helping a child become an independent adult. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Not being able to afford public transport is not encouraging children to attend further education, an apprenticeship or a place of work. An apprencticeship wage and minimum wage are not enough to afford public transport costs at £560 per academic year and then to have to find more funds to pay for non-term time transport.

I would propose that a weekly bus pass, wherever the child lives (discrimination towards a childs address should not be allowed as in the vast majority of cases, it is not the childs choice as to where they live), should be priced at no more than £10 a week for unlimited travel, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. This will help all children to get to their required destination(s) at all times and help them get to other required places of education during term time when required and places of work during holiday times.

£10, I feel after research, is an affordable amount to pay for transport for children of all financial backgrounds and in all financial situations. If a child is required to work to pay for their transport, £10 a

Page 34 Page week is an affordable amount to pay out of a low wage. I say a low wage as this is what a child of 16 - 19 receives.

For example, children living in Exeter may only be able to study their chosen subject in Plymouth. Charging unaffordable transport fees and/or restricted times will have a great impact on whether a child continues with education or not.

A child wishing to study aircraft engineering at Flybe at Exeter Airport, living in Stoke Canon at present has to pay £621 a year for transport costs and this is term time only. The journey also takes an hour on public transport when the actual time to get to the airport is only 20 minutes. This all adds to the discouragement of children applying for further education.

Discouragement to enjoy further education should be avoided at all costs.

Encouraging children to get to their required destination, to be free and able to get out and about at all times is a great need in this country. It is fact that children spend far too long in their homes on pointless technology products from games consoles to social media sites on their mobile phones.

Children from all levels of financial backgrounds should have the same choices and this should not be means tested. This is not a fair way of deciding whether a child should have financial support towards their transport requirements.

Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

For example;

1. A child living with one parent on benefit support will be entitled to transport support, even if the parent whom they do not live with is on a very substantial wage, however this child's friend who has both parents living at home, on an income that is low and extremely lower than the parent of his friend, will not qualify for transport support as the total income may just be £1 over the qualifying criteria.

2. Using the same situations as above; the child with the one wealthy parent may not have access to transport at home but the child with parents on a joint low income may have one car and be expected to drive their child to their chosen place of education even if this does not tie in with the parents times of work. This will cause even more financial hardship for the parents on a joint low income.

3. A child with wealthy parents will not be entitled to transport support, however the parents may not help the child financially at all. Just because parents are wealthy we should not assume that they give

Page 35 Page their child financial support. This will leave the child in a situation that could possibly discourage them from further education.

All children should be treated as equals and not according to the financial situation of their parents, this is highly discriminating not to mention unfair and in many cases embarrassing, for the child with poorer parents receiving support (colleagues know the parents are poor if you are receiving support and can be a little nasty) for child with parents in the middle who cannot afford to help their child with transport (therefore the child has to explain to colleagues that they have to choose a different direction in life because their parents cannot afford otherwise) and for the child with rich parents who won’t help with transport costs and has to explain to colleagues that their parents won’t help them.

The above examples are real life.

Help children have equal opportunities by making them equal.

Stuart & Carolyn A In response, can you please raise the following questions and hopefully give me some answers:  Lack of statutory entitlement to My son is considering Post 16 education at Okehampton College where he is currently a student in transport for post- Year 10. At present he catches the bus in the village of Northlew (Oke 14). 16 students in line with RPA Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

When in Post 16 education (Sept '17), will he be able to use this service and at what cost? Currently  Impact on volume Post 16 students are able to use this service. There is no public service bus that runs from the village of traffic of Northlew.

Other public transport services (the nearest being at Castle Cross) will not be appropriate because they run at the wrong times for him to travel to and return from college.

As it is now compulsory for students to remain in education until 18 years old, why does the onus fall on the parents/carer to pay for transportation?

Do you realise how much extra traffic this will cause on the roads with this proposed policy? Many people, ourselves included, are inclined to drive our son to/from college to save the costs and being in a rural area like Devon it is not easy to share/combine travel. This proposed policy will increase pollution, traffic and totally ignores carbon free policies. Page 36 Page At times of drop off/collection times at Okehampton College this policy will increase the volume of traffic in an area where there is already major congestion.

Kate W and Nick D I am writing in regard to the proposed alterations to post 16 school transport from September 2017.  Operation of the Bursary scheme We live in Drewsteignton and our children travel to Okehampton College on two buses: a mini bus travels from the village centre to a pick up point to meet with the large bus that transports them on to College. We are very happy with the way this works and hope the arrangements will continue.

Our elder daughter is currently in year 10 and hopes to continue to Okehampton College sixth form in September 2017.

We are concerned at the proposals which may mean the financial contribution from parents for school transportation rises to £560 per annum as this is far beyond our means as a low income household.

Unfortunately, we do not have the capacity to take our daughter to school ourselves as our work takes us in other directions.

There is no public transport option from the village to Okehampton College, so we are very reliant on her being able to continue to take the College bus as she does at the moment. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

We would be grateful if Devon County Council could take our concerns into consideration when considering the proposed steep rise in parental contributions. We are happy to pay something towards costs but £560 is prohibitive.

Our children are very happy at Okehampton College and we very much hope they will be able to continue to attend post 16

Nicola K Forgive my late reply have only just been handed letter from the bottom of my daughters bag.  Lack of statutory I am very distressed to hear these latest plans, i am disabled and my husband is working long hours entitlement to just to keep our heads above water, as it were! transport for post- We are currently paying £50 a month for our son to use school bus, (he's post 16) which is crippling us 16 students in line but the only way we can manage to get him to school, unless he cycles which is ridiculous if you had with RPA ever felt the weight of his bag!  Specialised I think transport should be provided for free when its compulsory for them to stay in education until they provision for

Page 37 Page are 18, yet it seems to made difficult at every step of the way and now you'll be removing it altogether! students with We live in a rural village where buses are very few and far between, i just don't know how we'll manage SEND without it. Life is very hard being disabled and i don't want my daughter to suffer because of it too.  Impact on the most rurally isolated families

Jane B This seems to be a way of trying to recoup the debt that the school has got itself into.  Policies of Bideford College The buses are already funded & running, there are spaces on the buses. This is a way of asking the 6th form students to subsidize the bus service.

I think Bideford College will be discouraging its students to continue until the 6th form. Neil P I am raising my concerns over the proposed changes for the school transportation for 2017-18.  Lack of statutory I understand the financial constraints on the council and why some cuts have to be made but the entitlement to government are stating children are to stay in full time education until they are 18 years of age so transport for post- surely the government / council should provide transport while the children are at secondary school. 16 students in line It can be difficult to provide for children when they go to college as a lot of children go to colleges that with RPA aren’t as close as their local school so I think a contribution to their transport by parents as I do for my  Impact on volume daughter is warranted. of traffic Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

The other concerns are around congestion and pollution surely by asking people to take their children to school even with car share will lead to higher congestion on our roads and even greater pollution which for all our sakes is something we should try to avoid. Louise M I have been prompted to write concerning the impending changes to school transport in Sept 2017. My  Impact on the son at Okehampton college will be affected by this as he goes into year 12 on this date. We live in a most rurally rural area near Chagford and although there is a bus stop with local buses running to Okehampton they isolated families are not at times that would get him to school in the morning or indeed bring him home at the end of the  Continuity for school day. I am a single working mother and although I have a car would not be able to transport him students already to and from Okehampton on a daily basis. receiving support As he catches a school bus to and from Chagford at the moment with other post 16 students, I cannot see why this facility cannot continue as we do not require a specific post 16 bus and there are spaces on the normal Okehampton college school bus. Tom W I have received the recent communication on changes to post 16 transport. I am a bit unsure on some  Continuity for aspects and would appreciate some clarification. students already

Page 38 Page receiving support My son attends Colyton Grammar and we pay a private contract bus company for his transport. I am unclear whether the price we pay is subsidised at all by DCC and could therefore increase substantially when he moves into year 12 and beyond which would present a significant difficulty for us. Could you help please?

Dr R B We are in receipt of your letter detailing possible changes to the transport arrangements for 16 +  Impact on volume students. of traffic Your letter is very ambiguous and the details sketchy at best. It is difficult to form an opinion or ask  Impact on the questions about such a letter. This is the minimum that I feel as parents we need to know. most rurally isolated families Are you planning the following changes;

To cease transport for all 16 + students?

Or, maintain transport, but only with an increased contribution of £560

Maintain transport for those that live greater than 3 miles distant, but with an increased contribution

Maintain transport for those with Special educational needs Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

It is very difficult to have a view on this proposal, when we are unsure as to what Devon Transport is actually proposing. For a rural county I would suggest the Environmental impact of removing post 16 transport on our county will be substantial. Those parents with younger children on school transport will be forced on to the roads in order to deliver older children to the same school (in the case of QE). Again, where there is no rural public transport, parents will need to make arrangements to transport their children. This is another example of how the rural community is being hit with costs that those that live in cities will avoid.

I would suggest that an environmental impact assessment would show a greater cost to the council and the county than is presently incurred, e.g. road damage, pollution, congestion and public health. I would suggest that removing post 16 transport is ill conceived at best and with potential to cost Devon (its tax payers) Millions of pounds in repairs and increased pollution levels and public health issues.

Phil S Thank you for inviting responses to your letter of 8th April 2016 regarding Post-16 Transport Policy for  Lack of statutory 2017-18. As you must be aware, after the Government’s decision to, in effect, make education entitlement to

Page 39 Page compulsory for 17-18 year olds, the response in Mid Devon was to remove opportunities to study A- transport for post- levels by ending such at Petroc Tiverton – a move that was only realised by many parents such as 16 students in line ourselves by reading it in the Press. with RPA  Choice of course Faced with the prospect of their children having to travel to Exeter to study A-level maths, for example, location parents are now being told it is likely there will be no assistance with transport. Please rethink this  Assessing need approach. Surely after removing A-level facilities from the largest town in Mid Devon and, more importantly, from the students present & future who live there, more help with transport will be required, not less? It seems very unfair that families who live in Mid Devon have services removed & then have extra costs to face on top.

We feel we must comment on some of the ‘solutions’ your letter mentions which are, frankly, not reasonable. For example, you say the responsibility falls to the ‘students and their families where a family vehicle or one available through friends could be used’. What in practice will this mean? Who makes the decision on whether one is ‘available’? E.g. We have a vehicle but my wife doesn’t drive & I would be at work nowhere near Exeter. True, we have friends who own vehicles but what authority are we expected to have over these vehicles and who will be expected to be the driver? Who will be assessing the situation? Is it fair to view two round trips totalling 80 miles per day as a ‘school-run’? This requirement needs adjustment as it is unrealistic. If it is reported that a vehicle is not available then the students/parents word on the matter should be accepted. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

We realise Councils face many pressures from so many different angles but do hope you will reflect on the proposed changes & see how these young people who seem to be having more & more expected of them, yet more and more taken from them, can be better served. Eric D I recently received a letter regarding proposals for revised travel arrangements. It is unfortunate that  Lack of statutory these proposals coincide with the raising of the school leaving age to 18. entitlement to transport for post- Devon is a rural county with poor public transport. The bus service in our village is virtually non-existent 16 students in line and those buses which stop here are not at suitable times for travelling to and from school. with RPA  Impact on the My children currently attend Uffculme School. In recent years they have tried to provide a sixth form, most rurally but DCC has been opposed to the idea. Currently the closest provider of post 16 education is Petroc in isolated families Tiverton. It is not possible to get from Kentisbeare to Tiverton by public transport.  Choice of course location

Page 40 Page Petroc has recently announced that it is to cease 'A' level provision. This means that anyone wishing to follow this educational route will now be forced to travel to Exeter or further.

Removal of council provided transport will give rise to an urban / rural divide that is deeply unfair to families living in rural locations.

Even where parents own a car and could theoretically take children to college, the reality is that this will often be incompatible with going to work. This may force families to choose between sending their child to the most suitable educational establishment or giving up work. This may then result in additional calls on local government budgets through council tax and housing benefit.

I would therefore urge you to reconsider this proposal. Andy H I have a daughter in year 10 at Colyton Grammar School who will fall foul of this change and I have to  Lack of statutory say that I am deeply concerned. entitlement to transport for post- My daughter currently catches a bus to school with students from all year groups (7 – 13). Schools 16 students in line such as Colyton have students from a wide area so buses are more of a necessity than a luxury and with RPA one that we already pay for. I am also aware that other government funding for well performing schools  Continuity for such as Colyton has already been cut and this has had a detrimental effect on the schools operation students already that is another area of significant concern for me. receiving support Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Firstly, can you please spell out in plain English precisely what this will mean for me and other pupils and parents. Can you please answer the following questions:

Will a bus service be available or will we be required to use public transport? If a bus is provided what will this mean in terms of additional costs? I cannot believe that this is going to cost any less than it currently does.

Secondly, as I understand it the law for children up to 18 years of age has changed and they are now required to remain in some form of fulltime education (or other qualifying course) until what is the end of year 13. Surely, if this has changed then the law in relation to what has to be provided for post 16 students should have been reviewed and amended to reflect this change. In other words, now there is a legal requirement for students to remain in fulltime education until aged 18 then it should be a statutory requirement for the local authority/government to provide transport as the statutory school age has effectively changed. This would mean that it is not a discretionary arrangement but a statutory one so would be required to be funded. Page 41 Page In general it just seems that we are still paying the same or more taxes for less services. I work in a public service organisation so fully understand the need to make “efficiencies” and do more with less but it is getting to a point where someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee as there is only so much that the public are prepared to stomach! Barry and Gabrielle K Our daughter is currently in Year 10 at King's School, Ottery, and we have received a letter about the  Lack of statutory proposed amendments to the post-16 transport policy for 2017-18. entitlement to We live in Tipton St John. The public bus timetable presently would be unsuitable for sixth formers transport for post- because it does not operate at the right times. The 1st public bus of the day gets into Ottery at 9.25am, 16 students in line and on the way home the only bus they could catch is at 16.50 from Ottery - an hour and a quarter after with RPA school finishes. If I am working, I would be unable to take my daughter to school. because it would  Access to LA severely limit my working hours. My husband is blind and unable to drive. contract vehicles Currently she goes on the school bus, which has plenty of spaces available for sixth formers. It would be ridiculous to have a school bus with spaces, and then insist that parents have to get their sixth formers to school. That would not be a sensible proposal, surely? If the statutory school age is going to change, then I believe that the free school transport should change to include sixth formers as well. Hannah Thank you for your letter issued to our son who is in Year 10.  Lack of statutory entitlement to This letter is well written and clearly explains the changes and the need to change due to lack of transport for post- Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

funding, however as a parent I would like to express my view on this matter. 16 students in line with RPA As it is compulsory for post 16 to not be NEET I find this letter upsetting for all parents who will not longer qualify for support.

My husband and I work 70 hours a week, pay a mortgage, all associated taxes, contributions, insurances, full council tax, prescriptions and receive no other allowances other than child benefit for one child as our eldest child, though still in full time education, has turned 18 and has a university place to commence in September, yet we are struggling financially. I cannot to bear to imagine how hard it must be for other families and I would hate to think that their children were to suffer because of transport costs. Surely it is basic right to support children to get to a building which can educate them.

The cost of child benefit we receive on a weekly basis, does not cover the cost of a weekly bus pass to get our son to college. If we had a college provision within 3 miles, we would get him to walk, but we

Page 42 Page don't so we need to use public transport. It seems criminal to watch the retired population get issued with a bus pass for free and listen to them on public transport announce that they like using the bus as it saves them car parking in town. The other day I was on the park and ride and when I got on the bus at 09.30am, I was the only person who paid for a ticket, as all other's showed their OAP passes. The irony with this journey was the bus became full and I offered my seat to an elderly person, so I was paying to stand!

If the government would like all our young people to stay in education I feel strongly that the cost of transport should be covered. I appreciate that due to a lack of funding this will not be available to all, but please support the most vulnerable children. Education is what will unlock the future of many of our young people, will provide us with a better society, teachers are amazing at supporting children to make the right choices allowing them to contribute to society and develop into well rounded individuals.

I would fully support that they council continues to support vulnerable children and families and that they 'enlighten' the government just how hard it is to support our children, when we are working as our salaries just tip the other side of receiving support. I always thought if I worked I'd be able a treat or two for my hard work, but alas this is not something that our family can afford. Liz M Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the post-16 Transport  Lack of statutory Policy for 2017-18. The requirement that young people stay in some form of learning or training should entitlement to have been accompanied by sufficient funding and transport provision. Given that this does not appear transport for post- Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

to be the case and given the financial pressure on local authorities, I can see why Devon might be 16 students in line reviewing their provision. However the proposals outlined cause concern for a number of reasons and with RPA raise a number of questions.  Choice of course First, if a public service bus runs from where we live, in Chagford, to Exeter but not to Okehampton, location would students be expected to attend an Exeter college rather than Okehampton College, regardless of  Impact on volume whether this would be in their best interests? Young people in rural areas have very limited choice of traffic already. And having embarked on their studies in Exeter, rather than the nearer Okehampton, what  Sufficiency of would happen if this service were cut at a future time? Bursary funds Secondly, depending on informal arrangements such as lifts with family/friends is an unreliable means  Impact on the of transporting children. What if the driver were ill or the vehicle became unavailable e.g. through most rurally breakdown? How many of us know if our friends’ vehicles are properly maintained or insured or isolated families whether another parent had a drink at lunchtime before collecting children? How would issues around safeguarding be resolved? And could the commitment to driving children to and from college be an obstacle to a parent being able to seek and maintain employment? Thirdly, from an environmental point of view, it makes little sense to encourage use of private vehicles.

Page 43 Page If there are spaces on school buses they should be filled. A financial contribution for this is, perhaps, not unreasonable from those who can afford it, although, given the requirement to stay in learning or training, there is logically no difference between older students and those pre-16 who currently do not pay. Are all school and college Bursary funds sufficient to meet the transport costs of all those in financial need? Who would make the decision as to whether a student qualifies for support? Fourthly, what evidence would a student have to provide that there are no alternative options? If a parent were not prepared to allow another parent to drive their child would they have a defence in law should their child fail to attend college? Finally, these proposals seem to impact disproportionately on those children in rural areas where there is little public transport and limited choice of post-16 education? Choices should be made on the basis of what is in the best interest of the young person rather than on what transport is available. I suspect that some rural areas of Devon already have below average progression to Third Level Education. This move is unlikely to help. I should be grateful if you would answer those questions you are able to and also pass on all of my concerns to Cabinet Members. K B further to a letter received via school regarding proposed changes to the transport policy -  Lack of statutory would it not be possible to divert funding from free bus passes for the over 60's - many of whom can entitlement to well afford and do not necessarily use bus passes, to those youngsters remaining in further education? transport for post- Of course the ideal solution would be for children to be able to attend their local secondary school (so 16 students in line they could walk or cycle) thus reducing the need for any transport costs at all and improving fitness! Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

with RPA

Mrs Sarah D I have received your letter of the 8th April 2016. My son will be starting Year 12 in September 2017  Lack of statutory having just turned 16 in the July. entitlement to transport for post- Considering the Government are making children stay in education now until they are 18 (unless they 16 students in line get an apprenticeship/traineeship) then I think it is unfair to make parents pay for the transport to take with RPA them to school and back. If the children are earning some money under an apprenticeship or working 20 hours a week in paid employment then they may have the means to pay to get to their place of work and back, which again depends on the apprenticeship/work they are able to get and how much they get paid, of course. I believe the following is the new rules to the education system, taken from the Page 44 Page government website today:-

You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays. You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:  stay in full-time education, eg at a college  start an apprenticeship or traineeship  work or volunteer (for 20 hours or more a week) while in part-time education or training

I have enough trouble getting my teenage son to school, which he doesn’t seem to enjoy very much at all and now the Government are asking children to stay in education until they are 18. I left school at the age of 15, not turning 16 until late July, I then went to college in the September until the following June using a moped bought for me by my mother, which I had to maintain myself by getting a Saturday job! I then started my first full time job in September 1984, at the age of 17 and left home 2 days before starting that job – my mother never had to keep me as I was able to support myself through work. Is the new ruling above an indication that there aren’t enough jobs for our 16 year olds who DON’T want to go into further education, but want to make their own way in the world of work???

Both my husband and I work full time, so not only are we going to have to keep our son in food, clothing, shoes and uniform etc until such time he is allowed to leave the new education system, (without any assistance from the State Welfare System), the Government are cutting budgets to Council’s such as yourselves with regards to transport, when in fact they should be increasing them to Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

cover the costs of the extra children now having to stay in education/apprenticeships under the new system!! It all seems a bit bonkers to me!!

My husband has to be at his place of work by 7.30am in Marsh Barton, Exeter and I have to be at work for 9am (sometimes earlier) in Cheriton Bishop, both of which are in the complete opposite direction to A’s school in Dawlish and/or Exeter College and if one of us did have to take him, our fuel costs would go up considerably along with the inconvenience to our time schedules. The alternative being public transport, paid for by us! A bit unfair as we didn’t get a say about the above new legislation!! I often work away from home for my job and travel all over the south of England, which means I am not always around to take Aaron anywhere. We are both tax payers, so no doubt as we are working, we wouldn’t get any help towards bus fare money we would also have to find on top of our normal outgoings just so that Aaron can go to school/college/apprenticeship/traineeship. What happens to children who DON’T want to go into any kind of further education but want to get a full time job – why is this not possible???

Page 45 Page If the Government wishes to keep children in the education system past the age of 16, again at the tax payers expense, then they should subsidise the transport to and from school/college so that each family subjected to this new system doesn’t have to find any more money out of already stretched incomes towards the cost of transport. Andrew B The proposed change in Devon transport arrangements will have a significant impact on students  Sufficiency of accessing post 16 education. The school bursary funds are insufficient to make up the current Bursary funds contribution that DCC makes towards Post 16 student transport costs. This significant shortfall will  Lack of statutory mean that many young people who currently are able to access school or college at subsidised rates entitlement to will no longer be able to do so, this will deter many from remaining in education and will force them into transport for post- low paid/low skill jobs with minimal training. It is disingenuous to suggest that all those who are 16 students in line currently supported by Devon will be able to be supported by school bursary funds in the future. with RPA

Now that the School leaving age has been raised to 18 it is unreasonable to rely on the justification of age 16 as the limit to the local authorities requirement to support post 16 transport.

Budget cuts should be made in areas where those affected will be more able to bare the financial impact. Richard G I write to express my view on the policy that the Council has in respect of children in year 12 and above  Lack of statutory having to pay for transport to school. I believe that this is an unfair policy because the Government entitlement to made it compulsory for children to go to full time education up to the age of 18 years and so in effect transport for post- Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

there is no option for children in rural areas to pay for some sort of transport. This would either be 16 students in line the payment direct to the County Council to be allowed on the School bus or through payment to a bus with RPA company for a public bus home. There is really no alternative to this when both parents work. This is essence means an introduction of a tax amounting to the level of the payment that is necessary to be made to get a child to and from school. From my own personal point of view it is preferable for my eldest son to use the school bus not only because it is more convenient it is also a safer means of getting to and from school not only for him but also for my younger two sons as it means that my eldest can see that they get to and from school. I appreciate that the Government has cut payments to the County Council and so there is less money available but taking money from parents in this way when they is really no valid alternative is really a cheap shot. The Council should be encouraging children to get education at a higher level not providing disincentives for children to go to school. There seems to be a climate developing where higher level education is no longer a right but something that has to be purchased. This is inherently wrong. This transport policy is ethically incorrect. It also makes little sense that my younger children can be on the same bus not making any payment sitting next to my eldest son

Page 46 Page who has to pay. If he were not there the bus would make the same journey and the seat would just be empty. Ian Y Having school transport for our daughter, to Okehampton college during her sixth form (2017-2019) is  Assessing need vitally important, as our son is at Exbourne primary school and therefore my wife would be unable to drop him off and our daughter at the same time. I am already at work. My daughters birthday is at the end of August and therefore she is unlikely to pass her driving test until mid 2019. This also applies to her contemporaries, that live in the village, in her school year. Elsa F I am a year 10 student at Okehampton College and I recently received your letter regarding the  Lack of statutory proposed amendments to the post-16 transport policy for 2017-18. As a regular user of my local school entitlement to bus, I have always intended to continue to use the service when I go onto sixth form, despite being put transport for post- off slightly by the fare, which I was aware of as my sister, a sixth former, already uses the bus. Imagine 16 students in line my dismay, then, when I discovered that the price had climbed still higher! with RPA However, I understand that the proposed changes are not as a result of a motivation for profit or simply  Assessing need to inconvenience passengers, but by pressure on the budget for transport. As you say in your letter, you just want to be “as efficient as possible” and that your policies have to be reviewed. From this I gather that these changes are only possibilities, so I am sure that you will be interested in my arguments and suggestions and take them into account in order to make the most “efficient” decision. You wrote in your letter that “local authorities must provide free transport to children who are of statutory school age” and I think that this is an excellent policy. Then again, it is “statutory” that all children up to the age of 18 stay in full time education or equivalent and therefore I believe that the service should extend to all children up to the age of 18. Obviously, I realise that this is not possible as Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

this is not government policy and it is not financially sustainable for the council, but surely it is not unreasonable to say that it is unfair that we have no choice but to stay in education (or equivalent) and yet have to pay a huge amount to get to school? Isn’t English education supposed to be free? Frankly, I think that your proposition that “where a student has other sources of support, the local authority will not assist” is a little ridiculous. How many people in this area of Devon have a regular public bus service that runs perfectly in time with school hours? Or a family member or friend who can be relied on to take them to and from school every single day, without fail? Of course the local authority is going to have to “support” the majority of students travelling to school each day! I believe that to suggest that the use of the bus will only be “in cases of last resort” is laughable as it suggests that only a few pupils will have to use it. To me, the financial contribution seems high, too, although I will not pretend to be an expert in economics. I presume that the bus service will run as usual for the younger pupils and therefore it is not going to make a difference to the size of the bus or the number of bus drivers required. Furthermore, with free periods giving them extra free time, sixth form students may not use the bus regularly, choosing on some days to make other arrangements to travel home earlier than the school

Page 47 Page bus. A more sensible solution, in my opinion, would be to give the option for the post-16 students to purchase a bus pass (costing maybe £5) which would allow them to travel on the school bus and pay a small fee (perhaps £1.50) per journey to travel on the bus when they need to. Surely, if every sixth former outside of walking distance to the school took this up, it would both cover costs and be proportional to the amount of times they use the bus? I hope that you take my views into account and that this has been helpful to you. Mr and Mrs W We do not agree with the proposal to remove free transport for post 16 students, as they are still in full  Lack of statutory time education and required to attend school. entitlement to Furthermore we believe this requirement should continue due to the distances some students must transport for post- travel to school due to the catchment areas they live in. 16 students in line It is vital to continue to provide this support to all school students to help fulfill their education with RPA  Impact on the most rurally isolated families

Mrs Rachel J We live in a rural area. My child currently attend Chulmleigh Community College, which unfortunately  Impact on the has no 6th Form facility. Therefore my daughter will be having to travel to either Exeter or Barnstaple (a most rurally journey time of over an hour each way) to study for her A Levels when she finishes year 11 in July next isolated families year. I have received a letter dated 8th April which starts that it is anticipated that we will need to pay £560 towards the transport for her to attend. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

Whilst I appreciate that transport is expensive and has to be paid for somehow, I have to say I feel this is an excessive amount of money for people to find, especially in view of the fact that students are expected to continue in education after year 11 and also, as is the case for my daughter, there is no alternative other than Exeter or Barnstaple. Dawn R I remember contacting the local authority when the Route 39 Free School was first mooted, expressing  Lack of statutory concern that within a few years, Devon would stop funding children's transport to attend their (nearest) entitlement to local school of preference. This has not yet happened but you are now proposing to remove school transport for post- transport from post-16 rural children in Devon. 16 students in line with RPA On the one hand, we have the Government saying young people need to be educationally engaged  Impact on volume until they are 18, but on the other, Devon County Council seems to be suggesting that austerity means of traffic children post-16 should not have any transport provision. This seems to be contradictory.  Route safety  Impact on the

Page 48 Page Yes, I have a car. Yes, if push comes to shove I can drive 52 miles a day to deliver my daughter to and most rurally from school. Yes, this will take a minimum of 2 hours out of my day, and yes, it is incompatible with me isolated families working. Yes, I suspect no one cares about that impact!

Luckily, I can afford the petrol, but many cannot.

We live 13 miles away from school in the rural hamlet of Tosberry, North Devon. Budehaven is my daughter's nearest school offering post 16 provision. While it is nearer, I do not believe that Route 39 will be in any position in a year's time to offer comparable post-16 education. Additionally, the Budehaven 6th form is deemed good by Ofsted, so it is tried and tested.

Meanwhile, public transport to and from Hartland (our nearest village) and Bude is at best unreliable. As you can see from this, there is not really any useful public transport for school hours: http://www.visitbude.info/bus-timetables/bude-going-north-bus-timetable/

Currently, the school bus collects my daughter for school. My belief is that if school buses are taking under-16s to school and there are spaces on the buses, then over-16s should be accommodated, as the parental 'contribution' of £560 towards transport is probably a useful extra income to maintain the said transport.

I appreciate the statutory guidance on the subject of school transport but believe Mr. Cox should be Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

looking to encourage the Government to amend this for post 16, now the leaving age has effectively been raised.

The guidance mentions sustainable transport. I'm not sure if anyone at Devon County Council has tried cycling from Tosberry to Bude along the A39, but I'd be happy follow you in my car to see how you get on if you fancy giving it a whirl. The road is quite dangerous and generally lacks pavements. In winter, in the dark, it would be treacherous. Walking 13 miles a day x 2 is not an option. It would take far too long and the same problems apply.

If my daughter has to rely on parental transport to and from school, it:

1. Diminishes her independence. 2. Means that if ever transport is unavailable she misses lessons. 3. Encourages under-achievement and low aspiration in what is one of the poorest areas of the country.

Page 49 Page 4. Means I will seriously consider leaving North Devon. 5. Adversely impacts upon my work in local tourism which brings money into this area. 6. Means more cars on the A39, as post 16 parents have to drive their children to and from school = less sustainable.

In short, this seems to be an unimaginative and deleterious solution. Frankly, I am surprised that Devon County Council is targeting young people in this way when there are surely other items of expenditure which might be more efficiently reduced. Mrs T.E May I point out that it is a statutory requirement that all children continue full-time further education until  Lack of statutory the age of 18 unless they have an apprenticeship or traineeship, or can work part-time for 20 hours or entitlement to more while in part-time education and training. Thus nearly all 16-18 year old's in Devon will HAVE to transport for post- attend either 6th form or College. For those schools in North Devon who do not have either a 6th form 16 students in line or limited 6th form options this will mean a necessary trip to PETROC college in Barnstaple. We are a with RPA remote rural community here in North Devon and places such as Ilfracombe score in the top 10% of  Impact on the deprivation under government indicators. Ilfracombe has the most deprived ward in Devon. How you most rurally expect families to pay the full cost of transport when they have no option but to send their children to isolated families college is beyond me. As I say is is a statutory requirement. Rurality is a given here in North Devon and is beyond anyone's means to alter. To put the cost onto schools in areas where that demand would be high, like Ilfracombe is an unacceptable pressure and will disadvantage those schools and pupils. This measure is discriminatory and does not set out the conditions which a family would have Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

to meet to qualify for help from the local authority. Also the letter was given to the children rather than sent direct which means many parents will never see it. What is additional need also? The letter was written in confusing and complex language making it difficult to interpret. I refer to paragraph 3. Disgraceful way to bambozzle parents and make sure responses are low. You are slipping this cut to vital services in without proper widespread consultation and I suggest you put it to schools to make sure more parents know about these changes Lilian D I have a 15 year old foster child at Bidwell Brook School who travels on school transport from our home  Specialised in Newton Abbot. I am writing to express my concerns at the proposal to stop transport for over 16 ,she provision for is going to require transport as Bidwell is the only school suitable for her needs. Tina is non verbal and students with has severe learning difficulties and would be unable to travel on public transport. SEND

Lara B After reading the proposed changes to your transport policy I was very shocked to see that some  Specialised students will not be eligible for transport to and from college from 2017. provision for Our daughter is currently in year 10 at Southbrook College. She has Autism, learning disability and students with Page 50 Page ADHD. She has challenging behaviour and has a staff ratio of 2-1 when she is off site. We hope that SEND next year she will attend a specialist sixth form somewhere in our area. There is NO WAY she would be able to attend sixth form without council transport. The nature of our daughter's additional need /learning disability means that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for her to use public transport and my husband and I would not be able to do the journeys without giving up work. I would be happy to make the £560 contribution (or even slightly more) but I could not contemplate our daughter not having access to transport. Jane W It is with the greatest concern that I write to you regarding the proposed changes for 16/17.  Specialised provision for I must offer some incite into my son J’s situation. His needs are complex because although looking students with able bodied, he suffers from a moderate learning disability and Asperger’s Syndrome. First impressions SEND are that he is bright and clever because he talks non stop about history and Monarchy, with his party trick being when asked any year from the last 600 years, he will tell you the King or Queen and when they reigned and how long for.

However, he cannot think for himself. Not only needing help with all aspects of self care and needing routines and forward planning, even what to wear in precise detail, insisting on a particular shirt on a certain day of the week, which if not laundered and ready to wear causes a major meltdown.

These things may not seem relevant to venturing outside, but not being able to plan journeys, problem solve, keep himself safe IS! Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

J can say what time it is but his time concept is lacking, if something is imminent but not straight away he is time checking constantly then fretting it should be now, why is it not happening, he gets into a panic. He has a selective memory, if it is not history related he doesn’t retain it. He cannot remember how to turn on his mobile phone, even after countless demonstrations. If someone turns it on for him he cannot hear what the other person is saying.

J is sound sensitive, he hates motorbikes, lorries, buses. When walking the dogs near Dawlish train line if a train goes by he almost ‘hits the deck’, certainly crouches with his head in his hands and freezes which attracts strange looks from passers by. But we get lots of people staring at him when he gets anxious and cries out as a young child might do because he effectively IS a young child in a mans body.

J is seriously afflicted by O.C.D currently, with an irrational fear of toilet germs which results in him being able to use only one toilet in particular at home. He will not use any public toilet or go whilst at

Page 51 Page College – South Devon, Paignton. The distances involved in getting to and from College from Dawlish means a very long time to not relieve himself. He refuses to drink more than just a few sips during a College day which is not healthy and could be impacting on his concentration, because he is not keeping himself hydrated.

He has mentioned regularly of almost soiling himself in the Taxi home and in fact on many occasions doesn’t wet himself just after getting through the door but not being able to undo his trousers in time whilst getting to the bathroom.

Your proposal of home journeys not commencing until 4.30pm which would presumably mean mixing in with the rush hour traffic, therefore significantly extending what is already a long journey, will mean the increase in the likelihood that J will indeed wet himself in the Taxi. He would no doubt be so humiliated and mortified and this will impact on his self esteem. Not to mention we would have a very annoyed Taxi firm facing a costly and smelly clean up operation.

The changes as proposed, given the very complex needs as I have outlined, will have a negative and detrimental effect on J’s wellbeing and his limited sense of security. The actual lengthening of his time out of his home, which he currently finds a distress will only serve to compound his anxieties.

I am the sole carer for J and for his twin brother who is also on the Autistic Spectrum. I do not have any extended family or friends and no outside assistance and as yet haven’t been able to split myself in Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

two. So I was greatly offended to read the line “Parents need to get other children to and from school” not exceptional. I know of many ladies who have wide age ranges between their children. In this day and age who is deeming it reasonable to expect an extremely young child to travel alone or even an older offspring who may have developmental delays, to cope alone?

Shocking and Shameful in equal measures.

I would just add that the short notice of this consultation period, being notified on Good Friday right as children start the holiday, has placed an extra burden of anxiety on my family with the pressure to write within the time frame and not having access to the internet. I am convinced many other families affected by this will not have had time or energy to respond. Surely carers should be being supported and not worried out of their minds or is it a trend started by the Government.

Shanti S My son recently came home with a letter informing me of the consultation and proposed changes to  Impact on the

Page 52 Page school transport Post 16. I feel strongly that the current transport support is essential in rural areas. most rurally My children are currently taken to/from school by a DCC provided taxi because of our rural location, no isolated families school or public bus serves the area. When my son starts his Post 16 study, which is compulsory for  Lack of statutory him, transport to school will be critical to him being able to attend. We do not live on a public bus entitlement to route, and it is over a 3 mile journey to get him to a public bus route that runs frequently enough to get transport for post- him to/from college. I am not in a position commit to drive him as 9 out of the last 18 months I have 16 students in line been without a driving license on medical grounds. If school transport is not provided then our only with RPA option would be to have a private taxi pick him up which is unaffordable. Study at a Post 16 level requires hard work and commitment from the student, and it is only fair that this is not disrupted by poor and uncertain transport to and from their place of study. We do not qualify for benefits. Please can you confirm that DCC will still provide transport for my son Post 16 otherwise I don’t know how he will continue to attend college.

I feel free school transport for all students up until statutory school leaving age, is important to ensure equality for all. The removal of transport to Post 16 year olds effectively means that families living in rural areas are being penalised. Government Policy dictates that we now have to send our children to school/education until 18. I understand there is currently no legislation for local councils to provide transport for free, and really value the provision that Devon has offered to date. If DCC remove this service it effectively means rural families with post 16 year old children will have to pay even more to send their children to school, this is wrong. Responses to the Consultation on the Proposed Post-16 Transport Policy for 2017-18

I was made aware of this consultation because one of my children is currently in year 10, I feel that the consultation should be publicised much more widely, preferably to all families whose children currently receive free transport to school (ie Yr 7 and upwards). The proposal that parents will be required to pay for their childs post 16 school transport is very significant to rural families, and all families who will be effected by it should be made aware and offered the opportunity to give you their views and opinions.

I urge DCC to continue to exercise discretion and to provide free transport support for its Post 16 students from 2017/2018 and onwards. Page 53 Page

16-19 Allocations for the 2015 to 2016 Academic Year

High Needs Element High Needs Students 2 Funding (Includes (included in Total Disadvantage Elements 1 & 2 at Discretionary Bursary Institution Name Category Total Students Students) Funding Special Schools) Funding Free Meals Funding Atrium Studio School Studio School 24 0 £ 6,000.00 £ - £ 2,575.00 £ - Bideford College School Sixth Form 229 1 £ 35,409.00 £ 6,000.00 £ 28,252.00 £ - Bidwell Brook School Maintained Special School 24 24 £ - £ 240,000.00 £ 2,575.00 £ - Clyst Vale Community College Academy 172 0 £ 26,278.00 £ - £ 13,706.00 £ - Colyton Grammar School Academy 224 1 £ 6,000.00 £ 6,000.00 £ 13,350.00 £ - Coombeshead Academy Academy 190 0 £ 47,614.00 £ - £ 21,408.00 £ - Dame Hannah Rogers School Non-Maintained Special School 6 6 £ - £ 60,000.00 £ 644.00 £ - Dartmouth Academy Academy 42 0 £ 21,434.00 £ - £ 4,506.00 £ - Devon County Council Local Authority 17 7 £ 10,758.00 £ 42,000.00 £ 1,259.00 £ - Ellen Tinkham School Maintained Special School 34 34 £ - £ 340,000.00 £ 3,648.00 £ - Exeter College General FE and Tertiary 5,334 85 £ 1,571,268.00 £ 510,000.00 £ 656,963.00 £ 97,963.00 Exeter Mathematics School Free School 94 0 £ 12,591.00 £ - £ 10,084.00 £ - Exeter Royal Academy for Deaf EducationSpecial - ISPPost-16 Institution (SPI) 23 23 £ 30,003.00 £ 138,000.00 £ 2,467.00 £ 823.00 Exeter Royal Academy for Deaf EducationNon-Maintained - NMSS Special School 27 27 £ - £ 270,000.00 £ 2,897.00 £ - Exmouth Community College Academy 460 0 £ 78,467.00 £ - £ 52,707.00 £ - Page 55 Page Honiton Community College Academy 133 1 £ 30,572.00 £ 6,000.00 £ 13,785.00 £ - Ivybridge Community College Academy 619 0 £ 87,077.00 £ - £ 42,537.00 £ - King Edward VI Community College School Sixth Form 292 2 £ 42,241.00 £ 12,000.00 £ 32,727.00 £ - Kingsbridge Academy Academy 341 0 £ 24,569.00 £ - £ 35,983.00 £ - Mill Water School Maintained Special School 6 6 £ - £ 60,000.00 £ 644.00 £ - Newton Abbot College Academy 225 0 £ 128,081.00 £ - £ 35,195.00 £ - Oaklands Park School Maintained Special School 7 7 £ - £ 70,000.00 £ 751.00 £ - Okehampton College School Sixth Form 177 0 £ 13,676.00 £ - £ 20,914.00 £ - Pathfield School Maintained Special School 29 29 £ - £ 290,000.00 £ 3,111.00 £ - Petroc General FE and Tertiary 3,232 139 £ 1,446,337.00 £ 834,000.00 £ 433,765.00 £ 86,196.00 Phoenix Learning and Care Limited Special Post-16 Institution (SPI) 55 55 £ 66,007.00 £ 330,000.00 £ 5,900.00 £ 6,736.00 Queen Elizabeth's Academy 243 0 £ 17,819.00 £ - £ 23,426.00 £ - Robert Owen Communities Special Post-16 Institution (SPI) 3 3 £ 6,000.00 £ 18,000.00 £ 500.00 £ - Sidmouth College School Sixth Form 139 2 £ 20,995.00 £ 12,000.00 £ 15,732.00 £ - South Dartmoor Community CollegeAcademy 274 3 £ 35,946.00 £ 18,000.00 £ 32,767.00 £ - South Devon UTC University Technology College 30 0 £ 6,000.00 £ - £ 3,218.00 £ - Tavistock College School Sixth Form 326 2 £ 40,356.00 £ 12,000.00 £ 27,027.00 £ - Teign School Academy 205 1 £ 26,006.00 £ 6,000.00 £ 18,180.00 £ - Teignmouth Community School, ExeterAcademy Road 196 0 £ 49,959.00 £ - £ 27,282.00 £ - The Axe Valley Community College School Sixth Form 110 0 £ 9,639.00 £ - £ 13,748.00 £ - The Ilfracombe Church of England AcademyAcademy 179 0 £ 63,996.00 £ - £ 30,106.00 £ - The King's School Academy 232 0 £ 6,000.00 £ - £ 14,664.00 £ - Wesc Foundation College Special Post-16 Institution (SPI) 44 38 £ 52,806.00 £ 228,000.00 £ 4,720.00 £ 1,465.00 Wesc Foundation School Non-Maintained Special School 14 14 £ - £ 140,000.00 £ 1,502.00 £ -

Impact Assessment Version 2016 Assessment of: Changes to Post-16 Education Transport Policy 2017-18

Service: Education and Learning

Head of Service: Sue Clarke

Date of sign off by Head Of Service/version: xx June 2016

Assessment carried out by (incl. job title): Andrew Brent, Policy and Strategy Officer (Education) Page 57 Page Section 1 - Background

Description: This is an assessment of the impact of the proposed changes to the Post-16 Education Transport Policy for the 2017-18 academic year.

Reason for change and The proposed changes involve a shift in emphasis from the LA being a first option for assistance with transport options appraisal: for post-16 students to the LA being a safety net to ensure that no Devon-resident post-16 student is unable to continue in education because the absence of transport is an unsurmountable barrier. Under an amended policy, students would be expected to have made their own arrangements and if that is not possible they would be required to provide evidence that without support from the LA, he or she would be unable to continue in Further Education. Where that need is established, it would be met by the LA.

In reviewing the policy for the 2017-18 academic year, the LA proposed two changes:

 Increasing the contribution towards LA costs to be paid by students to £580 per annum;  For all new applications, requiring evidence from the student or his or her parent that assistance from the LA is required in order for the student to be able to continue in Further education.

1 The proposed changes would have no impact on the statutory requirement on the LA to support Learners with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (LLDD).

Under the proposed policy, students would get to and from school or college either by public transport or other private arrangements (such as walking, cycling or using a private vehicle). This would be paid for by the student or parent, supported where available by funds from the college Bursary scheme.

Where that is not possible, they would be able to use a vacant seat on a LA-contracted vehicle. This would require a contribution towards LA costs, paid for by the student or parent, supported where available by funds from the college Bursary scheme. These seats would be guaranteed for the student while he or she attends the establishment from the same address.

Where a vacant seat is not available, students can make a case to the LA that there is a need for LA assistance. The LA will assess need and ask for evidence in support of the case. Where it is agreed that support is required, it will be in the form the LA considers appropriately meets that need – such as the provision of a seat on a LA-

Page 58 Page contracted vehicle, a petrol or other financial allowance to the student, Independent Travel Training. This would require a contribution towards LA costs, paid for by the student or parent, supported where available by funds from the college Bursary scheme. These seats would be guaranteed for the student while he or she attends the establishment from the same address.

Where the LA does not agree that need has been established, there would be a two-stage appeal process to ensure that the circumstances would be fully and fairly considered.

Section 2 - Key impacts and recommendations

Social/equality impacts: 1. The contribution to LA costs is required for all post-16 students. A higher contribution will be more challenging for parents and students to pay. Less well-off families who cannot access other support including from the school and college Bursary scheme may opt not to continue in further education.

The LA assists post-16 students by operating a supported travel scheme. This is chargeable to limit the financial burden on the LA. The LA provides a safety net through a two-stage appeal process. This enables families to make an individual case that a post-16 student requires assistance in addition to or in 2 the absence of Bursary support.

Schools and colleges are funded through a Bursary scheme to support students with learning costs including transport. The monies to do this have been available through schools and colleges since the withdrawal of the Education Maintenance Allowance in 2011. No low-income student should be unable to secure the costs of the contribution from the Bursary scheme. The LA will work with schools and colleges to seek additional funds to supplement the Bursary where this is possible and would ensure support for students in need. The LA provides a safety net through a two-stage appeal process. This enables families to make an individual case that a post-16 student requires assistance in addition to or in the absence of Bursary support.

2. The 2016-17 policy established an entitlement to support from the LA for any post-16 student who meets published criteria – with that support requiring a contribution towards the costs of the LA. A post-16 student would be entitled to LA support where he or she is: Page 59 Page  A Devon-resident  Studies on a full time course  Attends a state-funded school or college designated to provide post-16 education for the home address or the nearest available establishment providing a course necessary for the chosen career path  Lives further than a walking distance of three miles from the establishment, unless it is evidenced that the student is unable to walk to the school or college  is under 19 years of age on the 31 August immediately preceding the start of the academic year

Where a student is not entitled to support from the LA, he or she is signposted to the school or college for support. This would be the case where, for example, the student could attend the designated establishment or one closer to home but chooses to attend one further away from home. This arrangement means that the LA is the principal or default source of support for students who live beyond the minimum walking distance and who do not make their own arrangements for travel. Students and their families use their own vehicles or use public transport where this is more convenient or cost-effective for them. In some circumstances, the schemes operated by colleges themselves may be more convenient or

3 cost-effective than the support available from the LA.

Under the proposed arrangements for 2017-18, the LA would step back from this role of providing support by default. Students and their families would continue to make their own arrangements where they are more convenient or cost-effective but where that is not possible, they would be expected to approach the schools and colleges for support from the college-managed Bursary schemes. To secure support from the LA on an individual basis, students and their families would be required to provide evidence that:  they could not make their own arrangements for travel and that  support from the college Bursary was not available or insufficient to enable the student to travel to and from school or college to remain in Further Education. The LA would have changed its role from the default provider of support to a safety net. It is expected that the LA would be required to support transport for many of the students who would receive support under the 2016-17 policy: those with the most rural isolation who are furthest from public transport or where there is no public

Page 60 Page transport option at all, those with the greatest economic hardship and those whose additional educational or medical needs require more costly specialised or individual transport. In all cases where the LA accepts evidence from the student or family that these are the circumstances, it will provide support. It is the proposal of the LA that post-16 students will continue to access Further Education and it will support them with transport arrangements where it is necessary to do so. Support would be provided to meet individual need and would be the most cost-effective means available to the LA, for instance:  the provision of Independent Travel Training to enable the student walk or use public transport  access to a LA-contracted vehicle  financial support for fuel or otherwise to enable the student to travel, net of the LA contribution.

It would not be considered necessary to provide support where a student, for example:  can travel by public transport – using those vehicles would be paid for by family itself, seeking support from the colleges through the Bursary scheme, particularly for those from low-income households.  has access to a family vehicle, even where using the vehicle would be inconvenient for the family. A family would have to provide satisfactory evidence that there was no private vehicle available  does not provide evidence that the college is unable to provide sufficient assistance through the Bursary scheme. 4 The proposed policy would be a needs-led service, ensuring that students who evidence that they do not have the means to get to and from college have support from the LA.

Environmental impacts: It is possible that passengers liable to pay the increased contribution may decide that making their own way to school or college is a better option for them. This may increase the number of vehicles on Devon’s road but to a very small extent. There is no reason why any post-16 student would need to change their travel arrangements because of this as monies to pay the contribution are available from the Bursary scheme. The LA will work with schools and colleges to seek additional funds to supplement the Bursary where this is possible and would ensure support for students in need. The LA provides a safety net through a two-stage appeal process. This enables families to make an individual case that a post-16 student requires assistance in addition to or in the absence of Bursary support.

It is possible that some students would not receive support from the LA on the grounds that they have the means to use their own transport. A student provided with a with a mobility vehicle from public funds for Page 61 Page instance would be expected to use that vehicle to travel to and from college and not access a LA- contracted vehicle.

The LA also works with local public transport providers to help offer sustainable transport options with various tickets available from these companies, some of which will be more cost effective for the student than the LA scheme

Economic impacts: 1. The increase in the contribution is projected to raise a minimal amount for the LA but is help to reduce the financial burden on the LA minimally. An increase of £20 per student is not an insignificant sum for families themselves, particularly where a family has more than one student passenger.

It is necessary for the LA to address the financial pressures it faces in a number of ways, including increasing fees and charges in a proportionate and measured way. The LA provides a safety net through a two-stage appeal process. This enables families to make an individual case that a post-16 student requires assistance in addition to or in the absence of Bursary support.

5 Other impacts (partner 1. The expectation is that schools and colleges will indeed allow Bursary funds to be used to support agencies, services, DCC transport for their post-16 students as intended. Those funds have been available to establishments since policies, possible 2011 and may be being used to support students in other ways. By diverting a proportion of the Bursary to ‘unintended transport costs, there will inevitably be less money available for other purposes such as learning consequences’): resources and curriculum enhancement.

The Bursary is intended to support students with costs including travel. Despite the Raising of the Participation Age, central government has not extended the statutory entitlement to free transport to post- 16 students and has provided funds to establishments. It is appropriate for the LA to review whether it is able to subsidise travel in this manner and to withdraw from support where the family is able to pay for public service transport or where there is no impact on the ability of students themselves to pay.

How will impacts and The number of post-16 students using LA transport will be monitored. actions be monitored? Page 62 Page The LA will work with schools and colleges and public transport providers to monitor the impact of these changes.

Section 3 - Profile and views of stakeholders and people directly affected

People affected: Those accessing support from the LA make up a small minority of Devon’s post-16 students. Instead of automatically entitlement to support from the LA for those meeting basic eligibility criteria, any post-16 student who seeks LA support would need to provide satisfactory evidence of need for support.

Post-16 students will either not request support because they are able to make their own arrangements, independently or with the financial support of the Bursary scheme or they will seek support from the LA and establish a need for that support. They would all liable to pay a contribution towards costs and could approach their school or college for financial support to pay the full LA contribution.

Diversity profile and needs The contribution is applicable to all post-16 passengers, regardless of race, religion, orientation or additional assessment of affected need.

6 people:

Other stakeholders: A number of schools and colleges have expressed their concern about an increase in demand for Bursary support that will be prompted by an increase in contributions for post-16 students. Establishments will no longer be in a position to disperse the Bursary on other student costs.

A number of parents have questioned the need and “fairness” of an increase in contributions and have expressed concern about how they would get their children to and from college. Where those students are already in post-16 education or in current Year 11, they will be subject to the current policy of support for all eligible students. The proposed amendment would only apply to new applications for post-16 transport for travel from September 2017.

Local public transport providers who offer alternative transport options for young people.

Where there is a need for support, the LA will act as a safety net to ensure that all Devon-resident students can continue into post-16 education. Page 63 Page

Consultation process: All Devon schools and colleges with children in Year 10 and above were contacted to advise them of the proposed changes. In addition to views from the establishments themselves, a letter was sent for distribution to the parents of Year 10 children as they would be the cohort first affected by the proposed change.

Research and information Relevant legislation and the policies of other LAs and their contribution levels were benchmarked. The potential used: impact on children and students and the anticipated financial impact on the LA were modelled.

Background Analysis

This section describes how relevant questions and issues have been explored during the options appraisal.

Section 4a - Social Impacts 7 Giving Due Regard to Equality and Human Rights

The local authority must consider how people will be affected by the service, policy or practice. In so doing we must give due regard to the need to:

 Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation  Advance equality of opportunity and  Foster good relations.

Where relevant, we must take into account the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation, race, and religion and belief.

This means considering how people with different needs get the different services they require and are not disadvantaged, and facilities are available to them on an equal basis in order to meet their needs; advancing equality of opportunity by recognising the disadvantages to which protected groups are subject and considering how they can be overcome. Page 64 Page We also need to ensure that human rights are protected. In particular, that people have:

 A reasonable level of choice in where and how they live their life and interact with others (this is an aspect of the human right to ‘private and family life’).

 An appropriate level of care which results in dignity and respect (the protection to a private and family life, protection from torture and the freedom of thought, belief and religion within the Human Rights Act and elimination of discrimination and the promotion of good relations under the Equality Act 2010).

 A right to life (ensuring that nothing we do results in unlawful or unnecessary/avoidable death).

The Equality Act 2010 and other relevant legislation does not prevent the Council from taking difficult decisions which result in service reductions or closures for example, it does however require the Council to ensure that such decisions are:

• Informed and properly considered with a rigorous, conscious approach and open mind, taking due regard of the effects on the protected characteristics and the general duty to eliminate discrimination, advance equality and foster good relations.

• Proportionate (negative impacts are proportionate to the aims of the policy decision)

8 • Fair

• Necessary

• Reasonable, and

• Those affected have been adequately consulted.

Characteristics Describe any needs and actual or potential Describe any needs and actual or potential neutral or negative consequences (e.g. disadvantage or positive outcomes for the groups listed. community tensions) for the groups listed. (Consider how to advance equality/reduce inequalities (Consider how to mitigate against these). as far as possible).

All residents (include For all parents and students, the decision to seek The LA provides a safety net through individual Page 65 Page generic equality admission to an establishment further from home assessment of need and a two-stage appeal process. This provisions): where contribution to costs is required, an increase enables families to make an individual case that a post-16 may undermine parental preference. By becoming student requires assistance in addition to or in the the provider of support as a safety net, the LA would absence of Bursary support. be prompting students and their families to more fully consider how they can make their own arrangements and to approach schools and colleges The LA will continue to provide advice and to sign-post for support. students and families to help them to make their own arrangements, use public transport and to request Bursary support.

Age: The LA does not consider these changes cause any particular consequences linked to this characteristic. It is anticipated that students will travel to their establishment in the same way with the potential for limited drop-off by a small number of students who 9 are in a position to make their own transport arrangements.

Disability (incl. sensory, The LA does not consider these changes cause any Students with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities mobility, mental health, negative consequences linked to this characteristic. will not be disproportionately affected by the increase to learning disability, ill It is anticipated that students will travel to their the contribution. Where individual or specialised travel health) and carers of establishment in the same way. arrangements are required, it is anticipated that the disabled people: additional costs involved will mean the LA does need to provide support. The LA provides a safety net through a two-stage appeal process. This enables families to make an individual case that a post-16 student requires assistance in addition to or in the absence of Bursary support.

Page 66 Page Culture and ethnicity: The LA does not consider these changes cause any nationality/national origin, particular consequences linked to this characteristic. skin colour, religion and It is anticipated that children and students will travel belief: to their establishment in the same way.

Sex, gender and gender The LA does not consider these changes cause any identity (including men, particular consequences linked to this characteristic. women, non-binary and It is anticipated that children and students will travel transgender people), and to their establishment in the same way. pregnancy and maternity (including women’s right to breastfeed)

Sexual orientation and The LA does not consider these changes cause any marriage/civil partnership: particular consequences linked to this characteristic. It is anticipated that children and students will travel to their establishment in the same way.

10 Other socio-economic Low-income families would find any increase in fees The level of contribution is not higher in more rural, factors such as families, and charges or reduction in discounts more isolated areas where the actual costs to the LA may be carers, single challenging to afford. This is mitigated by the option higher. people/couples, low- to seek assistance from school and college Bursary income, vulnerability, scheme. Where this is insufficient and the absence Support and advice is available from the LA which would education, reading/writing of transport would be an unsurmountable barrier to employ officers able to assist with the process as skills, ‘digital exclusion’ attendance, students and parents may approach the necessary. and rural isolation. LA for support.

Human rights There are no human rights considerations. Students The LA would provide a safety net for education transport considerations: have the right to continue into Further Education but for post-16 students through individual assessment of that is not to a particular establishment. They also need and a two-tier appeals process to ensure that have a right to expect their transport needs are individual circumstances are considered fairly and Page 67 Page considered fairly and in line with legislation. consistently, in line with legislation and the policy.

Section 4b - Environmental impacts

An impact assessment should give due regard to the following activities in order to ensure we meet a range of environmental legal duties.

The policy or practice does not require the identification of environmental impacts using this Impact Assessment process because it is subject to (please select from the table below and proceed to the 4c, otherwise complete the environmental analysis table):

Devon County Council’s Environmental Review Process for permitted development highway schemes.

Planning Permission under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990).

Strategic Environmental Assessment under European Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment”.

11 Describe any actual or potential negative Describe any actual or potential neutral or positive consequences. outcomes.

(Consider how to mitigate against these). (Consider how to improve as far as possible).

Reduce waste, and send less None identified. None identified. waste to landfill:

Conserve and enhance None identified. None identified. biodiversity (the variety of living species): Page 68 Page

Safeguard the distinctive None identified. None identified. characteristics, features and special qualities of Devon’s landscape:

Conserve and enhance the None identified. None identified. quality and character of our built environment and public spaces:

Conserve and enhance None identified. None identified. Devon’s cultural and historic heritage:

Minimise greenhouse gas It is possible that parents and students may Parents or young people may explore other sustainable emissions: decide to make other travel arrangements in (public transport) options.

12 response to the increase to the contribution or because they are in a position to do so which would negate the need for the LA to provide support. This could mean more vehicles using Devon’s roads.

Minimise pollution (including None identified other than above. None identified other than above. air, land, water, light and noise):

Contribute to reducing water None identified. None identified. consumption:

Page 69 Page Ensure resilience to the future None identified. None identified. effects of climate change (warmer, wetter winters; drier, hotter summers; more intense storms; and rising sea level):

Other (please state below): None identified. None identified.

Section 4c - Economic impacts

Describe any actual or potential negative Describe any actual or potential neutral or positive consequences. outcomes.

(Consider how to mitigate against these). (Consider how to improve as far as possible).

13 Impact on knowledge and None identified. None identified. skills:

Impact on employment levels: None identified. None identified.

Impact on local business: None identified. More parents and students may look for other transport options thereby supported local transport companies and help sustain local transport services for the whole community. Page 70 Page

Section 4d -Combined Impacts

Linkages or conflicts between None identified. social, environmental and economic impacts: The LA anticipates very limited impact on the actions of parents and their choices of schools and travel arrangements.

Section 5 - ‘Social Value’ of planned commissioned/procured services:

How will the economic, social and environmental well-being of the The LA will have reduced the financial burden on the LA of the relevant area be improved through what is being proposed? And how, Education Transport Policy by increasing contributions and ending in conducting the process of procurement, might that improvement be discounts. This will improve the economic and social well-being of the secured? Council and Devon-residents. 14 Page 71 Page

15

Agenda Item 6

Page 73

Consultation on the Future of: Compass House Crèche Service, Magdalen Street, Exeter

June 2016

Page 1 of 6 Page 75 CONTENTS

Page

1. Purpose of the document 3

2. Rationale for Ceasing to Provide Services at Compass House 3

3. The Proposal 4

4. Consultation Timescales 5

5. Consultation/Comment Form 6

Page 2 of 6 Page 76 1. Purpose of the Document and Consultation

1.1 This document explains the rationale for the proposal to cease to provide a crèche facility within Compass House, Exeter for people using mental health services, this primarily being the Depression and Anxiety service.

2. Rationale for Ceasing to Provide the Crèche at Compass House

2.1 Current Service provision at the Crèche:

Compass House Crèche operates for children aged 8 months to 4 years and older siblings during the holidays. It is specifically available for parents and carers attending Adult mental health counselling services, depression and anxiety clinics etc. Its opening hours are 10am - 12noon Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday 10am – 1pm. The total cost of the crèche in a full year is £22,700 (budget is £19,000) and there are 3 members of staff (but not full time)

Parents pay £1.50 per session they attend.

In April 2016 the Crèche was de-registered from Ofsted Early Years register.

Devon County Council took over the management of Compass House Crèche from 1st April 2016 from Devon Partnership Trust (DPT). The agreement with DPT was that the Crèche would continue to operate but would de-register from Ofsted as children would only be accessing the crèche for the time that the parents are on site having counselling/therapy sessions. This meant that no child could be in the crèche for more than two hours and parents were not permitted to go off site and leave the children in the crèche. This change in the way of working has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of children attending the crèche. Attendance for the 8 weeks commencing 4 April 2016 is detailed below:-

Week Total Week Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Commencing 10am 11am 10am 11am 12noon 10am 11am 12noon 1. 4 school 05/04/2016 2 2 holiday 2. 11 assessment 11/04/2016 1 2 3 3 1 1 week 3. 5 18/04/2016 1 2 2 4. 5 25/04/2016 1 1 1 2 5. 5 plus 02/05/2016 1 1 1 2 4 no shows 6. 3 09/05/2016 1 2 7. 6 16/05/2016 3 1 2 8. 8 23/05/2016 4 2 1 1

Page 3 of 6 Page 77 2.2 The reduction in attendance means that the current model is no longer a viable option due to various factors.

 Good practice is that there should always be two members of staff on duty. This is not cost effective as very low numbers are attending. Only 4 sessions in the period described in the table above had more than 2 children in attendance.  Appointments with the DAS (Depression and Anxiety Service) do not always run for consecutive weeks.  Children sometimes fail to attend without notice.  Staff hours exceed demand leading to high unit costs. For instance in April 2016 the cost per child hour was £81.91 based on costs incurred and attendance numbers.  The Crèche is only available for limited specific days, where as mental health services operated by DPT are open all week. Therefore parents can only access if their appointment time corresponds with crèche opening times.

3. The Proposals

3.1 To formally cease the provision of a DCC Crèche at Compass House, Exeter.

3.2 Devon County Council is proposing a new way for parents to access childcare to support them whilst accessing mental health support. The proposal is that parents who have not been able to make informal arrangements for childcare while they access the services at Compass House identify and arrange their own registered childcare, whether in a group setting such as a nursery , pre-school provision or home based care e.g. Childminders. The benefits of this approach for parents is:-

 That childcare would not be limited to hours that the crèche is available, increasing flexibility for parents.  Parents can use providers in their local area. Due to short hours this will mean that the childcare will only be funded as required rather than having a staffed provision that is available sometimes with no children present.  Parents, who have eligible 3 and 4 year old children, can use part of the 15 hours funded entitlement therefore incurring no additional cost.  It is cost effective and would be needs led.  All year round childcare options are available for all ages.

3.3 Children’s Centre and DISC (Family Information Service) can support parents to access registered childcare as required.

3.4 DCC carried out some initial research in May into the childminders available in the area and, within a mile radius of Compass House Crèche, there were 15 registered providers and 11 of those were anticipating having vacancies in the Autumn Term (September 2016). Within a 5 mile radius there were 68 childminders (including the original 15). This will be subject to change.

4. Consultation Timescales

Wednesday 22nd June 2016 Launch of consultation process Wednesday 13th July 2016 End of Consultation

Page 4 of 6 Page 78 Consultation Feedback

It is important that you express any views you may have about this proposal. These will all be considered alongside our statutory responsibility under the Public Section Equality Duty before coming to any final decision. An Equality Impact Assessment is attached and also available at https://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/published/

4.1 You may respond (1)In writing using the attached schedule to

Compass House Crèche Consultation The Annexe County Hall Exeter, EX2 4QD

(2) By email to:

Crecheconsultationsecure–[email protected]

Page 5 of 6 Page 79 Consultation on the Future of (Compass House Crèche)

Date

QUESTION/COMMENT FORM

Name: (optional)

Contact: (optional)

Question/Comments you may wish to consider.

(1) Do you have any comments on the proposal for future arrangements to support individuals with children attending mental health services operated by DPT?

(2) Is there anything else you think the council should consider before making a decision?

(3) Any other comments/views?

Your feedback will be considered as part of the consultation process before coming to a final decision. Current Structure

Please return this form to: -

Compass House Crèche Consultation The Annexe County Hall Exeter, EX2 4QD

(2) By email to:-

Crecheconsultationsecure–[email protected]

Page 6 of 6 Page 80 CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO INFORM DECISION MAKING

1. Content

A consultation on the future of the Compass House Crèche service was launched on 22 June 2016 and ran until 13 July 2016. The consultation was available on the DCC ‘Have your say’ webpages and paper copies available at the site itself.

 25 responses received on-line  15 written responses received  2 emails received on Friday 12 August 2016

An Equalities Impact Assessment was also available as part of the consultation.

2. Key feedback messages from consultation

The overall balance of responses was against the proposal to close the crèche service, but many respondents (but not all) also recognised that the current services was under-used and represented poor value for money. A number offered alternative suggestions for consideration. There were three broad themes from the consultation presented below:-

(a) Concern over impact on vulnerable people without access to on-site childcare

1.1 Many respondents felt that without the crèche some who needed support would not attend the sessions they needed including:-

Consultation Feedback Response Parents with small children would There is no clinical reason for an on- rather leave them in a crèche on site site facility. In exceptional circumstances special arrangements could be arranged (see mitigation below) Not having to worry to arrange Support is available from the Early childcare Years service This may act as a barrier to therapy There is no clinical reason for an on- site facility. In exceptional circumstances special arrangements could be arranged (see mitigation below).

1.2 Considerations

1.2.1 The balance of opinion was clearly in favour of retaining an on-site service from respondents.

Page 81 1.2.2 Senior Clinicians at Devon Partnership Trust (DPT) advise that there is no clinical reason or need for an on-site facility.

1.3 Mitigation

1.3.1. DCC will establish links between the Depression and Anxiety Service (DAS) at Compass House and DCC (operated and contracted) childrens centres. To mitigate for exceptional and unforeseen circumstances and where there is an assessment agreed by a mental health service practitioner that an individual can only be supported with an on-site child care arrangement then the DAS service may arrange directly to support that individual at a different site (with childcare available on site). This will only be in exceptional circumstances as defined by a clinician in the DAS.

(b) Improve attendance levels and income to make the crèche financially sustainable

2.1 There were numerous comments around this theme such as:-

Consultation Feedback Response Increase charges To be comparable with local childminding rates the crèche might charge £6 per hour. This would require 9.7 children per hour to attend. This is considered unlikely. Offer the crèche to a wider group This is a possibility but cannot be considered in isolation from any charge given this is likely to impact on demand. This would probably require reregistration with OFSTED to allow parents to leave the site. There is the potential to impact on other providers of childcare in the area detrimentally Re-register with OFSTED See above … this cannot be considered in isolation from other factors Publicise the service This is also a possibility to attract a wider group (see above) Seek alternative funding This is unlikely to come from other statutory agencies given the pressure on health, care and other statutory budgets and the alternatives available for parents. Funding from non- statutory sources would need to be secured and a case made to potential sources of finance.

Page 82 2.2 Considerations

2.2.1 The cost per child hour stated in the consultation was £81.91, with parents contributing £1.50 per session attended.

2.2.2 The estimated cost of childminding is expected to be around £6 per hour locally.

2.2.3 Based on no increase in income from increased charges there would need to be an average 37.7 children per planned session for the crèche to be financially self-sufficient.

2.2.4 Assuming charges were also increased to £6 per hour (then this would require an average of 9.7 children to attend to make the crèche financially self sufficient.

2.2.5 It is also possible to have some combination of increased attendance (as per 2.2.3) and increased charges (as per 2.2.4)

2.3 Mitigation

2.3.1 DCC can signpost to other child care support and has negotiated an exceptional arrangement to mitigate against an unforeseen case.

2.3.2 There is no clinical reason to have an on-site crèche

(c) Revisit the Impact Assessment

3.1 A number of comments were made around inaccuracies in the content or not addressing the likely disproportionate impact on some groups such as women, single parents or those on low incomes.

3.2. The Impact Assessment has been redrafted to reflect these issues and concerns and will be considered by the decision maker as part of their responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty in coming to any decision.

Tim Golby Head of Social Care Commissioning

Page 83

Impact Assessment Version 2016

Assessment of: Compass House Creche closure proposal

Service: Devon County Council Adult Social Care

Head of Service: Tim Golby, Head of Social Care Commissioning

Date of sign off by Head Of Service/version: Updated version following consultation: 20/7/16

Original impact assessment carried out by Devon Partnership Trust: 10/7/15 Page 85 Page Impact assessment first carried out by DCC: 18/6/16

Assessment carried out by (incl. job title): Paul Giblin, Involvement Manager

Section 1 - Background

Description: The crèche is part of the service offered at Compass House in Exeter for people using mental health services, primarily the Depression and Anxiety service. This service was managed by Devon Partnership NHS Trust until April 2016 when it was taken over by Devon County Council.

Compass House Crèche operates for children aged 0 months to 9 years and older siblings during the holidays. It is specifically available for parents and carers attending Adult mental health counselling services, depression and anxiety clinics etc. Its opening hours are 10am -12noon on Tuesday and from 10 am to 1pm on Wednesday and Thursday. The total cost of the crèche in a full year is £22,700 (budget is £19,000) and there are 3 members of staff employed which means that, taking into account the rate paid by parents of £1.50 per

1 session they attend, the financial viability of the service is highly questionable, especially in the current climate.

In April 2016 the Crèche was de-registered from Ofsted Early Years register as children would only be accessing the crèche for the time that the parents are on site having counselling/therapy sessions. This meant that no child could be in the crèche for more than two hours and parents were not permitted to go off site and leave the children in the crèche.

Reason for change and Provision of the crèche is being reviewed. This is because use of the crèche has fallen to an extremely low level. options appraisal: During the 8 weeks since 4 April, the number of children placed in the crèche was:

Week 1 – 4, week 2 – 11, week 3 – 5, week 4 – 5, week 5 – 5 (with 4 no-shows that week), week 6 – 3, week 7 – 6 and week 8 – 8.

Page 86 Page As well as being an inflexible model of provision, the total cost of the crèche in a full year is £20,300 and there are 3 members of staff employed which means that, taking into account the rate paid by parents of £1.50 per session they attend, the financial viability of the service is highly questionable, especially in the current climate.

That level of use means the current model of crèche provision is no longer viable, because:

• Good practice requires two members of staff in attendance at all times, which is simply not cost effective for such very low numbers of children.

• Appointments with the Depression and Anxiety Service do not always run for consecutive weeks.

• Attendance is even lower than expected because children sometimes fail to attend without giving notice.

• Staff hours exceed the demand for places.

• The crèche is only available for limited specific days, while the mental health services are open all week, yet parents can only access the crèche if their appointment time corresponds with crèche opening times.

Devon County Council is therefore proposing to review the crèche provision with a view to closing this service, and proposes a new way for parents who use mental health services to access childcare while receiving mental 2 health support.

If they cannot make their own informal childcare arrangements for sessions at Compass House then parents will be helped to identify and arrange their own registered childcare provision, i.e. using a nursery or pre-school organisation or a registered childminder.

This will mean that available childcare arrangements are not limited to the hours in which the crèche is open, giving parents more flexibility in the choice of childcare they can have when attending support sessions. If they wish, they will also be able to choose childcare options close to their home rather than bringing children with them to Compass House.

If they still want to have childcare which is close to Compass House then there are about 15 registered childcare providers within a mile of Compass House and 53 registered childcare providers within a five mile radius. (this fluctuates but numbers true as of May 2016) Devon’s Family Information Service (formerly DISC) can help parents find appropriate childcare. Page 87 Page

Section 2 - Key impacts and recommendations

Social/equality impacts: There will be a negative impact for a small number of people, for which mitigation will be explored as part of the consultation process with the people who use the service.

Environmental impacts: N/A

Economic impacts: Micro impact: tiny staff group affected.

Other impacts (partner The mental health service provided by Devon Partnership Trust will have to consider how to support people agencies, services, DCC referred to them who have childcare needs in a way which includes helping those people source appropriate policies, possible childcare from independent providers, as happens elsewhere. ‘unintended

3 consequences’):

How will impacts and The mental health service will monitor the impact of changing the childcare arrangements for people who use the actions be monitored? depression, anxiety and other relevant services to check whether this means fewer adults are able to attend their support sessions.

Section 3 - Profile and views of stakeholders and people directly affected

People affected: People with mental health issues, particularly depression and anxiety, who are parents of young children, and who have been referred to the service.

Diversity profile and needs In the 8 week period from 4 April 2016, there were only 47 attendances at sessions. assessment of affected Page 88 Page people:

Other stakeholders: Devon NHS Partnership Trust (DPT) as the depression and anxiety service provider, Devon County Council’s Children’s Services Early Years management as childcare professionals.

Consultation process: Engagement with people using the service, staff consultation, and ongoing liaison between DCC and DPT over service provision.

Devon Partnership Trust first started considering the impact of closing Compass House over a year ago, in July 2015, and the mental health service has had that time to prepare for ways of supporting parents in sourcing alternative provision. DCC’s formal consultation period lasted from 22 June to 13 July 2016, during which time 40 responses were received. Any impacts identified during that consultation process have been added to this updated impact assessment, so relevant mitigation can be considered. Research and information Figures on use of the service and cost of provision, audit of alternative sources of childcare provision in the area used: surrounding Compass House, and liaison with local experts in childcare provision. Consultation responses received from crèche staff and service users.

4 Background Analysis

This section describes how relevant questions and issues have been explored during the options appraisal.

Section 4a - Social Impacts

Characteristics Describe any needs and actual or potential Describe any needs and actual or potential neutral or negative consequences (e.g. disadvantage or positive outcomes for the groups listed. community tensions) for the groups listed. (Consider how to advance equality/reduce inequalities (Consider how to mitigate against these). as far as possible).

Page 89 Page Overall mitigation: Devon Partnership Trust (DPT) first conducted an impact assessment on this proposal on 10 July so the relevant mental health professionals have had over a year in which to plan how to offer replacement childcare support to affected service users. There is no other crèche or childcare supported offered anywhere else in DPT across the county, users of the Exeter facility will be supported as individuals to make the same arrangements that have to be made in other parts of Devon using independent childcare provision.

All residents (include This service is only available to people with young generic equality children who have been referred to Compass House 5 provisions): by the services as part of formal mental health provision.

Age: There is no formal age limit but this service is only available to users of mental health services with children aged from 0-8 years, although other children can be accommodated if they are siblings of the service users’ younger child.

Disability (incl. sensory, Users of the crèche service must be adults who are These parents will be supported to make their own mobility, mental health, receiving support from Devon Partnership Trust for childcare arrangements to cover their mental health learning disability, ill mental health conditions, primarily depression and support sessions. The mental health staff responsible for health) and carers of anxiety. For the few parents who have made use of supporting the adults using the creche will be given the

Page 90 Page disabled people: the service the closure of the crèche will be information they need to help their clients source perceived as a negative impact because they will alternative childcare provision. have to make alternative childcare arrangements of their own. The staff at Compass House can support children in the following categories of disability and special needs: Epipen trained, speech & language impediments, challenging behaviour, emotional impairment, development delay, autism, and asthma. Individual assessment of need must therefore ensure such conditions can be supported when sourcing alternative childcare.

Culture and ethnicity: There will be neutral impact in terms of culture and nationality/national origin, ethnicity as parents will be supported to find local skin colour, religion and registered childcare provision will be as sensitive to their belief: cultural or ethnic needs as the Compass Creche.

Sex, gender and gender A small number of young women affected by post- The mitigation which will neutralise that negative impact

6 identity (including men, natal depression will be the prime group affected by will be to support those service users to find alternative women, non-binary and the removal of this service, for whom it will have a appropriate childcare arrangements sensitive to their transgender people), and negative impact. This will be mitigated by supporting needs. pregnancy and maternity them to make alternative individual childcare (including women’s right to arrangements. breastfeed).

Sexual orientation and There will be a neutral impact as support will be made marriage/civil partnership: available to source alternative childcare which is sensitive to individuals.

Other socio-economic The purpose of the Compass crèche is to enable factors such as families, people with mental health issues who have pre- carers, single school age children and sources of childcare to be people/couples, low able to access childcare while attending Compass Page 91 Page income, vulnerability, House for support. Mental health issues affect all education, reading/writing socio-economic groups, but those on lower incomes skills, ‘digital exclusion’ will be the most badly affected by the closure of the and rural isolation. crèche. The mental health service will work with affected parents to help them secure alternative childcare provision whilst attending Compass House. Single parents will be disproportionately affected because they will not have a formal partner who can be asked to help with childcare.

Human rights There will be a neutral impact as the right to family life will considerations: be considered when supporting people to find alternative childcare.

Section 4b - Environmental impacts 7 An impact assessment should give due regard to the following activities in order to ensure we meet a range of environmental legal duties.

The policy or practice does not require the identification of environmental impacts using this Impact Assessment process because it is subject to (please select from the table below and proceed to the 4c, otherwise complete the environmental analysis table):

Devon County Council’s Environmental Review Process for permitted development highway schemes.

Planning Permission under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990).

Strategic Environmental Assessment under European Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment”.

Describe any actual or potential negative Describe any actual or potential neutral or positive Page 92 Page consequences. outcomes.

(Consider how to mitigate against these). (Consider how to improve as far as possible).

Reduce waste, and send less N/A waste to landfill:

Conserve and enhance N/A biodiversity (the variety of living species):

Safeguard the distinctive N/A characteristics, features and special qualities of Devon’s

8 landscape:

Conserve and enhance the N/A quality and character of our built environment and public spaces:

Conserve and enhance N/A Devon’s cultural and historic heritage:

Minimise greenhouse gas N/A emissions:

Minimise pollution (including N/A air, land, water, light and noise): Page 93 Page Contribute to reducing water N/A consumption:

Ensure resilience to the future N/A effects of climate change (warmer, wetter winters; drier, hotter summers; more intense storms; and rising sea level):

Other (please state below): N/A

Section 4c - Economic impacts

9 Describe any actual or potential negative Describe any actual or potential neutral or positive consequences. outcomes.

(Consider how to mitigate against these). (Consider how to improve as far as possible).

Impact on knowledge and N/A skills:

Impact on employment levels: 3 creche worker redundancies. DCC may not have relevant redeployment opportunities, but the wider childcare sector will have job opportunities for experienced childcare staff.

Impact on local business: Micro. There may be a small increase in trade for local

Page 94 Page independent childcare providers.

Section 4d -Combined Impacts

Linkages or conflicts between N/A social, environmental and economic impacts:

Section 5 - ‘Social Value’ of planned commissioned/procured services:

How will the economic, social and environmental well-being of the N/A relevant area be improved through what is being proposed? And how, in conducting the process of procurement, might that improvement be secured?

10 Agenda Item 7

CS/16/30 People’s Scrutiny Committee 5 September 2016

Children’s Standing Overview Group

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Children’s Standing Overview Group (CSOG) of the People’s Scrutiny Committee meets bi-monthly to review performance/service matters relating to children’s safeguarding and social care services respectively.

At the last session on the 12 July 2016, with Councillors Randall Johnson (Chair), Dewhirst, Hannaford, Hannan and Mathews in attendance, the following issues were raised:

Early Help Development

 The need to strengthen the strategic ownership of the Early Help system. There is a clear principal and driver for Early Help, as well as strong strategic guidance but there remains a distance to go to ensure all partners are working together in a coordinated way.

 Currently district council involvement in Early Help is better in some areas than others, so it is vital consistency is improved.

 The Children, Young People and Families Alliance now has the responsibility for improving the Early Help offer to families. Officers advised that the join is not yet right between the strategic structure of the Alliance and the frontline.

 Need to ensure there is a strong multi-agency workforce offer so staff are confident in terms of risk.

 Multi-agency sharing of information should improve now there is a firm agreement in place.

 The need to analyse school exclusions in terms of a wider social care need.

CAMHS

 Currently in the pre-procurement phase with the Virgin contract ending in 2018. Need to ensure much stronger outcomes focus on the CAMHS contract and be able to more effectively hold the provider / commissioner to account.

 There are serious concerns with the CAMHS referral to treatment time and the provision of a timely service to treat young people’s needs. CAMHS waiting times are improving; this is however from a low base.

 The importance of measuring outcomes from CAMHS interventions and how effective the service is in treating children to make them better.

 Virgin Care are commissioned for tiered services right across the spectrum but they have not been able to release capacity for work in the earlier part of the system.

 The need for a more detailed CAMHS dashboard in People’s Scrutiny performance reporting.

 Officers to develop a proposal for scrutiny involvement in the CAMHS pre-procurement phases and report back to main People’s Scrutiny Committee alongside provider.

Page 95 Agenda Item 7

Performance Report: Children’s Social Work and Child Protection

 Performance management is under development.

 Need for greater consistency in performance across Devon, as this remains an issue and the County Council will not move from Requires Improvement to Good unless this variability ceases.

 Concern about the number of children in inadequate provision. Officers advised that they will not move children from a placement unless there is an emergency. The Corporate Parenting Board (CPB) has an important role here, and the need for People’s Scrutiny having a strong link with the CPB.

 The current model of case auditing is under review.

 The most critical stability factor for Children in Care is their school placement, along with consistency of social worker. It is important also to keep a young person close to family and friends wherever possible.

 Concern as to the vulnerable group of children in the care of other LAs who are placed in Devon.

 The opportunity with the growth in Family Group Conferencing to link in with youth workers.

Devon Children’s Improvement Plan 2016/17

 Need to include supervision in the Improvement Plan.

 The REACH model was a good one, but issues around recruitment had necessitated a restructure.

 There are currently approximately 700 Children in Care in Devon, which is below the national average and the County Council’s statistical neighbours. The plan is to reduce this number by 100 over the next 5 years.

Cllr Sara Randall Johnson Chair

Page 96 Agenda Item 8

CS/16/29 People’s Scrutiny Committee 5 September 2016

Adults’ Standing Overview Group

The Adults’ Standing Overview Group (ASOG) of the People’s Scrutiny Committee meets bi-monthly to review performance/service matters relating to adult’s safeguarding and social care services respectively.

At the last session on 6 July 2016, with Councillors Hannaford (Chair), Hosking and Randall Johnson in attendance, the following issues were raised:

Adult Social Care Performance Framework

 Issue with delayed hospital discharge transfers. It is a complex arrangement that requires lots of partners input, not just that of the County Council. Nomination rights can also be an issue in terms of extra care housing for people being discharged from hospital.

 Personal care take up has increased significantly. 6.7% in the last year and over 10% in 2 years. 2% growth is expected annually so therefore work needs to be undertaken to understand the additional increase as it is a major issue in budgetary terms. There is a pattern across health and social care in the County that seems to indicate people in Devon are getting more care than elsewhere in England.

 The key drivers in costs in Adult Social Care (ASC) are:

 Staffing  Hours of care  Cost per unit

 The new contract with the two CCGs working with providers for personal care should largely solve issues around personal care availability.

 The Reablement Service is currently held back due to difficulties in recruitment. There has been some success in the last 12 months in terms of growing the Reablement Service, but the offer still needs to be increased. It is an in-house service that can reduce costs and improve people’s well-being but it is limited in scope.

 There is an issue about improving the review process for carers’ services.

 Personal care providers received a raise in rates to reflect the rise in the national minimum wage and travel time for carers. The increase in costs has been factored into the tender and budget. The issue with the pressure on the budget in this area is due to demand rather than unit cost.

 Improved targeting over the last 12 month has led to a levelling out of numbers going into residential nursing care. There is a price issue however in terms of residential care and officers are looking at a vacancy management tool for residential care.

 The Brokerage Service is not currently functioning. Questions were raised as to the impact of this on social worker time spent searching for residential care home placements.

 Despite some improvement ASC service users do however report to feeling less safe and secure in Devon than national comparators, the reason for this is not however entirely clear.

 Joint training with Children’s Social Care staff is currently not being undertaken on issues such as transitions at 18.

Page 97 Agenda Item 8

Market Sufficiency and Quality

 Looking to stimulate the market to develop nursing home provision in target areas, alongside the recommissioning of care homes (which will take effect from April 2017). The increase in the price of care homes is a serious issue for the County Council.

 There has been a 10.5% growth over 2 years in personal care, which is causing pressure on the ASC budget.

 Working in new ways, through the Living Well at Home contract to address the shortfall in supply and to better meet people’s needs. There are currently over 80 unfulfilled care packages, although this represents less than 1.5% of total volume. The situation in North Devon and Southern Devon is much improved; but the greatest supply problems are currently in Exeter and East Devon, where there are particular difficulties in recruiting staff.

 Over time, the average care package has increased by an hour to 11 hours per week. A key element of the Living Well at Home contracts will be a shift to an outcomes based approach, which will give providers greater flexibility in how to meet need.

 There is a 35%- 40% rate of annual turnover of staff in ASC caring roles and that an important part of the new contract was greater investment in pay and conditions for paid carers

 Devon has a higher proportion of medium / small care homes at 50% compared to that of the national average at 26%. The trend is for larger more purpose-built care homes. The balance is to get the small care home experience in a larger care home.

 75% of care homes in Devon are now Good or Outstanding, and this is above the national average - which represents a significant improvement over the last 12 months.

 ASC reacts quickly to address situations where things have gone wrong, and have tried to be more proactive with struggling providers through risk profiling and supporting quality improvement. Data is gathered and officers do not only consider the quality of care that a care home may be providing but also the business acumen of the management so consider the financial risk as well as the safeguarding one. Locality meetings are also held with CQC across to consider providers of concern.

 CQC’s aspiration is for annual inspections but they are currently unable to achieve this ambition.

Cllr Rob Hannaford Chair

Page 98 Agenda Item 10

CS/16/32 People’s Scrutiny Committee 5 September 2016

Task Group Review on School Exclusions in Devon: An Update

The Educational Outcomes Task Group, comprising Councillors Hannan (Chair), Biederman, Dewhirst, Randall Johnson and Squires, presented its School Exclusions Review to the People’s Scrutiny Committee on 21 March 2016, and made the following recommendations:

1. That the County Council in monitoring educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and those with special educational needs and disabilities pays particular attention to the extent to which these children are represented amongst those subject to permanent and fixed-term exclusions; any tendency for them to be more likely than others to be excluded should be investigated and measures proposed to address the issue. In addition, that the situation of black and minority ethnic children with particular regard to school exclusions be similarly monitored.

2. That the County Council and its Inclusion Officers, in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools who have outstanding practice in the field, further support schools in finding ways to become more inclusive by providing evidence-based knowledge and training about 'what works best'. From this review we conclude that there is a strong case for: fostering quieter classroom environments more conducive to work; teachers having a greater social awareness of their pupils and the problems they face; providing a wider curriculum to include vocational education.

3. That the County Council, in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools who have outstanding practice in the field, provides guidance and training to all schools with regard to emotional and social education.

4. That the County Council, in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools who have outstanding practice in the field, offers guidance and training to all schools on how effective pastoral support systems can be developed and provided for all pupils.

5. That the County Council asks its Inclusion Officers to investigate both the legality and effectiveness of the practice of providing ‘late’ and ‘early’ schools, and ‘part-time timetables’ in Devon schools, and issues guidance to all schools as a result.

6. That the County Council consults with other agencies and its various partners about how improvements could be made in the way schools provide for the needs of pupils who have mental health problems, with particular reference to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and its relationship to schools.

7. That the County Council establish a Task Group to investigate the impact of Elective Home Education on the education of children in Devon, to take up the points made in this report and in the briefing paper provided by Babcock LDP.

The recommendations of the Review were welcomed by Cabinet on 13 April 2016 and officers of the County Council were asked to take all appropriate action to take the recommendations forward. However, in May 2016 members were presented with the latest figures for Devon and agreed to meet again in order to investigate some alarming trends. On 27 June members met with David Archer and Marc Kastner (Inclusion Officers) to discuss the situation as described in an updated data set from a ONE System report run on 10 June.

Page1 99 Agenda Item 10

The Data

Permanent exclusions per key stage (including reinstated cases) 2014-2015 compared to 2015-2016, as of 10/06/2016 Data source: ONE System

School year 2014-2015 School year 2015-2016 (01/09/2015 to 10/06/2016) 99 Page 100 Page

59

37 39 34

16 12 12 6 0 1 1

Foundation KS1 KS2 KS3 KS4 TOTAL

2 Fixed Term Exclusions per Key Stage and sum of lost days 2014-2015 compared to 2015-2016, as of 10/06/2016 Data source: ONE system report run on 10/06/2016

6000

5000

4000 Page 101 Page 3000 term exclusions 2000 fixed

of

1000 Count Agenda Item 10

0 Foundation KS1 KS2 KS3 KS4 KS5 TOTAL No of FTE 2014 /2015 37 174 604 1093 1327 17 3252 No. of FTE 2015/2016 as of 10/06/2016 36 217 357 1067 1195 6 2878 Sum of days lost 2014/2015 54.5 309.5 1084.5 1958 2318.5 34 5759 Sum of days days lost 2015/2016 as of 55.5 306 671.5 1863.5 2183 30.5 5110 10/06/2016

3 Agenda Item 10

Permanent and Fixed-Term Exclusions in Devon: A Comparison of 2014/15 and 2015/16

The above charts present the basic information comparing the whole of school year 2014/15 with part of 2015/16 (01/09/15 – 10/06/16), with respect to permanent exclusions (PEX) and fixed-term exclusions (FTE) for each key stage.

From these it would appear that permanent exclusions are rising substantially overall and to varying extents in each key stage. This is especially significant as the 2015/16 figures cover a period a month or so short of a full academic year. The situation for FTEs is almost the opposite, with a slight fall overall (measured by both number of FTEs and days lost) and in most key stages.

The Inclusion Officers were asked at the 27th June meeting for their explanations of these findings and to generally describe the situation as they experienced it. They made the following points:

1. Secondary schools can feel under intense pressure to get the best possible exam results as they are now assessed in terms of their performance with regard to Progress 8, a value-added measure based on pupils’ GCSE results compared to their Key Stage 2 scores. Some schools may find it difficult to admit or retain children likely to lower their overall levels of attainment or who might disrupt other children’s learning.

2. The Progress 8 measure was supposed to acknowledge the contribution of non- traditional and more vocational subjects but this has not happened, leading to a narrowing of the curriculum with an emphasis on academic attainment, thus alienating some students.

3. Some schools can be more concerned by Ofsted ratings and their overall exam results rather than the impact a permanent exclusion may have on a young person’s future. High exclusion rates do not appear to be a significant factor in terms of an Ofsted judgement, and may be less of a concern to some headteachers than exam results.

4. Across every key stage schools now appear to be looking much more at the possibility of permanently excluding persistently disruptive children. Primary schools are making permanent exclusions. Officers are putting in extra support but the rate is going up.

5. One secondary school appears not to be offering places for children who in primary school had a record of difficult behaviour. At the transition from Year 6 to Year 7 secondary schools are making judgements about certain pupils, indicating that they will be unable to meet their needs.

6. Pupils who just about managed in primaries and move into secondary school without any plans being made to provide for their needs are a cause of great concern in terms of their being at risk of future exclusion.

7. Officers now have to do much more in the way of ‘fire-fighting’ rather than prevention.

Impact of Education Excellence Everywhere White Paper

We do not yet know whether the policies relating to exclusion in the White Paper will be implemented. In the meantime evidence from other local authorities is that exclusions are increasing throughout the West of England. The White Paper sets out plans to require schools to take on more responsibility in terms of the consequences of permanently excluding a student, including having to pay for alternative provision. Whilst this should reduce the number of children permanently excluded, it is likely to lead to an increase in unofficial exclusions, use of part-time timetables and perhaps ultimately push more young people

Page 1024 Agenda Item 10

towards the criminal justice system. There is also a possibility that primary schools will under- report problems with a child as they will be concerned that otherwise a secondary school will not take them. There are examples of primary schools that have not fully detailed and mapped the needs of some children (using the Devon Assessment Framework) prior to the move into secondary school.

Inclusion Officers

The Inclusion Officers work to avoid permanent exclusions taking place. They do not feel that their relationship with academies is any different to that with schools in the maintained sector, as they have good relationships with all primary and secondary schools in Devon. Of the 99 permanent exclusions in 2015/16 to date Inclusion Officers have been involved with all but one of these cases; only very occasionally is a child permanently excluded who is unknown to them. A new member of staff in the Inclusion Team has a background working in CAMHS and whose role within the team will include specialist work to help schools in terms of thresholds and support for children with mental health issues. It is, though, increasingly difficult for the Inclusion Officers to get to all the school governor meetings that they should, as well as to be able to provide early support.

Supplementary Funding Pot

On 66 occasions in 2014/15 the Inclusion Officers provided funding to a school for a pupil at risk of permanent exclusion at a cost of £38,000. Only 6 of the young people supported in this way failed to maintain their school placement. The supplementary funding is demonstrably effective, and yet its future is under threat. Extra money by itself though does not guarantee success, which also depends on the school adopting a culture of inclusive education.

SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities)

More money is going into SEND in Devon than in nearby local authorities. Schools get at least two levels of funding. Element 1 is per capita funding (the Age Weighted Pupil Unit) designed to cover the learning needs of all children in the school, including those with SEND, and Element 2 is the notional SEND budget intended to cover the needs of children who require extra help costing up to £6,000 pa each. They may also be eligible for a third, which is known as Element 3 and is designed for those pupils with needs costing more than £6,000 pa each, the overall cost of which is met from the local authority’s ‘high needs block’. Schools are putting expensive interventions in place, but they are not always getting Element 3 funding as behavioural issues are no longer classified as SEND. Children now need to have an identified learning difficulty to support an application for high needs block funding. As a result the waiting list for an Autism assessment is between 18 and 24 months. Devon also has more special schools per head of school population than any other county and could possibly fill many more places.

Alternative Provision

All young people who are permanently excluded are offered a place with SchoolsCompany (which runs what were previously known as Pupil Referral Units) and those pupils in Years10/11 will tend to stay there until they have finished their GCSEs. It is a challenge moving pupils on from SchoolsCompany provision as many schools do not want these pupils. There is a reliance on those schools that do have a fully inclusive culture. It is much easier for schools to reintegrate a bright child than one who is lower achieving. There is an issue in terms of the cost of alternative provision given the rise in permanent exclusions. Currently when a young person is permanently excluded the school loses the Age Weighted Pupil Unit.

Domestic and Pupil Violence

It would appear that there are now more parents who are less able to effectively raise and care for their children, with examples across the social spectrum. Anecdotally domestic violence appears to be a factor behind the level of violent incidents in Key Stage 1.

Page5 103

Agenda Item 11

CS/16/31 5 September 2016 People’s Scrutiny Committee

People’s Scrutiny Committee

Small Schools Task Group

Final Report

5 September 2016

Page1 105 Agenda Item 11

Contents

Preface 3

1.0 Introduction 4

2.0 Recommendations 5

3.0 Overview 6

4.0 Summary 7

5.0 Key Issues 8

 School Partnerships  School Closures  School Place Planning  School Finance  School Governors  Headteachers  Teacher Recruitment & Retention  Community Role of Rural Schools  School Performance  Regional Schools Commissioner  Academisation  Exeter Diocese  Babcock  Small Secondary Schools

Appendix 1 School Closures Case Studies 15

Appendix 2 Contributors / Representations to the Review 19

Appendix 3 Bibliography 20

This report can be downloaded from: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/democracycommunities/decision_making/cma/index_scs.htm

Page2 106 Agenda Item 11

Preface

The Labour Government of 2000 introduced the concept of academy schools to address and drive up the standards of failing Local Education Authority (LEA) schools where pupil attainment at five A* to C GCSE grades was only 35%, against a national average of 51%. Devon saw one school convert to academy status under this regime. Since then successive governments have expanded the opportunity for all schools to convert to academy status, not just those failing Ofsted inspections. In Devon 63 primaries out of 311 and 16 secondary of 37 have converted to academy status by the Department for Education (DfE), reporting directly to the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC).

The Government believes primary schools should be about 420 pupils and those with 210 are considered small based on an urban model, the County Council has 131 rural schools with fewer than 150 pupils. Alongside the reshaping of the LEA’s role, there have been major changes in the way schools are funded. The funds now follow the pupil rather than the previous pooling arrangement managed between school and the LEA. In Devon this means the County Council can no longer provide top up funds for small schools, which has further challenged the financial viability of small schools.

Governors are the body with ultimate responsibility for the future of their school. It is vital they hold the headteacher to account to ensure all pupils are safe, receive good quality education and every child makes progress and reach their potential. In particular, all Key Stage 2 pupils are secondary school ready including pupils in receipt of the pupil premium.

Local communities also need to consider how to keep their school viable and open with a continuous annual supply of children. It is essential headteachers and governors in rural schools are able to achieve Ofsted ‘Good’ ratings and an attractive offering to persuade potential parents to select their school as first choice.

The County Council’s role has changed and will continue to evolve to encourage and facilitate schools to work together across Devon to deliver improved standards for all pupils, share experiences and drive professional development for teachers. Devon is well placed to do this with a strong background in developing partnerships and collaboration which has been recognised nationally.

I don’t want rural children being bused to large regional schools, but this report highlights an inevitability that governors will reluctantly elect to close their village school unless they prepare a rolling five year strategic plan to keep their school viable and open.

I would like to thank all those who took part in the preparation of this report for their time and commitment.

Sara Randall Johnson Chairman, Small Schools Task Group People’s Scrutiny Committee

Page3 107 Agenda Item 11

Introduction

The Task Group — Councillors Sara Randall Johnson (Chair), Christine Channon, Andrew Eastman, Richard Hosking, Mrs Christina Mabin (Church of England) — would like to place on record its gratitude to the witnesses who contributed to the review. In submitting its recommendations, the Group has sought to ensure that its findings are supported with evidence and information to substantiate its proposals.

At Cabinet on 9 March 2016 the People’s Scrutiny Committee be asked to examine the issues faced by small schools with the intention of designing a ‘toolkit’ to help small schools meet the challenges facing them in the future. On 21 March 2016 People’s Scrutiny resolved to undertake this review on small schools. The terms of reference for the review were:

1. To review the root causes of recent primary school closures. 2. To consider what information needs to be provided to small schools to assess and strategically plan for their future and what ongoing support, if any, can be provided. 3. To review the process followed before a closure report goes to Cabinet and the information that needs to be provided to Cabinet to ensure all relevant information is taken into consideration before making its decision. 4. To report back to the People’s Scrutiny Committee on the findings of the Task Group.

Time and resources necessitate that this report provides a snapshot approach to highlight significant issues relating to small schools in Devon.

Page4 108 Agenda Item 11

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

That the County Council:

(i) provides a clear set of recommendations for small schools below 150 as to their way forward, which includes consideration for an executive head model through partnership;

(ii) further strengthens its relationships with all schools including academies;

(iii) continues lobbying government for fairer funding for Devon’s pupils. Recommendation 2

That best practice in small schools in Devon is shared and celebrated.

Recommendation 3

That support from Babcock is strengthened to ensure:

(i) the message is conveyed that small schools in Devon do not stand alone but are in formal partnership arrangements;

(ii) governing bodies recruit skilful governors to fill vacancies;

(iii) governor training policies and approach are strengthened.

Page5 109 Agenda Item 11

Overview

Devon has a total of 369 schools. A significant proportion of Devon schools are rated ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted and educational performance overall remains above the national average. The schools vary significantly in size, from primary schools with fewer than 20 pupils to one of the largest secondary schools in the country. Schools also vary in governance with at the time of writing, approximately 70% of schools maintained by the Local Authority.

At a national level, schools with 210 pupils or less are considered small. However Devon has 32 very small schools (fewer than 50 pupils) and 221 with a rural school designation serving our extensive rural areas. The smallest school in Devon has 15 students on roll as at summer 2016.

The County Council supports the principle of local schools for local children for community and environmental reasons. There are good partnerships among many schools who work together in Local Learning Communities. There are a total of 41 federations, totalling 106 schools within a federation, 4 in management partnerships and 81 schools in multi- academy trusts and co-operative trusts.

There was only one school closure in Devon between 1982-2007, however since then there have been 8 school closures and consultations on the future of Musbury Primary School and Burrington Primary School. A change in the funding formula by Government resulted in the County Council not being able to underwrite school funds to 52 places. New guidance was drawn up in 2010 to ensure that schools were aware of the strict considerations that are undertaken in proceeding to consult on the future of a school, and following the 2005 Task Group on the Organisation of Schools in Rural Areas.

A lump sum of £65,000 is given to each primary school and £147,000 to every secondary. Schools also receive an element per pupil with the Age Weighted Pupil Unit which is £2964 for KS1 & KS2, £4021 for KS3 and £4647 for KS4. There is also a tapered amount up to £60,000 in terms of sparsity based on where the child lives rather than the location of the school up to a maximum cohort of 60 for primary schools. In secondary schools there is a lump sum amount of £100,000 for those schools with less than 600. In a federation each school is treated independently in terms of its finances. Schools also receive extra funding for SEN/pupil premium children. Schools of a similar size may therefore have very different funding streams. School funding formula is no longer about protecting institutions, but is centred around the type of child a school has and where they come from.

It takes at least £250,000 to £300,000 to maintain a small two class primary school. Anything less than this squeezes the potential to invest in development of the quality of teaching and thereby learning.

Page6 110 Agenda Item 11

Summary

Both the County Council and small schools face huge challenges in this unprecedented time in terms of structural and financial change. It is not just about protecting rural schools viability, but also ensuring small schools can achieve good educational outcomes. Some small schools are in a very difficult financial position; yet it is always about achieving the best educational outcomes for all children and young people in their care. Otherwise, should schools be allowed to ‘wither on the vine’?

For schools to offer good, sustainable education outcomes, it is crucial that they collaborate to give themselves sufficient resilience and provide pupils with the depth of learning opportunity, to mitigate risk of falling demographics, parental popularity, changes to budget, leadership and issues relating to staff recruitment and retention. It is about building communities of learners, not just learners in individual schools.

The quality of a school is not in its buildings but leadership both from the headteacher and its governors. Some small schools have struggled to recruit quality leaders and teachers, unless in formal partnership arrangements with other schools. The challenge of partnerships is finding the right partners to work together, as well as these partnerships needing to be of a certain size for them to be viable. The County Council has historically taken a proactive stance encouraging schools to federate and needs to continue this work, utilising expertise from successful federations to try to support other schools. It is particularly pertinent following some uncertainty with the Educational Excellence Everywhere White Paper, where some schools may feel that they are still able to stand alone and therefore is less of an imperative to see strong partnerships.

There is a risk to the quality of pedagogy with over 250 maintained schools in Devon with the possibility that the schools improvement function may move away from the County Council and into schools. However, the Local Authority retains a statutory responsibility for standards in schools and whilst there are proposals to change this, it is not clear when this will happen and the DfE recognises that schools do not yet have the capacity to improve others. The County Council, having spoken to its maintained schools, will retain a strong school improvement function as many schools wish to stay within the Local Authority. There is however still a significant risk with a change to the funding flow. The County Council will though continue its role of championing children and challenge schools no matter their governance.

Page7 111 Agenda Item 11

Key Issues

School Partnerships

In terms of the sustainability of schools in the next stage of the educational landscape, partnership working is the key. Devon has a strong record on supporting schools to form strong partnerships, in particular through the federation process and has been nationally recognised for its innovative and collaborative approach in this field.

Schools need to continue to form effective partnerships and collaborations to deliver excellent outcomes for the County’s very small schools, for them to survive and be sustainable into the future. Pedagogically it makes sense for closer working between schools, as it also does as a business model as a vehicle for efficiencies. Federations offer more opportunities for teaching staff in terms of leadership and so forth which is a huge attraction recruiting and retaining staff. Small schools are no longer educationally or financially viable as stand-alone schools with one headteacher. There are not only financial benefits for schools in partnership working but also in sharing expertise.

Smaller schools in a federation can still benefit from the close family ethos of being a small school but have all the support that the partnership can bring but does need a step change in delivery. The federation is able to bring a breadth of resource, opportunity and education that a standalone small school would not normally be able to access. For pupils in small schools there are often fewer opportunities for extra-curricular activities.

Small schools deficit budgets can be turned around quickly through intervention at the right time, with the right partnership, such as at Brixton and Heathfield through being part of successful federations. It should be an altruistic model where strong federations and MATs can bring poorer performing schools into their partnership to help them to improve and attract pupils and therefore funding. The Task Group spoke to headteachers who would welcome any school that wants to come into their partnership. However the Task Group are aware of schools that have been refused admission to federations as they were considered to add too great a burden to the existing collaboration.

There is a huge amount of logic in schools working in partnerships but there remain some communities that are resistant to this change. There are also a number of smaller schools who do not want to enter a partnership with bigger schools for fear of losing their identity, but actually small rural schools can offer a lot to a partnership. There is an issue with the CEO or Executive Headteacher role in a MAT and who takes that responsibility, as well as a reluctance about losing headships.

In terms of the geographical distance between schools in a federation and MAT, while the RSC does not currently advocate a preferred distance, the further apart the less they are able to benefit from joint working and get the outcomes for children that good partnerships can help to deliver. There also needs to be a certain pupil numbers within a MAT and federation in order to realise economies of scale. Schools within a partnership can jointly commission services or employ staff for example a business manager or speech and language therapist across the partnership which would be an impossibility for many small schools on their own. Some of the smallest school partnerships are also vulnerable and do need to expand, but conversely there is a limit to the number of schools that make a partnership effective.

There is a risk where MAT’s and federations pick and choose schools, while the less successful or those with specific governance arrangements may be left on their own. Where a school has had a poor Ofsted, other schools in a federation may have concerns about their joining and this can lead to difficulties. The RSC or the Local Authority have an important role here. The number of schools in a partnership arrangement provides diversity and the pupil numbers give the necessary volume. There should however be a diversity of school providers in an area. Where better outcomes can be achieved for children if a school moves to become a MAT or federation, then this brokering should happen.

Page8 112 Agenda Item 11

School Closures

Schools do not tend to be closed purely on demographics but many smaller schools have ‘survived’ on parental preference. If a school is causing concern, its viability is examined which will focus on pupil numbers, leadership, budget and Individual School Review. A common factor with all school closures is their falling roll, and the schools tend to be in areas where there are low numbers of local children. There is a size, around 25 pupils or less, where a school have made the decision to close due to financial constraints and not being able to deliver good educational outcomes for the children involved. In Sutcombe 16 pupils left in a short period of time out of 42 (circa 40%). Usually parents choosing to remove their children from a school relates to concerns about the leadership and performance. A lack of parental confidence in a school impacts inevitably on student numbers which impacts on the educational offer, which impacts on parental preference. It is a vicious circle. As highlighted previously, many schools are reliant on parental preference and this can be eroded either by the school itself by non performance or by improved performance by neighbouring schools. School Place Planning

Predicted population growth is far from straight forward, coupled with new developments being delayed or houses not selling at the expected rate. Decisions on school planning in urban areas will impact on the rural areas and planning of places endeavours to balance the need to provide locally for children versus falling demographics elsewhere. Devon has an over capacity of school places to pupils (approx. 12%), often though not in the areas where they are most needed. In many urban areas, place planning relies on some parental choice to smaller schools In long term place planning, officers work on the assumption that schools will be ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ and that local children will want to go to their local school. The County Council knows the number of children in each catchment area and estimates how many will choose any given school. Parental preference guides the system; with parents having the freedom to choose schools where there is capacity and is the key factor in school population size. In a small school, the sudden move of a family with 3 or 4 children can destabilise numbers, creating budgetary problems and start a downward spiral of loss of pupils. School Finance

Finance is a major issue for small schools as the wage bill increases and central funding does not and their funds are in the main reliant on pupil numbers. Recent changes with the funding formula reduce the ability of the County Council to protect small rural schools in terms of funding. A 12% reduction in real terms schools’ funding is forecast between now and 2020. Schools do not know what their exact budgets are from one year to the next, which makes it extremely difficult in terms of long term financial planning. Federated schools can pool their budgets which allows them to pump prime those schools in need. Devon has been at the forefront of pressing central government to ensure its schools receive fair and sufficient funding, this work must continue as we continue to move towards a new national funding formula.

Case Study: Holsworthy Federation

The Holsworthy Federation started too big with 6 primary schools. It was difficult having 7 schools and 4 headteachers. For a MAT to work the structure as advocated by the RSC of having 1 CEO is the ideal. Lessons have been learnt the hard way, and Holsworthy College is now less able to support other schools. The Holsworthy Federation has started to save some money but it has taken 3 years to restructure to this position. Holsworthy College needs a bigger partner within the Federation in order to move into a MAT.

Page9 113 Agenda Item 11

School Governors

School Governors are one of the largest volunteer forces in the country and have an important part to play in raising school standards. The role of the governing board is absolutely key to the effectiveness of a school and carries significant responsibility for what is a voluntary role, often by people who have full time careers.

The most successful schools have governors and headteachers working together, demonstrating effective leadership and management. Governors are key to driving school performance, and ensuring high quality teaching and leadership. Good governors can recognise where something is wrong, think strategically, and have the skill, strength and supportive challenge to the headteacher to help to remedy the situation. Schools can have a dynamic headteacher but if the governing body is not forward thinking the headteacher can be blocked.

The essential role of a governor is to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and in order to do so how they can receive the best possible education. Governors must not allow a school to fail its children through a lack of leadership. Sadly, there are governors in Devon who may not be clear about their role on governance and leadership. Babcock undertakes governance reviews as part of their school improvement package and work to challenge governing bodies and support them. The main issue that Babcock has in term of governors is about governing bodies performance monitoring the headteacher and holding them to account.

It is vital to build up the governors skills set and the quality of those involved to avoid their being emotional and subjective. Governors need ongoing training to understand the threats and weaknesses as the school system changes. It would appear that there may be issues in the County with some governors’ level of engagement. In March 2016 only 40 governors from the whole of Devon attended the Bi-Annual Governors Conference.

Governors also need to have performance data on a school presented independently of the headteacher. In addition, governors should be considering a range of data including from Public Health on births and future pupil numbers, understand their school roll including looking at the migration from rural areas, to understand where pupils are going and why pupils are not attending their local school. Most importantly, governors need to speak to children within a school to understand their experience. This type of information should be shared routinely by the County Council with governing bodies.

Exeter Diocese works alongside the County Council trying to support governors to fulfil their important role. Exeter Diocese appoint foundation governors and have the authority to remove governors if they are not acting appropriately. While the Diocese has these powers to remove school governors, phase associations such as Devon Association of Governors (DAG) do not. The Diocese will endeavour to prevent unsuitable school governors blocking the way of more appropriate candidates and will act on intelligence from Babcock if a governor has been identified as not being as strategic as they might. The door needs to be open to the most skilful prospective governors. Babcock have only once had to go to the Secretary of State to have a governing body removed. There may also be ‘CV governors’ who may not be undertaking the role with the best intentions and governing bodies must be proactive in removing governors who are not committed to the very best intentions for the children, staff and community. Headteachers

What makes a difference in schools is the quality of the leadership and the teaching and learning. It is however a challenge attracting quality headteachers to small schools. There are issues nationally in terms of headteacher recruitment and succession planning not being as developed as it might be (33% of headteachers will retire in the next 5 years) and these problems are exacerbated in rural areas with Torridge and North Devon being a particularly challenging area in terms of headteacher recruitment.

Page10 114 Agenda Item 11

There has been an issue with headteachers leaving and governors appointing a replacement before considering the school’s long term future. Succession planning and developing a long term vision of the future for the school is a primary role of the governors. When a headteacher leaves their post it is essential that governors think beyond the traditional model, in particular in smaller schools, and explore the options for shared leadership with another or group of schools before appointing a replacement. Arguably, schools need to be planning for the potential loss of their headteacher. Governors need to access appropriate training to support and challenge headteachers which is part of the offer from Babcock. The Church of England will undertake an assessment of a headteacher’s capacity for leadership if the governors have concerns.

Teachers may consider the movement into a partnership arrangement could limit their opportunities to secure leadership roles in the future. However, partnerships of schools provide opportunities for teachers and leaders to move around and gain the necessary experience to further their careers which supports not only recruitment but retention as highlighted below. Teaching Schools are supposed to talent spot and nurture future leaders but this appears to be patchy across Devon. Teacher Recruitment & Retention

Devon has both coastal and rural challenges in the County in terms of leadership and recruitment. Recruiting to small primary schools in isolated areas has become difficult for several reasons. Staff in small schools typically have a lot of responsibility, teach across year groups and have less opportunity for professional development. Often the uncertainty over the viability of the school discourages applications; there may be a dislike of working in isolation, with little opportunity to get out of school, because of pressure on supply budgets. Housing is often prohibitively expensive in these areas and the attraction of urban areas means applicants prefer to take jobs in more populated areas.

It is difficult for small schools to sustain improvement with a high turnover of staff. This can have a serious impact where for instance a member of the school’s senior leadership team is lost, it can leave a significant gap, which can be exacerbated by sickness or maternity leave and the school can find itself in a difficult position. In larger schools there are often staff waiting in the wings to fill these vacancies. It also makes continuing professional development (CPD) difficult as the school needs to pay for supply teachers. Schools are not required to promote CPD and in many cases there are limited opportunities in small schools. Schools then have this cycle of low funding, small number of staff and a lack of training. MATs and federations can provide a more robust structure given the vulnerability of small schools in terms of their leadership and staffing. The formal partnership model enables the potential for leadership development, putting them into positions of greater responsibility and supporting them appropriately with CPD. MATs and federations can provide all the opportunities so staff enjoy their role and are not lost to other schools.

Case Study: Great Torrington School

Great Torrington School deploy an innovative model of CPD funded at about 2% of their overall school budget currently. It was not easy to create this culture of CPD, but is vital in term of teachers’ professionalism. Great Torrington School link in with local primary schools to allow their children to do sport and drama, while their school staff can undertake CPD. It is not a one way relationship, as Great Torrington School is also able to learn from primary schools. CPD also is provided and encouraged for governors as well as staff. It creates an important positive message for young people to see that learning does not stop.

Page11 115 Agenda Item 11

Community Role of Rural Schools

Schools broad community role should be celebrated, as rural schools have a significant benefit in terms of bringing communities together. Communities need schools but schools need to be viable and sustainable. Data shows that the larger a school is, the more able they are to sustain themselves. Schools in local communities are affected adversely if they are not ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. Devon has a Victorian distribution of small schools based on agricultural employment which has ceased to exist and now too often they are not in an ideal location, being situated outside of the population centre, expensive to maintain and unable to expand. In many rural areas there is a falling school age population. The attractive nature of Devon’s landscape pushes house prices up and makes it difficult for young families to afford to live in the villages. In many villages the school is the last community hub with the closure of post offices, pubs etc. It is essential local communities recognise that the importance of providing housing for local young families will help make their village sustainable and that they need to work with the County Council and district authorities to deliver affordable homes. It is not a coincidence that schools which have closed have not seen sustained housing development. Good transport links and access to employment are other key challenges. School Performance

The County Council is aspirational for all children in Devon including vulnerable groups. Excellence for All – Devon’s Strategy for School Effectiveness aims to help to get all schools up to ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. 92% of primaries in Devon are currently ‘Good’ or better which makes the County Council the second highest performing shire authority with the national average 86%.

Governors need to be empowered to triangulate performance data to challenge headteachers effectively. A school’s last Ofsted is not necessarily a good measure of their current performance, nor whether they are meeting the statutory requirements around leadership, safeguarding etc. In making decisions on schools future, it is apparent that governors need to understand whether the schools’ Ofsted assessment reflects the current position. If there are less than 10 pupils in a year group national outcomes are not reported in league tables. It is often something of a misnomer that it is good educationally where there are such small year groups.

Case Study: Primary Academies Trust

The Primary Academies Trust (PAT) will shortly be joining up with a secondary school. The Trust is a deliberate mix of large and small, church and non-church primary schools. The PAT does not brand the schools within the MAT and draw to the centre in that way. The schools are joined up in terms of good practice, but otherwise the schools maintain their autonomy. Where a school is in special measures then systems of delivery will be put in place. The structure removes duplication of back office support for HR and finance.

There is a huge difference to joining a small school with a handful of teachers, where their training and support to NQTs is likely to be limited. The PAT is able to offer staff all sorts of opportunities. The PAT wishes to employ people who are not just great teachers, but future leaders, who by joining the PAT do not have to move from one school to the next in terms of finding opportunities for career development. Teachers can instead move between schools in the PAT. This creates stability within the structure and allows staff to garner experience in middle/senior leadership as well as subject development.

Things are unlikely to go too far wrong with the robust structure that is in place. Where a school’s performance dips, the PAT is able to move quickly to improve the school. This rapid approach to school improvement is one of the strengths of this robust model.

Page12 116 Agenda Item 11

Headteachers, governors and parents alike should question the educational quality provided by having classes of mixed key stages in very small schools. There are also issues about combining the leadership of a school and a teaching role which is often required in smaller schools where budgets are tight. Other challenges include managing absence and staff performance as well as funding and keeping up to date with IT and technology.

The Government has previously highlighted its intention to challenge schools that are deemed to be coasting however the definition has yet to be confirmed. The intention is these schools will in future be issued with warning notices and work will be undertaken with the school in collaboration with the RSC. If the degree of concern is of sufficient seriousness the school could be moved into forced academisation. Before it gets to this point the RSC carefully examines performance data as well as gathering local intelligence about the school. Small schools in particular are vulnerable to their next Ofsted judgement. There is pressure on all schools, but headteacher’s jobs are on the line if their data dips and they receive a poor Ofsted. Devon proactively monitors and supports its schools which have resulted in a continued increase in schools being judged ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. Regional Schools Commissioner

The South West Office of the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) was set up in September 2014 covering 16 LAs and is based in Bristol. The work of the RSC includes intervention, performance and oversight; supporting schools to become academies; increasingly the setting up of MATs and the finding of sponsors. The RSC also works with MATs helping schools at threat to try to encourage them to take them on board. The RSC does a lot of work supporting free schools. There are now 18 free schools open in the RSC’s South West region. Free schools were previously opening as stand-alone schools but now the model is that they are part of a MAT from the onset. The RSC has an advisory board of headteachers, Diocese representatives etc with great experience in terms of supporting schools setting up federations.

The RSC wants to protect small schools, but has to make sure they provide an outstanding offer, with a broad and balanced curriculum with high standards of teaching. The Government announcement which retracted on the intention to force the academisation of schools also included reference to the dedicated support from DfE experts to help primary schools through the process of conversion and a £10 million fund for small schools to secure expert support and advice. Academisation

The County Council was reported to be ‘swimming against the tide’ in terms of its approach to academisation and it should be looking at a consistent message on MATs alongside the Exeter Diocese. Schools reported that since their conversion to an academy they had had little or no contact with the County Council despite excellent exam results, which represents a significant loss, as academisation should not cease schools relationship with the County Council. Devon offers support for academies through their school improvement service and has included all academies in the Excellence for All Programme and hub meetings.

There should be a mixed economy, with the County Council having a positive relationship with both maintained schools and academies. Exeter Diocese continues work with their church schools regardless of academisation, and the County Council should not be dismissing schools expertise because of their academy status. The Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Skills advised that while not opposed to academisation, he is not in favour of mass academisation. Schools have been proactive in contacting Devon as they wish to remain maintained and did not wish to be forced in academisation and as such Devon will continue to deliver its statutory responsibilities in particular in regards to school improvement.

Schools need to work collaboratively to enable those poorer performing institutions can learn from best practice. A view was presented that the County Council are not utilising the

Page13 117 Agenda Item 11

expertise that is available from successful MATs, and this needs to be reviewed as to how it can most effectively be encouraged. An essential part of the role the LA should be helping schools move into partnerships. The County Council has a wealth of local knowledge and could be an effective local broker alongside the RSC. It should be recognised however that Babcock, the County Council and the Teaching Schools all work together as part of the Devon Schools Alliance to support school improvement.

The statement on 6 May 2016 by Nicky Morgan MP suggested that there would be no decision about small academies without LA and DfE consultation. The Head of Education and Learning has advised schools not to rush into decisions as a result of the Educational Excellence Everywhere White Paper but that schools similarly cannot sit back and do nothing as brave decisions do need to be made. Exeter Diocese

Exeter Diocese covers the whole of Devon, and 131 schools, mostly primaries. Nationally 57% of Church of England schools are based in rural situations of less than 210. 32% of all schools are below 210 and 65% of those schools nationally are Church of England. A close partnership with the Diocese and ruralities is essential in securing provision for communities. The Diocesan Board of Education have been involved in consultation with the DfE and the RCS about schools being put into a MAT and developing a memorandum of understanding. There needs to be agreed collective criteria between the County Council and the Exeter Diocese to help to jointly sustain small schools. Babcock

Babcock is commissioned by the County Council to deliver school improvement on its behalf. Most, if not all, primary schools in Devon buy into Babcock’s support services for school improvement. Babcock undertakes work on effective teaching and training, as well as on leadership. As a way of trying to drive up standards Babcock undertake day long school inspections where they feedback on the same day, and invite all governors to take part. Babcock will provide support to schools wherever needed, particularly in terms of governor services. If gaps in performance are too great Babcock can also go into academies to work with them to raise standards. An issue may be that whist Babcock or the teaching school may advise a school that it needs to improve, unless the school is seriously underperforming they do not always have the mechanisms to insist the improvement actions take place, but with 92% of Devon schools ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ Babcock do have a strong track record of effective work on school improvement with capacity to support commissioned and traded work across the region and beyond. Small Secondary Schools

Secondary schools in most areas have experienced significant falling demographics. There is very little cushion now within secondary budgets with particular pressures at KS5 and Sixth Forms are being downsized as a consequence. There are a number of secondary schools that are living off contingencies and deficits of £1,000,000 - £2,000,000.

Page14 118 Agenda Item 11

Case Study: United Schools Federation

The ‘United Schools Federation’ (USF) is formed of five primary schools, St Michael’s C of E Nursery and Primary School in Kingsteignton, St. Catherine’s C of E Nursery and Primary School in Heathfield, St Mary’s C of E Primary School in Brixton, Marldon Primary School, and Ipplepen Primary School. The large leadership team of the USF can address issues in quite a straightforward way when starting to work with a school, where a single headteacher might struggle. Good practice and expertise is shared across the partnership. When working with a new school, it is important that teachers are challenged and that they are encouraged to reflect on their practice.

The USF were asked to work with a school by the County Council. There issues to overcome including the school being some distance from the rest of the partnership in. The school also had a budget deficit of £100,000. The USF put in a new Head of School and then utilised the experience of the USF senior leadership team. FIPs provided some funding when they could see that there was the potential there to turn this school around, otherwise FIPs do not give money to failing schools. The school had got very isolated and had a poor reputation with parents. The USF set about improving the quality of teaching and learning at the school. The process was helped by the governing body of the school resigning as they would have been a hindrance to the change necessary, as the governors were not making the right decisions for the school. The school had been haemorrhaging pupils and had gone down to 33 pupils at the lowest point. The USF is willing to work with these vulnerable schools, as a development opportunity. All the USF schools were ‘Requires Improvement’ and now have an ‘Outstanding’ rating within 2 years.

Page15 119 Agenda Item 11

Councillors Sara Randall Johnson (Chair) Christine Channon Andrew Eastman Richard Hosking Mrs Christina Mabin (Church of England)

Copies of this report may be obtained from the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Secretariat at County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter, Devon, EX2 4QD or by ringing 01392 382232. It will be available also on the County Council’s website at:

http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/decision_making/scrutiny/taskgroups.htm

If you have any questions or wish to talk to anyone about this report then please contact:

Dan Looker 01392 382232 / [email protected]

Appendix 1 - School Closures Case Studies

Sparkwell Primary School (Voluntary Aided) (Ivybridge Local Learning Community)

Closed end of Summer Term 2009. Governing Body took the decision to consult on the future of the school.

 19 pupils on roll and falling (net capacity 56)  Unable to attract suitably qualified and experienced staff, including Head  Unable to retain a full governing body  Difficulty in providing continuity and consistency in teaching and learning  Budget shortfall  Formal warning notice from LA – serious breakdown in governance; limited progress made on Action Plan; performance of pupils unacceptable; budget shortfall; falling school roll.

Considered:

. Federation – but Schools approached did not have capacity to support . Collaboration with Broadclyst Primary School, which was not legally compliant . Advertise for substantive head.

Following successful application to the DfE, Sparkwell Free School (co-ed 4-16 for 105 pupils) opened in September 2013. Admissions are undertaken by Plymouth City Council and majority of pupils from that area. Current numbers on roll 51 and the school has moved into a new building.

Schools within Holsworthy Local Learning Community (Broadwoodwidger, West and East Putford, Pyworthy and Sutcombe)

Area Review undertaken: 21 October 2010 – Issues raised – significant fall in pupil numbers and surplus places high and will continue to remain so.

Page16 120 Agenda Item 11

Following closure of Broadwoodwidger Primary School in 2011 and West and East Putford Primary School in 2013 a follow up review was requested, which the Local Learning Community (LLC) declined. A document on the strategic Review of School Places was sent to the LLC in January 2014 raising concerns on the impact of the new funding formula and the loss of the small school funding protection together with falling demographics. The LLC responded that they had discussed the document but no further action despite reminders on follow up meeting. Due to vulnerable budgets at a number of schools within the LLC and concern on falling demographics, a meeting of all the schools was arranged for 5 October 2015 led by Head of Education and Learning.

Broadwoodwidger Primary School

Closed end of Summer Term 2011. Governing Body took the decision to consult on the future of the School.

 16 pupils on roll and falling – dropped to 9 (net capacity 52)  Insufficient pupils within the community/future sustainability  Cost of educating pupils three times higher than Devon average  Difficulty in providing continuity and consistency in teaching and learning  Budget shortfall

Considered:

. Federation – but would not address underlying issue of low pupil numbers . Equality considerations . Impact on community – no objections or responses received to consultation and few people attended consultation event . Impact on transport – four schools within 5 mile radius

West and East Putford Primary School

Closed at the end of Summer Term 2013. DCC and Federation Governing Body (part of Holsworthy Federation) took the decision to consult on the future of the School.

 8 pupils on roll and falling (net capacity 52)  Insufficient pupils within the community/future sustainability  Effect of funding formula and small school funding protection  Difficulty in providing continuity and consistency in teaching and learning  Leadership (shared Head leaving)  Budget shortfall

Considered:

. Split of KS1 and KS2 with Sutcombe Primary School – not considered viable . Equality considerations . Impact on community – no objections to consultation and very few people attended consultation event . Impact on transport – area split between Bradworthy and Sutcombe – a number of pupils in this area (Milton Damerel) already attending Bradworthy.

Pyworthy Church of England Primary School

Closed at the end of the Summer Term 2015. Federation Governing Body (Holsworthy Federation) took the decision to consult on the future of the School.

 10 pupils on roll and falling (net capacity 42)  Ofsted category – (Special Measures) and need for Academy sponsor  Insufficient pupils within the community/future sustainability  Difficulty in providing continuity and consistency in teaching and learning

Page17 121 Agenda Item 11

 Budget shortfall/unable to set balance budget

Considered:

. Approach received from St. Christopher’s Academy Trust but related to all schools within Holsworthy Federation and Federation Governing Body not willing to consider this option. . Equality considerations - Nearest C of E school – Bridgerule 2.3 miles away . Impact on community – loss of school and effect on village but serious concern on impact on teaching and learning with so few pupils. Consultation event well attended. . Impact on transport – 7 pupils affected

Sutcombe Primary School

To close at the end of the Summer Term 2016. Governing Body took the decision to consult on the future of the school.

 21 pupils on roll and falling (net capacity 56)  Unable to appoint Leadership  Safeguarding issues with no leadership  future financial sustainability - budget shortfall/unable to set balanced budget  Ofsted category with no leadership

Considered:

. Partnerships – but unable to secure including federation, joining multi-academy trust, federation or academies in neighbouring authority. . Equality considerations . Impact on community – 37 objections received and consultation event well attended . Impact on transport – already a route from Milton Damerel

Chawleigh Primary School (Chulmleigh Local Learning Community)

This was the first school to close in Devon for 25 years and closed in August 2007, following extensive consultation. The proposal was considered by the then School Organisation Committee which gave the School 6 months to produce a viability plan. The position was then further considered by SOC but a unanimous decision could not be reached and the matter referred to the Schools Adjudicator [School Organisation Committees were abolished in May 2007]. The School’s Adjudicator approved the proposal following a series of meeting at the School in April 2007. The Governing Body took the decision to consult on the future of the School.

 23 pupils on roll and falling  Drop in parental confidence in School (53% of in-area pupils in other schools)  Departure of Head Teacher  Pre-school closed due to lack of children  Financial and educational viability  £14k per pupil, more than 4 times DCC average  £70k subsidy, £20k more than additional transport costs

Considered:

. Viability plan . Partnership/federation arrangements . Impact on community – objectors produced representations, all of which referred to Schools Adjudicator . Impact on transport – At closure 10 pupils affected

Clovelly Primary School (Bideford Local Learning Community)

Page18 122 Agenda Item 11

Closed at the end of the Summer Term 2011. Local Authority and Governing Body took the decision to consult on the future of the School.

 12 pupils on roll and falling (net capacity 45)  Surplus places at the School approaching 76%  Ofsted report - Satisfactory  Financial and educational viability  Cost per pupil 3 times Devon average  £82k subsidy top-up funding  Effect of funding formula and small school funding protection  Lack of progress on federation/partnerships

Considered:

. Federation/partnership but not secured. . Impact on community – consultation 4 responses received, two in support of closure and two objections, but not materially significant . Impact on transport – 7 pupils affected and transferred to Woolsery (2.5 miles away)

The DfE approved the Free School application from Route 39. The School opened in September 2013 in temporary accommodation at the former Clovelly Primary School and is proposing to move to permanent accommodation shortly, despite a number of delays and objections regarding planning.

Appendix 2 - Contributors / Representations to the Review

Witnesses to the review (in the order that they appeared before the Task Group / members)

Witness Position Organisation Simon Niles Children's Services Strategic Manager Devon County Council Eileen Barnes-Vachell School Improvement Consultant Integrated Services, Support Services, Babcock International Group John Searson Director of Education, Diocese of Exeter Devon County Council Sue Clarke Head of Education & Learning Devon County Council Debbie Clapshaw Lead Professional – Governor Support Devon County Council Team – Babcock LDP Adrian Fox Senior Accountant (Schools) Devon County Council Martin Harding Head United Schools Federation Alison Calvert Head of Office Regional Schools Commissioner for the South West Jamie Stone Headteacher Denbury Primary School / Chair of DAPH 1. David Fitzsimmons Principal Holsworthy College / DASH

2. Dave Black Head of Planning, Transportation & Devon County Council Environment 3. Amanda Blewett Area Officer Devon Association of 4. Governors 5. Tony Callcut Executive Headteacher Link Multi Academy Trust Jennie Stephens Strategic Director People Devon County Council Tracey Amos Headteacher Great Torrington School Gary Chown Chief Executive Officer Primary Academies Trust Councillor James Cabinet Member for Children, Schools Devon County Council McInnes and Skills

Page19 123 Agenda Item 11

Appendix 3 - Bibliography

Championing All Our Children – A strategic vision for vulnerable children and young people in Devon http://www.devon.gov.uk/championing-all-our-children-2014.pdf

Cracking the code: how schools can improve social mobility https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360753/Crack ing_the_code_Final.pdf

Ofsted on the Pupil premium http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium

Education Endowment Foundation – Toolkit. http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/

Education Matters in Care http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/data/files/Education_Matters_in_Care_September_2012.pdf

Improving the attainment of looked after children in primary schools. Guidance for Schools, DCF 2009 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190244/01047- 2009.pdf

Leaders’ Briefing - Making the right choices for Children in Care https://www.rip.org.uk/resources/publications/leaders-briefings/leaders-briefing--making-the-right- choices-for-children-in-care

Working Together – The Future of Rural Church of England Schools https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2088313/future%20of%20rural%20schools%20report.pdf

Page20 124 Agenda Item 12

SCC/16/50 People’s Scrutiny Committee 5 September 2016

Residential and Nursing Care: Market Sufficiency and Commissioning Approach

Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 The Care Act 2014 places a duty on local authorities to ensure the sufficiency of local markets (for the whole population, not just those for whom we commission care), and to ensure continuity of care in the event of a business failure.

1.2 Our current contract with care home providers allows for individual placements to be ‘called off’ against pre agreed terms and conditions on a spot purchase basis. The only requirement for the care home is that it is registered with CQC. Fees are based on two bands – standard and enhanced, broadly based on the hours of care needed. People needing care that falls outside of these banded rates have their placements individually negotiated, usually by personal brokers.

1.3 We currently have 263 care home providers for older people in the DCC area: 68 nursing, 195 residential.

1.4 Residential and nursing care home placements are sourced from the independent and private sector, with the council retaining specialist in-house provision of 34 beds.

Devon Residential/Nursing placements (Includes In House)

3,250

3,000

2,750

2,500

2,250

1.4.12 6.1.133.2.133.3.13 5.1.142.2.142.3.14 4.1.151.2.151.3.15 3.1.16 1.1.17 29.4.1227.5.1224.6.1222.7.1219.8.1216.9.12 9.12.12 31.3.1328.4.1326.5.1323.6.1321.7.1318.8.1315.9.13 8.12.13 30.3.1427.4.1425.5.1422.6.1420.7.1417.8.1414.9.149.11.147.12.14 29.3.1526.4.1524.5.1521.6.1519.7.1516.8.1513.9.158.11.156.12.1531.1.1628.2.1627.3.1624.4.1622.5.1619.6.1617.7.1614.8.1611.9.169.10.166.11.164.12.1629.1.1726.2.17 14.10.1211.11.12 13.10.1310.11.13 12.10.14 11.10.15

1.5 We currently pay for just over 500 people in nursing homes just over 2,000 in residential homes. The number of people we place in care homes has reduced year on year, although that reduction has levelled out this year. We currently place approximately 25 people a week.

.

Page 125 Agenda Item 12

1.6 Residential and nursing care placements for older people represent the largest element of the spend on adult social care. This is about 48% of our total spend of £220m.

1.7 We currently spend £101 million on long stay placements, of which £85 million is for residential and £16 million for nursing.

1.8 The baseline fees DCC currently pays for older people care home placements are:

 Standard residential care = £468 per week  Enhanced residential care = £500 per week (for those with a higher level of need; approx. 30% of residential placements)  Standard nursing care = £615 per week  Enhanced nursing care = £640 per week

N.B. Nursing rates include £112 per week Funded Nursing Care payment from the NHS, which has recently been uplifted to £152 per week.

1.9 When it is not possible for the Council to source a care home placement within a specific area at its usual fee, the Council will make a premium payment over and above its usual fee, called a Market Premium.

1.10 These statistics do not include ‘Top Up’ payments which are paid by third parties for additional (non-care) services or choice of accommodation.

2. Current Position

2.1 In 2011 Devon County Council faced a Judicial Review challenge of the decision it took regarding banded fee rates for the financial year 2011/2012. As a result, a new financial model was developed in 2012, taking into account the costs care home operators typically have in providing care and accommodation for older people, in order to set a fair price, whilst also securing best value for the public purse.

2.2 The cost model was successfully defended by the Council in the High Court in 2012 when it was challenged by a small number of providers in a further Judicial Review case. The result of these challenges is that Devon County Council has a financial model for calculating the cost of care which has been found to be rational and lawful and there have been no legal challenges since 2012.

2.3 The cost model was updated in 2014 to reflect engagement with Devon care home operators, and has been updated each year since to take account of inflation and other changing factors in the sector such as the National Living Wage.

2.4 Whilst this model informs the baseline cost of care, increasing pressure from the market has resulted in market premiums being paid in almost 30% of new cases, with the largest number of those in the North. We have seen a significant increase since autumn 2015, with the greatest rise in the nursing home sector.

2.5 A capital investment and grant programme is currently being developed in collaboration with the DCC Economy and Enterprise team. This aims to develop nursing capacity into areas of greatest risk. Page 126 Agenda Item 12

2.6 We are taking a multi- agency approach to the commissioning of care home placements with the two Clinical Commissioning Groups and Torbay Council, aiming to introduce a new joint health and social care contract from April 2017.

2.7 The contract will cover all residential and nursing home placements made by DCC, with phase one to be those for older people and older people with mental health conditions. Phase two will follow later in 2017 to cover all other residential and nursing placements.

3. Engagement and consultation to date

3.1 We have undertaken extensive engagement with providers, service users and staff to develop and test options for the new care homes contract.

3.2 Operational staff in DCC and the NHS have provided feedback on the issues they would like to see considered, and have contributed to the specification development. We will continue to ensure effective engagement with staff across all sectors including using existing models for this including the staff reference group and the DCC Adults Way We Work group.

3.3 We have engaged and consulted with care home providers from the beginning of this process. An initial briefing was delivered to the County Strategic Provider Group by the Cabinet Member on 12th July 2016. A whole market event was held on 4 August 2016 (co-designed by a provider focus group beforehand), attended by over 60 care home owners where providers were presented with items we aim to address in the new contract including fee models, quality assurance, trusted assessor models and vacancy management. Providers discussed each item in small groups and fed back their key points to the wider group at the end. This feedback has informed the options appraisal for the fee model as well as the wider contract detail, and this has been fed back to attendees.

3.4 We have a service user/carer involvement plan, and we are engaging the existing Commissioning Involvement Group in the design of the specification, in particular the quality thresholds and user/family feedback in contract monitoring. The Equalities Reference Group has been asked to consider the Equality & Diversity element of the new specification.

4.0 Options considered: a) A full open tender with the market setting the price b) A tender with a capped rate c) Block contracts to guarantee supply d) An open framework with the price agreed through consultation and engagement with providers, based on the existing fee model e) Use of a personal dependency profile to identify individual care needs and commission the number of hours, rather than slotting into just the current two banded rates

4.1 Feedback from providers, staff and service users has favoured items d and e above, and we are currently working up proposals to develop these options further. It is expected that working with the market to agree a price and a contract which they then tender against will significantly reduce (if not completely eliminate) the need for market premium payments. This will bring greater budget stability to providers and reduce volatility on the social care budget. .

5. Other planned developments

5.1 Use of a personal dependency tool will allow us to better understand the needs of older people in care homes which will help inform commissioning decisions in the future. It will also inform the development of a trusted assessor model, with regular client reviews to ensure the correct amount of care for each individual.

Page 127 Agenda Item 12

5.2 An online bed vacancy tool will give us visibility of vacancies, and is likely to be a contractual requirement. This will reduce the overheads in identifying placements for staff working in the Council and the NHS.

5.3 To use the principles developed for the older people care homes contract for under 65s

5.4 The council monitors supply and makes a regular assessment of both current and future quality and sufficiency. This has identified a requirement to increase the availability of care homes with nursing.

5.5 Alongside the recommissioning approach set out in this paper, it is likely we will launch a procurement to secure two new purpose-built, high quality, efficient care homes with nursing. These will each be for at least 60 beds and will be designed to the standards described by Stirling University (recognised nationally as representing best practice). This is still being discussed with NHS commissioning partners and further details will follow later in the autumn.

6. Next Steps

6.1 We are currently designing the procurement process in order to go out to tender in the autumn. This is likely to be an open framework, allowing providers to join the framework at fixed entry points throughout the length of the contract as long as they can demonstrate they meet the quality requirements.

6.2 The fee model is currently being developed, based on the existing model calculations, covering core non-care costs and individual hours of care. This allows for a person-centred approach, and will be consistent across DCC and NHS commissioning. We will continue to engage with the market in developing the new fee model.

7. Considerations

7.1 There are no considerations.

Tim Golby Head of Social Care Commissioning

Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Adult Services: Councillor Stuart Barker

Strategic Director, People: Jennie Stephens

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

Contact for Enquiries: Solveig Sansom, Senior Manager (Older People), Adult Social Care Commissioning Email: [email protected] Tel No: 01392 383 000 Room: 1st Floor, The Annexe, County Hall

Page 128 Agenda Item 13 CP/16/03 People Scrutiny 5th September 2016

FIRST QUARTER PERFORMANCE REPORT: CHILDRENS SOCIAL WORK AND CHILD PROTECTION

Report of the Childrens Social Work and Child Protection All figures in this report quoted as relating to June 2016

The development of the new performance book is nearing completion and this will give managers comprehensive monthly data on key performance indicators (KPI’s)

The detailed information will enable us to identify hotspots and themes to target action plans with the emphasis on improving our performance in line with ‘good’ Local Authorities.

The Quality Assurance Framework (appended) reports on some (KPI’s) for Children’s Services as at the end of June-16, Q1 16/17

In this report I have identified in italics the key areas of performance improvement and performance concern

Early Help,

The Early Help System provides integrated support to children, young people and their families. The key objective of the service is to offer advice, support and direct case work to prevent issues escalating and requiring statutory intervention. The aim is to intervene early in terms of the age of a child, and early in terms of an issue arising in the life of a child – from pre-birth to nineteen. Early Help works with children, young people and families who are experiencing difficulties and provides services for children who need extra help with their learning, social, emotional, behavioural, developmental and other needs.

Activity in this service is currently measured by the number of Common (Devon) Assessment Frameworks (DAF) that are recorded – The DAF is an early help inter-agency assessment that offers a basis for early identification of children's additional needs. For the period April to September 2015, the number of DAF’s being opened had been far greater than that in the same period the previous year, such that activity levels were 90.6% higher. However, since October 2015, activity levels have been falling, and this trend has continued to date: Q1 16/17 (183), Q1 15/16 (611). As a tool the DAF is clunky and we are currently piloting EH tools that are more user-friendly and intuitive. The Alliance has reinforced its commitment to Holistix and we expect the new EH tools to be embedded from 01.01.2017

The performance indicator on the number or rate of DAFs needs to be treated with some caution, as DAFs are currently used for a range of purposes:

A) for their intended purpose as an early help assessment of need; leading to an early help plan, early help intervention and improved outcomes for the child or, if outcomes do not improve, as a tool to aid decision making on subsequent steps and Page 129 Agenda Item 13 B) for unintended purposes as a record of basic information, as a MASH Enquiry, or as a referral form to other services.

The DSCB has asked all partners to record their current activity in relation to their multi-agency Early Help offer and to set targets. To be counted, the work must include an assessment recorded on Holistix, a multi- agency team around the child/family and an intervention or care plan for the family.

At this time we are very cautious about what can be inferred from the reported data

Children in Need

The number of Children in Need (CIN) at the end of March 15/16 was 4,674 a decrease of 18% compared

to 5,725 at the end of 14/15. The total Devon CIN for June-16 is 5,364 – this does include finance only cases. If the finance only cases (1233) are excluded, Devon’s number of CIN is 4131

Referrals into statutory children’s service

Referrals remain relatively consistent except around the periods of school holidays where historically we see a drop in activity, and when comparing year to date activity with last year’s data, there has been just a 1.0% increase in 2015-16. At a rate of (488.6) this compares favourably with national figures (548), those of the other South West authorities (515) and statistical neighbours (537.9). Re-referrals to the service, defined as those children being re-referred to social care with 12 months of their original referral has decreased from 26.7% in June 2015 to 20.9% currently for Q1 (June-16) Again, latest comparison figures for 15/16 see national figures at 24.0%, South West Authorities at 24.6% and DCC’s statistical neighbours at 22.5%.

Assessments

The vast majority of accepted referrals lead to an assessment to determine needs and risks, clarify the desired outcomes and, where required, allocate resources to achieve them. These assessments must be timely. The maximum timeframe for the single assessment to conclude, such that it is possible to reach a decision on next steps, should be no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral.

Although variable on a month by month basis, the conversion rate of referral to assessment currently stands at (94.5% Q1 June-16) The year to date rate at the same point last year (Jun-15 was 90.9%) Such a high conversion rate has led to 7,552 single assessments being completed and authorised in 15/16, of which 90.6% have been authorised within the 45 working day threshold.

In June-16 (88.6%) of single assessments were authorised within the 45 working day threshold

This is an aspect of the service that has seen a significant improvement in performance as outturn in the previous year 2014-15 had been 68.0%. Comparing DCC’s performance for 15/16 (90.6%) against the Page 130 Agenda Item 13 latest available published data, the 15/16 national figure for assessments completed on time was 81.5%; other South West Authorities 79.3% and statistical neighbours (79.1%). While this performance is good and a great improvement; we need to set the right benchmarks, so, in future in the performance book, we will benchmark against authorities rated good or better by Ofsted.

At the end of 15/16, 45.8% and at the end of Q1 16/17 57.9% of the assessments are closed with no further involvement from the statutory social work service. This suggests that too many families are being brought into the statutory service which consumes an expensive resource and, if unnecessary, is damaging to families). The Childrens Overview Group may wish to invite the senior manager from MASH to attend a future meeting to explore further the high rate of accepted referrals to assessments and the low rate of completed assessments into CIN.

Child Protection Enquiries

Section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989, places a duty on a local authority, in circumstances where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, to make such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. The number of such enquiries initiated to March 2016 was 2,276, averaging 190 per month, an increase of less than 1% on the same period last year. For April, May and June-16 the average monthly figure is 147. The decision to undertake enquiries under S47 is made after multi-agency consideration of the issues and risks in a strategy discussion. The enquiries should not automatically lead to a child protection conference, though a conference should be convened in all cases where it is judged that a multi-agency protection plan is required to reduce the risk to the child, meet his/her needs and improve the outcomes. Some multi-agency audit work earlier this year revealed a perverse consequence to the 15 day from strategy discussion to conference indicator. In order to meet the indicator, managers were booking the conference in advance of conducting the child protection enquiries. This partly explains the churn of three month review de-registrations. Work to re-establish the appropriate child protection pathway is underway.

Child Protection Conferences

The Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) brings together family members, the child, where appropriate, and those professionals most involved with the child and family. Historically in Devon, 45% to 50% of all Section 47 enquiries lead to the initiation of an ICPC. In 15/16 this increased to 53.1% with 1,202 such conferences being held. The figure for Q1 16/17 is 41.3%. The purpose of the ICPC is to decide what future action is required to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child, how that action will be taken forward, and with what intended outcomes. Where the conference outcome determines that a child is at continuing risk of significant harm, a multi-agency child protection plan is formulated to protect the child.

The number of children who are actually the subject of such a plan roen from 464 to 714 in the twelve months to March 2016, an increase of 56.0%, though at some point during last year 15/16 the figure was as high as 764. For Jun-16 the figure has reduced toPage 610 children. 131 Work is currently underway to better Agenda Item 13 understand the reasons behind these increases; it could be that more risk is being identified, it could be a culture of risk-averse practice, it could be a production line culture, it could be a combination. In order to bring the numbers of children subject to a child protection plan back into line with statistical neighbours (577 for 14/15), there is a need to reduce by 25%. In Q1 16/17 we have seen a positive trend of reducing the numbers by 15% from 714 Mar-16 to 610 Jun-16

The trend whereby almost a third of those children made subject to a child protection plan, were removed from it either on or before their first review within 3 months of the ICPC decision has improved in Q1 16/17 to 8%.

Work is underway on a strengths based approach in child protection conferences.

Re-registration

For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the QAF has not included data on re-registrations. This is unusual. It is an oversight on my part to have not picked up this omission sooner. The CIN census has just been completed and it revealed very poor performance on re-registrations in 15/16.

“The number of children becoming subject of a plan in Devon has increased throughout 2015/16 by 7.1% and at the end of 2015/16 was 47.4% higher than the previous year. Children becoming subject of a CP Plan for a second or subsequent time has increased by 68.1% from 14/15 (227 children of 1014 becoming subject of a CP Plan for a second or subsequent time). This meant that 22.4% of new CP Plans that started in the year were for children who had previously had a CP Plan. This is higher than stat neighbours, South West and England averages”

The increased rate of re-registration is likely to be attributable to the Council’s improvement plan. You will see in the QAF that a table on re-registrations has been added. There is a striking and not explainable position in April and a more usual pattern for May and June. Good performance will be somewhere in the region of 15%, so there is more to do to improve this performance.

Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Skills: Councillor James McInnes

Strategic Director, People: Jennie Stephens

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

Contact for Enquiries: Jo Olsson, Head of Childrens Social Work Service and Child Protection Email: [email protected] Tel No: 01392 381093 Room: 130

Page 132 Agenda Item 13

Devon Children’s Social Work Quality Assurance Framework

Report of: June 2016

1.0 Activity and Performance Information

Children and Young People Population profile for Devon – 2015 Mid-Year Estimates Source: Office of National Statistics Population per age band

0 1-4 5-9 10-15 16-17 18-25

England 662,977 2,771,703 3,357,463 3,612,971 1,272,742 5,674,723 Devon 7,005 31,596 40,769 46,422 16,799 73,900 Age Band as a Percentage of Total Population

England 1.2%  5.1%  6.0% 6.6%  2.4%  10.4%  Devon 0.9%  4.1%  5.2% 6.1%  2.2%  9.5% 

1) Children’s Social Work Total Caseload Profile

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Number of Children in Need (excl LAC and CP) Number of Children subject of a CP Plan Number of Children looked after Stat Neighbour CIN incl LAC and CP (4,703) 14/15 CIN (5,725) England CIN (incl LAC and CP) (4,796) 15/16 CIN (4,674)

The total Devon CIN for June-16 is 5,364 which includes LAC 708, CP 610 and Finance only cases 248 and 985 CwD. The rate of CIN cases 15/16 for Devon was 402.7, our Statistical Neighbours was 327.5 and the National rate was 337.3 This means we have approximately 75 per 10,000 (c 1000 children) more children involved with social care than our Statistical Neighbours. The trend for the first quarter shows a steady decline to bring us in line with stat neighbours and national

Page 133 Page 1 of 16

Agenda Item 13

2) Number of DAF1s in Holistix 3) Number of MASH Enquiries and Referrals in the month

250 1400

1200 200 1000

150 800

600 100 400

50 200

0 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

16/17 15/16 MASH Enquiries Referrals

No.DAFs Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 16/17 72 65 46 Mash Enquiries 1276 1265 1315 Referrals 464 489 452

Once again, the number of DAF’s recorded on Holistix during the This gap between enquiries and referrals suggests we need to same period 16/17 shows a significant month on month reduction strengthen understanding of thresholds, or confidence in decision compared to 15/16. The Alliance has reinforced its commitment to making to hold risk outside of the statutory service. Holistix and new EH tools are being piloted. Work is underway in MASH to reject inappropriate enquiries that do not meet threshold.

4) Percentage of social care referrals that are re-referrals 5) % of Referrals with a Single Assessment within 12 months

100% 35% 90% 30% 80% 25% 70%

20% 60%

15% 50%

10% 40%

30% 5% 20% 0% Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 10%

Month Target (25%) Stat Neighbour (24.6%) England (24%) 0% Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17

Target Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17

25% 20.4% 21.8% 22.4% 92.9% 95.6% 94.5%

The rate of children re-referred within rolling 12 months remains at The rate for referrals that have a Single Assessment outcome for Q1 approximately a fifth of all children. For 15/16 Devon’s rate 23.4% June-16 is 94.5%. We aim to obtain benchmarking data from our was less than Stat Neighbours 24.6% and the National rate 24% Statistical Neighbours for comparison as this statistic is currently not reported publically.

Page 134 Page 2 of 16

Agenda Item 13 6) Number of Single Assessments Starting 7) Cases closed at end of Single Assessment

600 Single Assessments Authorised with "Case Closed" Outcome 900

500 800 700 400 600 500 300 400 300 200 200 100 100 0 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 0 Authorised "Case Closed" Outcome Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17

Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 526 547 473 51.5% 54.2% 57.9%

For Jun-16 the number of SA’s starting has reduced by 74 to 473 from The rate for SA with “Case Closed” outcome for Q1 June-16 is 57.9%. the previous month 547. Work is planned to examine the points in the system where The overall 15/16 total (7,543) averaging 628 per month reduced by information gathering would be most effective, in order to reduce the 7.9% compared to the previous year 14/15 (8,187). This year’s data for numbers of single assessments that result in closure Q1 indicates a reduction in Single Assessments starting compared to the monthly average of 628 in 15/16.

8) Number of Section 47 Enquiries 9) Number of ICPC resulting in Child Protection Plans to commence

200 100% 180 90% 160 80% 140 70% 120 60% 100 50% 80 40% 60 30% 40 20% 20 10% 0 0% Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17

Percentage of ICPCs in month 15/16 16/17 Stat Neighbour England Percentage outcome "CP Plan to commence"

Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 No. ICPC held in month 47 64 35 29 49 32 153 144 144 No. ICPC outcome CPP to % CP Plan to commence 61.7% 76.6% 91.4%

In Q1 June-16 the number of S47 enquiries has reduced to 144 which The number of ICPC’s for June-16 was 35 which was lower than in Apr- is in line with our Statistical Neighbours for 15/16 of 141 16 and May-16 the The rate of CPP’s to commence has increased from 61.7% to 91.4% in Q1 16/17.that hat 28% of plans ended this year were in place for 3 months or less. This could mean the plan was inappropriate.

Page 135 Page 3 of 16

Agenda Item 13 10) Rate/10,000 of Children Subject to a Child Protection Plan 11) % of Re-registration CPP in the year

60.0 % of Re-registration CPP in the year 40% 50.0 35%

40.0 30% 25% 20.9% YTD Jun-16 22.4% Devon 15/16 30.0 20%

20.0 15% 10%

10.0 5%

0% 0.0 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar CPP Re-Reg YTD 16/17 Devon est 15/16 (22.4%) 16/17 15/16 Stat Neighbour England Target Devon 14/15 (17.5%) Stat Neighbour 14/15 (19.6%) England 14/15 (16.6%)

Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 No. of Children Re-Reg 47.8 47.0 42.9 in rolling Yr 11 16 23 No. of CPP starts 29 49 32 Cumulative 16/17 CPP starts 29 78 110 CPP % Re-Reg YTD 16/17 37.9% 20.5% 20.9%

In Q1 16/17 the number of children subject to a Child Protection Plan This chart looks at how many children have started a CPP in the month has been reducing to 610 as at June-16. and whether they have ever had a CPP before in the previous rolling 12 The rate of children subject of a CP is 42.9 per 10,000 of the under 18 months. Each month the data is reviewing all the CPP starts from Apr- population in Devon. The latest comparator data 14/15: for Statistical 16 cumulatively and by the end of 16/17 the data will show the % of neighbours 51.1 per 10,000, for South West, 54.3 and for England, re-registrations for the year, which is the figure reported in the CIN 53.7. census. For 15/16 this was 22.4% for Devon, 19.6% Stat Neighbours and currently 20.9% for Devon to Jun-16rtd in the m March and continued at high level throughout the year. If this is read alongside chart 10 there is a level throut the year. If this is read alongside chart 10 there is evidence that 28% of plans ended this year were in place for 3 months or less. This could mean the plan was inappropriate.ce that 28% of plans ended this year were in place for 3 months or less. This could mean the plan was inappropriate.

12. Team breakdown of children ending CP within 3 months of starting CP.

Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Ended Ended Ended Ended Ended Ended Team % 0-2 % 0-2 % 0-2 months months Total Ends months months Total Ends months months Total Ends 0-2 3+ months 0-2 3+ months 0-2 3+ months

CHILDREN & FAMILIES EXETER 1 1 4 5 20% 8 8 0% 3 3 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES EXETER 2 3 3 6 50% 7 7 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES EXETER 3 1 3 4 25% 3 3 0% 5 5 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES EXETER 4 3 3 0% 1 1 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES EXETER 5 TOTAL CHILDREN & FAMILIES EXETER 5 10 15 33% 0 14 14 0% 0 16 16 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES MID & EAST 1 1 2 3 33% 6 6 0% 11 11 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES MID & EAST 2 4 4 0% 7 7 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES MID & EAST 3 3 3 0% 7 7 0% 3 4 7 43% CHILDREN & FAMILIES MID & EAST 4 1 1 100% CHILDREN & FAMILIES MID & EAST 5 TOTAL CHILDREN & FAMILIES MID & EAST 1 5 6 17% 0 17 17 0% 4 22 26 15% CHILDREN & FAMILIES NORTH 1 1 1 100% CHILDREN & FAMILIES NORTH 2 1 1 0% 10 10 0% 7 7 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES NORTH 3 8 8 0% 2 2 0% 2 2 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES NORTH 4 10 10 0% 1 2 3 33% 5 5 0% TOTAL CHILDREN & FAMILIES NORTH 1 19 20 5% 1 14 15 7% 0 14 14 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES SOUTH 1 3 3 0% 7 7 0% 3 3 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES SOUTH 2 3 3 0% 3 3 0% 12 12 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES SOUTH 3 6 6 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES SOUTH 4 5 5 10 50% 1 1 0% 13 13 0% CHILDREN & FAMILIES SOUTH 5 7 7 0% 3 3 0% TOTAL CHILDREN & FAMILIES SOUTH 5 18 23 22% 0 14 14 0% 0 34 34 0% ICS EXETER INITIAL RESPONSE MID & EAST INITIAL RESPONSE SOUTH PERMANENCY & TRANSITION NORTH TOTAL AD-HOC TEAMS 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0%

12 52 64 19% 1 59 60 2% 4 86 90 4% GRAND TOTALS Page 136 Page 4 of 16

Agenda Item 13 13) Children being deregistered from a CP Plan within 3 14) Number of Looked After Children months of starting CP - Q1 16/17 (8%)

12% 900

800 10% 700

8% 8% 600

500 6% 400

4% 300 200 2% 100

0% 0 C&F Exeter C&F Mid & East C&F North C&F South IRT/ICS/P&T Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

16/17 15/16 Target Stat Neighbour England Locality Total % Total Teams 8 % Q1 16/17

Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17

19% 2% 4% 699 696 708

Q1 16/17 shows a decrease in CPP’s ending at 3 months, with an June-16 shows 708 Looked After Children which is below our average of 8% Apr-16 to Jun-16 Statistical Neighbours however more work to be done in preventing accommodation.

15) Percentage of Looked After Children with a Visit 16) 3+ Placement Moves by Area to Jun-16 Completed in the Previous 6 Weeks

100% for total 708 LAC 3+ Placements 90% 80% No. Outturn 70% Exeter 4 0.6% 60% 50% North Devon 1 0.1% 40% 30% South & West Devon 6 0.8% 20% East & Mid Devon 5 0.7% 10% 0% Other 0 0.0% Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Previous 12 months Latest 12 months 16 2.3%

Target Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Historically Devon has had a high number of placement moves. More detailed analysis shows that these moves relate mainly to 15, 16 & 17 100% 80.9% 80.3% 84.3% year olds. The percentage of children with 3 or more placement moves in 2015/16 was 12.9% which was an improvement of just under Further improvement needed across the county with focus on particular teams. 2% from the previous year (14.8%). To Jun-16 the percentage of LAC with 3 or more moves is 2.3% however, this is a cumulative figure throughout the year so would be antipicated that this would increase as the year continues. This equates to 16 children having had 3 or more moves Apr-16 to Jun-16.

17) LAC 3+ Placement Information

% of Children with 3+ Placements in financial year to date 16/17 Forecast 2014/15 2015/16 Q1 16/17 Year end 16/17 Target 10% 14.9% 12.9% 2.3% 10.0% (2.5% x4)

Weekly data available and planning support for Children & Young People where stability is an issue.

Page 137 Page 5 of 16

Agenda Item 13 18) Number of Children and Young People Placed by Provider Type and Ofsted Grade Q1 16/17

The above chart shows the data for Devon’s Looked After Children, including those placed out of county.

Note: in- house adoption and fostering services are now judged based on the overall judgement of the LA’s single inspection framework. In Q1 16/17 35% are good (162), outstanding (49) or not yet inspected (17) of the total (644) shown.

The data indicates 64% (413) are in the category ‘requires improvement however some of our larger fostering providers, who have re-registered due to expansion, have not yet been inspected and graded therefore this figure is likely to improve in the near

future.

19) Number of Providers by Type and Ofsted Grade Q1 16/17

78% of total (77) children’s homes were judged as Good (48) or Outstanding (12) in Q1 16/17. A number of children’s homes that were Inadequate or Requires Improvement have now moved to good following QA work with the Children’s Commissioning

Team. 3 children’s homes were judged as inadequate, LA maintained special schools with childrens home provision and have robust action plans in place to improve.

Page 138 Page 6 of 16

Agenda Item 13

30th June 2016 Devon County Council Looked After - Key Facts

20) n=708

The Average Age of a Child in Care is : Boys 11.2 Years, Girls 11.6 Years

21) n=288

The Longest Current Period of Care of Any Child is : 16.2 Years

Page 139 Page 7 of 16

Agenda Item 13

22)

The Rate of LAC Under Section 20 Nationally in 2013-14 was 27.9%

23)

Page 140 Page 8 of 16

24) Adoption Scorecard

D E V O N C O U N T Y C O U N C I L A D O P T I O N S C O R E C A R D Q U A R T E R 1 2016/17

2016-17 Devon County's Adoption Population Percentage YTD Adoption Scorecard: Average Time Indicators Devon 2014-17 Quarterly Performance Number of Children adopted 11 100% 600

Aged 5 and Over 3 27.3% 547

Aged Under 5 8 72.7% 545 514 489 500 No. of adopted children in sibling groups 5 45.5% 487 487 Number of children with a decision to be placed for Adoption 81 - 462

Number of children with a placement order 58 71.6% 400

No .of children in sibling groups 53 65.4% Page 141 Page

Number of children matched to adopter 33 56.9%

Days 300 Number of children matched & placed with adopter 30 51.7%

Number of children whose decision to be placed for adoption has been rescinded 6

Number of children ending care due to Special Guardianship order 22 - 200 178 167 168 England 153 DEVON SN average average Children Looked After and Adoption Performance measures (2014-17) (2012-15) (2012- 15) 152 Adoption scorecard A1: time between child entering care and placement for adoption 462 days 517 days 593 days 100 121 121 121 Agenda Item 13 Adoption scorecard A2: time between receiving court authority to place a child and deciding on a 178 days 152 days 223 days match

Adoption scorecard A3: children waiting less than 16 months between entering care and placement 61.8% n/a 47% for adoption (NB: measure reduced from 18 months previosuly reported) 0 Adoption 1: Percentage of looked after children who ceased to be looked after who were adopted 14.6% 16% 14% 2011-14 2012-15 2013-16 2014-17 Q1 2014-17 Q2 2014-17 Q3 2014-17 Q4 3 Year Average Adoption 2: Percentage of looked after children who ceased to be looked after because of special 12.8% 10% 10% guardianship order Devon A1 Target A1 Devon A2 Target A2

*Data source: ALB Adoption Survey, CareFirst and Adoption Database

The Q1 figures continue to show positive work being undertaken in the adoption service to improve timescales for children. The journey of children are tracked at every stage. However, since the final year report was given last month, an additional tracker has been put in place by management systems to support the A2 indicator. However, we are aware that the children who wait are those who are older and are deemed difficult to place and have longer transitions. Many of the children (53 out of the 58 children who have permission to place) are part of sibling groups. The figure for % of children adopted has the first time in three years exceeded the English average showing a positive trajectory. The numbers of children gaining permanence through SGO’s is also above statistical neighbours and the English average.

Page 9 of 16

Agenda Item 13

Children’s Social Care Workforce Profile

25) Worker Case Allocation and FTE Breakdown by Service and Team June-16 data

Current FTEs - Of Which, Ave. No. of Cases % Allocated to Service Area Team Name Practice Manager Caseload Total Open Cases Allocated to per Current FTE Named Worker Adjustment* Named Worker Total

Exeter IRCX1 Juanita Scallan 5.7 150 150 100.0% 26.4

Mid & East IRCM1 Kevin Kenna 8.8 167 166 99.4% 19.0 Initial Response North IRCN1 Roger Walter 7.5 155 155 100.0% 20.7

South IRCS1 Jean Beynon 7.8 231 230 99.6% 29.6

Initial Response Total 29.8 703 701 99.7% 23.6

CFCX1 Annette Taylor 7.0 138 137 99.3% 19.7

CFCX2 Phil Stagg 4.2 136 136 100.0% 32.4 Children & Exeter Families CFCX3 Aiden Mitchelmore 5.8 153 151 98.7% 26.4

CFCX4 Helen Neighbour 7.2 119 119 100.0% 16.5

Children and Families - Exeter Total 24.2 546 543 99.5% 22.6

CFCM1 Richard Ashdown 6.2 141 141 100.0% 22.7

CFCM2 Helen Patten 5.8 138 138 100.0% 23.8 Children & Mid & East Families CFCM3 Emily Hextall 5.6 112 111 99.1% 20.0

CFCM4 Corrina Bryant 5.6 116 116 100.0% 20.7

Children and Families - Mid/East Total 23.2 507 506 99.8% 21.9

CFCN2 Paul Sains 7.2 161 161 100.0% 22.4 Children & North CFCN3 Fran Hughes 4.5 118 118 100.0% 26.1 Families CFCN4 Heather Cooper 6.6 114 114 100.0% 17.3

Children and Families - North Total 18.3 393 393 100.0% 21.5

CFCS1 Lisa Jackson 6.0 130 130 100.0% 21.6

CFCS2 Herdaypal Johal 6.0 159 159 100.0% 26.5 Children & South Families CFCS3 Jane Anstis 5.8 173 172 99.4% 29.8

CFCS4 Jacqueline Fox 7.5 185 185 100.0% 24.6

Children and Families - South Total 25.3 647 646 99.8% 25.5

Exeter P TCX1 Juliet Jones 14.4 260 259 99.6% 18.1

Mid & East PTCM1 Naomi Pollard 11.0 137 133 97.1% 12.4 Permanency & Transition North PTCN1 Giles Bashford 9.6 189 184 97.4% 19.7

South PTCS1 Karen Thompson 11.7 219 219 100.0% 18.7

Permanency and Transition Total 46.7 805 795 98.8% 17.2

ICS East Mid ICCEMID Brian Copp 3.3 109 105 96.3% 33.1

ICS Exeter ICCEXETR Martin Quaintance 7.4 140 127 90.7% 18.9

ICS Exeter 2 ICCIAEME Martin Quaintance / Brian Copp 1.0 3 2 66.7% 3.0 Integrated Children's ICS North 1 ICCNORTH Marianne Jackson 1.6 59 45 76.3% 36.9 Services ICS North 2 ICCNRTH2 - 4.6 36 30 83.3% 7.8

ICS South 1 ICCSWEST Derek Godden 2.4 50 50 100.0% 20.8

ICS South 2 ICCSWST2 Kathy Kirkman 5.6 94 94 100.0% 16.8

Integrated Children's Services Total 25.9 491 453 92.3% 19.0

Private Fostering PFC1 Elaine Newton 3.7 39 39 100.0% 10.5

Total (Excluding FOC Cases) 197.1 4131 4076 98.7% 21.0

Finance Only Cases FOC01 248

ICSFREME, ICS Finance Only Cases ICSFRN & 985 ICSFRS

Total (Including FOC Cases) 5364

Page 142 Page 10 of 16

Staff names in red text denotes 'Agency Staff' Agenda Item 13 Minus staff shown as on long term sick leave or maternity In 'Current FTEs - Caseload Adjustment*' figures ASYE's and NQSW's can only carry a 60% caseload and therefore a full time (1 FTE) ASYE or NQSW is adjusted to be 0.6 FTE * FTE Caseload Adjustment = Family Practitioners only counted in P&T teams, ASYEs throughout adjusted to be 0.6 of their FTE for caseload purposes. All Team Managers and Assistant Team Managers are excluded from caseload calculations i.e. they are not caseholding. However in the team Private Fostering the Team Manager is included and is said to be caseholding.

The average caseload is at 21.6 There is variation in some areas e.g. 16.5 compared with 32.4 in CFC Exeter; 19.0 compared to 29.6 in IR and 12.4 compared to 19.7 in P&T. There is also wide discrepancy in team sizes. Work is underway to address this and ensure equity. Allocation generally remains at a very high level. The proportion of permanent staff continues to increase.

26. June-16 data

Allocations by Case Type and Teams

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 IR Exeter Mid & East North South P&T CwD PF CwD Finance Finance Only Only Cases Cases (FOC01)

Care Leavers (499) CiC (708) CP (610) Cin Unallocated (1,020) CiN SW (2,578) CiN Other Professional (447)

27. June-16 data

Allocations by Case Type for P&T Areas 300

250

200

150

100

50

0 PTCM1 PTCN1 PTCS1 PTCX1

Care Leavers (499) CiC (708) CP (610) Cin Unallocated (1,020) CiN SW (2,578) CiN Other Professional (447)

Page 143 Page 11 of 16

Agenda Item 13 3. Internal Case Audits

• The overarching aim of the audits is to improve the quality of practice and outcomes for children and young people. The audit considers the quality of the information and recording on the young person’s file, the arrangements for the audit include discussion with the Social Worker, the quality of the decision making process, risk assessment and analysis. Accordingly, the scoring system above reflects this. Judgements are: (1) No or few standards met. (2) Some standards partially met. (3) Some standards met in full. (4) Many standards met in full. (5) All standards met in full or exceeded. The charts below show the cases that meet standards 3, 4 and 5.

CASE AUDITS: CHILDREN IN NEED Of the 73 internal audits completed during June 2016, 21 CiN case audits completed since April 16 show a gradually relate to Children in Need. worsening trend in terms of the % of audit dimensions scoring 3+ (acceptable or better).

% judged as ‘some’, ‘many’ or ‘all standards met in full or exceeded’ Children in Need - Case Audit Trend June. 2016 (% dimensions scoring 3+) Audit Dimension ytd Average: 74% No’s % 100% 90% 1a: Management scrutiny/oversight 14 67% 80% 2: Experience of child/young person 16 76% 70% 60% 3: Practitioner contact 14 67% 50% 4: Assessment & needs analysis 14 67% 40% 30% 5: Planning for children 13 62% 20% 6: Recording and report writing 13 62% 10% 0% Number of audit dimensions scored 126 Number of audits for CiN cases 21 Overall % judged ‘Acceptable’ or better 67% CiN Linear (CiN)

3+ scores down for standards 1a, 2, 4, 5, 6 compared to April Year to date % of 3+ scores is 74%. 16. June is 7% below the year to date average of 3+scores. Overall % 3+ scores down 8% compared to May 16.

CASE AUDITS: CHILD PROTECTION Of the 73 internal case audits completed during June 2016, CP case audits completed since April 16 show a gradually 15 relate to Child Protection cases. worsening trend in terms of the % of audit dimensions scoring 3+ (acceptable or better).

% judged as ‘some’, ‘many’ or ‘all standards met in full or exceeded’ Child Protection - Case Audit Trend June. 2016 (% dimensions scoring 3+) Audit Dimension ytd Average: 76% No’s % 100% 10 90% 1a: Management scrutiny/oversight 67% 80%

2: Experience of child/young person 11 73% 70% 60% 3: Practitioner contact 9 60% 50% 4: Assessment & needs analysis 11 73% 40% 30% 5: Planning for children 10 67% 20% 6: Recording and report writing 12 80% 10% 0%

Number of audit dimensions scored 90 Number of audits for CP cases 15 CP Linear (CP)

Overall % judged ‘Acceptable’ or better 70%

3+ scores down for standards 1a, 2, 3, 4, and 5 compared to Year to date % of 3+ scores is 76%. May 16. June is 6% below the year to date average of 3+ scores.

Overall % 3+ scores down 9% compared to May 16.

Page 144 Page 12 of 16

CASE AUDITS: CHILDREN IN CARE Agenda Item 13 Of the 73 internal case audits completed during June 2016, CIC case audits completed since April 16 show an improving trend in 25 relate to a Child in Care. terms of the % of audit dimensions scoring 3+ (acceptable or

better). % judged as ‘some’, ‘many’ or ‘all standards met in full or exceeded’ Children in Care - Case Audit Trend June. 2016 (% dimensions scoring 3+) Audit Dimension ytd Average: 85% No’s % 100% 90% 1a: Management scrutiny/oversight 21 84% 80% 2: Experience of child/young person 24 96% 70% 60% 3: Practitioner contact 25 100% 50% 4: Assessment & needs analysis 24 96% 40% 30% 5: Planning for children 24 96% 20% 6: Recording and report writing 24 96% 10% 0%

Number of audit dimensions scored 200 Number of audits for CiC cases 33 Overall % judged ‘Acceptable’ or better 81% CiC Linear (CiC)

All Standards of 3+ scores are above May 16. Year to date % of 3+scores is 85%.

Overall % 3+ scores up 14% compared to May 16. June is 4% below the year to date average of 3+ scores.

Care Leavers

Of the 73 internal case audits completed during June 2016, 11 have a status of Leaving Care.

% judged as ‘some’, ‘many’ or ‘all standards met in full or exceeded’ Care Leaver - Case Audit Trend ytd Average: 63% June. 2016 (% dimensions scoring 3+) Audit Dimension 100.0% No’s % 90.0% 1a: Management scrutiny/oversight 5 45% 80.0% 70.0% 2: Experience of child/young person 6 55% 60.0% 3: Practitioner contact 6 55% 50.0% 40.0% 4: Assessment & needs analysis 5 45% 30.0% 5: Planning for children 4 36% 20.0% 10.0% 6: Recording and report writing 6 55% 0.0% Number of audit dimensions scored 66 Number of audits for Care Leavers 11 Scoring 3+ Linear (Scoring 3+)

Overall % judged ‘Acceptable’ or 49%

All Standards of 3+ scores are below May 16. June is 14% below the year to date average of 3+ scores.

Assessments

Of the 73 internal case audits completed during June 2016 1 relate to Assessments.

% judged as ‘some’, ‘many’ or ‘all standards met in full or Mash Assessment- Case Audit Trend exceeded’ (% dimensions scoring 3+) ytd Average: 57% June. 2016 Audit Dimension 100% No’s % 90% 80% 72% 1a: Management scrutiny/oversight 0 0% 67% 70% 2: Experience of child/young person 0 0% 60% 3: Practitioner contact 0 0% 50% 40% 4: Assessment & needs analysis 0 0% 30% 5: Planning for children 0 0% 20% 10% 0% 6: Recording and report writing 0 0% 0% Number of audit dimensions scored 6 Number of audits for Care Leavers 1 Overall % judged ‘Acceptable’ or better 0% MASH Linear (MASH)

All Standards of 3+ scores are below May 16. June is 57% below the year to date average of 3+ scores.

Page 145 Page 13 of 16

VOICE OF THE CHILD: CHILD PROTECTION (The full Involvement report for June 2016 is available on the QAF webpages) Agenda Item 13

Parent / Carer Feedback Forms: (The full Involvement report for June 2016 is available on the QAF webpages). • 28 feedback forms for 47 individual children and young people were received in June 2016 which is 13 forms more than May. • The feedback covers 23 individual Social Workers.

Involvement indicators (respect & courtesy; support; kept informed & views acknowledged; agreement with outcome) • 90% of respondents in June, report positive feedback against all four involvement indicators compared to 81% for May. • 7 respondents reported positive feedback with parents/carers reporting they were very appreciative of the support they received. Q1 - Did you feel you were kept informed and your views acknowledged? • 25 (89%) of respondents reported they were kept informed and their views acknowledged, an upturn of 22% compared to May (67%). • All respondents completed this indicator.

Q1 - Did you feel you were kept informed and your views acknowledged?

23 25 24 22 28 23 21 19 18 16 14 15 14 14 10 92 89 80 73 74 5 76 68 68 70 72 70 65 67 64 67

45

Mar-2015 Apr-2015 May-2015 Jun-2015 Jul-2015 Aug-2015 Sep-2015 Oct-2015 Nov-2015 Dec-2015 Jan-2016 Feb-2016 Mar-2016 Apr-2016 May-2016 Jun-2016

Yes, I was kept infomed and my views were acknowledged - per cent Yes, I was kept infomed and my views were acknowledged - sum

Q2 - Did you feel you were supported by the Social Worker? • 24 (86%) of respondents reported that they felt supported by their social worker, an upturn of 6% compared to May (80%). • All respondents completed this indicator.

Q2 - Did you feel you were supported by the Social Worker? 31 25 21 24 22 23 17 12 20 16 15 18 15 15 17 7 83 84 86 76 75 77 80 71 70 74 72 71 71 67 63 64

Mar-2015 Apr-2015 May-2015 Jun-2015 Jul-2015 Aug-2015 Sep-2015 Oct-2015 Nov-2015 Dec-2015 Jan-2016 Feb-2016 Mar-2016 Apr-2016 May-2016 Jun-2016

Yes, I was supported by the social worker - per cent Yes, I was supported by the social worker - sum

Q3 - Did the Social Worker treat you with respect and courtesy? • 25 (89%) of respondents reported they felt their social worker treated them with respect and courtesy, an upturn of 2% compared to May (87%). • All respondents completed this indicator.

Page 146 Page 14 of 16

Q3 - Did the Social Worker treat you with respect and courtesy? Agenda Item 13 38 27 28 25 26 25 22 19 18 13 21 18 16 19 17 8 93 90 90 90 89 84 87 88 87 78 78 80 81 82 76 73

Mar-2015 Apr-2015 May-2015 Jun-2015 Jul-2015 Aug-2015 Sep-2015 Oct-2015 Nov-2015 Dec-2015 Jan-2016 Feb-2016 Mar-2016 Apr-2016 May-2016 Jun-2016

Yes, the social worker treated me with respect and courtesy - per cent Yes, the social worker treated me with respect and courtesy - sum

Q4. Were you in agreement with the outcome? • 22 (79%) of respondents reported they agreed with the outcome. An upturn of 6% compared to May (73%). • 5 respondents did not complete this indicator.

Q4 - Yes I was in agreement with the outcome

31 21 24 24 22 22 19 16 16 11 17 13 14 14 16 7 84 80 80 79 76 76 76 73 70 71 63 65 67 64 64 58

Mar-2015 Apr-2015 May-2015 Jun-2015 Jul-2015 Aug-2015 Sep-2015 Oct-2015 Nov-2015 Dec-2015 Jan-2016 Feb-2016 Mar-2016 Apr-2016 May-2016 Jun-2016

Yes, I was in agreement with the outcome - per cent Yes, I was in agreement with the outcome - sum

What Parents • There is an inevitable lag between case closure activity & Carers said and receipt of feedback forms from families, so reporting timescales mean that the information analysed in section 3.1 is based on all forms received in the month rather “SW was really good, our needs met straight away”. than all cases closed in that month. ” I would like to thank the SW for all the hard work put in with our family”. “I gained trust with the SW. They helped me” “Key Themes” “SW was so understanding and caring, never • Lack of information and communication remain a key judged, listened and took all views into factor for negative feedback. account”. “SW was sure to keep me up to date, and has a good manner and way with people”. “SW was great, helping my family through Recommendations: difficult times”. • Look at alternative options to increase parent carer “Further advice was needed about how we feedback. move forwards”. • Investigate the number of cases “unclassified” on “The SW report was vague, and communications were not satisfactory”. closure. • Allocate resources to overhaul forms and integrate with ““Further requirement to understand the issues reported”. wider SMS QA systems and qualitative measures.

Page 147 Page 15 of 16

4.0 Qualitative Feedback – The Independent Reviewing Unit and the Involvement Team Agenda Item 13 ** INDEPENDENT REVIEW UNIT ** CHILD PROTECTION MEETING ATTENDANCE

Overall attendance rates by meeting type Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 No.of total meetings No. % No. % No. % ICPC other Professionals 27 30 54% 21 61% Health Professionals 25% 38% 36% Total ICPC Attendance 52% 51% 55% Core Groups other Professionals 66 30 85% 33 75% Health Professionals 58% 61% 56% Total Core Groups Attendance 67% 80% 70% Child Protection Reviews other Professionals 109 92 70% 82 72% Health Professionals 45% 47% 48% Total CPR Attendance 66% 64% 66% Note : Total % are correct (Other Professionals plus Health %'s are not added together)

** INDEPENDENT REVIEW UNIT ** Timeliness of Social Worker Reports for CiC Reviews

135 IRU monitoring reports for Children in Care received for June.

Changes of Social Worker since last CiC Review

Of the 135 monitoring forms returned in June, 119 recorded data on changes in social worker. Of these, 27.7% show the child/young person having 1 or more changes of social worker since the last CiC review 33 children had a change of SW, 23 had 1 change, 9 had 2 changes and 1 had 3 changes since their last review. Teams have been working hard to provide stability in the services and have invested heavily in recruiting newly qualified social workers in order to provide a more long term stable workforce. This corresponds with new permanent staff starting.

Trend – % of cases reviewed with 1 or more changes of Social Worker since last review:-

Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 % of QA forms completed in the month that indicate 1 or 38.7% 36.5% 27.7% more changes in Social Worker since the last CiC review

Page 148 Page 16 of 16

Agenda Item 14

SCC/16/51 People’s Scrutiny Committee 5 September 2016

Performance Report – June 2016 Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning and Head of Adult Social Care

Introduction and Background

The Adult Performance Framework (APF) is structured under the current adult vision priority areas to highlight areas of good performance and where improvement and further development is needed. A number of indicators remain under development as the service ensures they are the right measures to understand the impact and outcomes for individuals, their carers and communities.

1. Vision Priority 1 - To ensure that people are using services feel safe

1.1 Service user views are captured annually as part of the annual Adult Social Care User Survey. The detailed data in APF relates to 2014-15. Provisional outcome for 2015-16 show improvement in these perception indicators

1.2 The indicators relating to Use of Deprivation of liberty standards (DOLs) and safeguarding are under development in the report. However the latest data in relation to DOLs indicates that the service has 2903 applications waiting assessment. This is an area of continued pressure and action continues to streamline the process where possible and ensure that the work is prioritised by an agreed triage system based on national guidelines. As reported previously this remains a national issue and Devon is similar to other authorities in our statistical neighbour groups

1.3 A key indicator in adult safeguarding is ‘Making safeguarding personal and meeting the preferred outcomes of the individual’. Devon currently performs at 85.7% (June data) and further changes being introduced will ensure the outcomes are captured at the start of a process and reviewed as met or partially met at the end.

1.4 The quality of services commissioned by the council continues to improve against both regional and national comparators. The number of “suspensions” with providers peaked in March and is currently at 9 across the county. In these instances the multi- agency Quality Assurance Improvement Team is involved in securing required changes before any new placements are made. As previously reported to Scrutiny approach to quality improvement is to identify quality risks early and intervene and support as a preventative measure in collaboration with providers.

1.5 There remain ongoing challenges securing supply of care in some instances. Weekly tracking takes place of personal care packages not arranged in a timely way and this is reviewed in a weekly telephone call with all NHS partners. A new personal care framework has recently been let with responsibility for supply chain management being passed to the ‘lead provider’ in each zone. We expect this to make a difference but the workforce challenge of securing care workers (and retaining them) remains a difficult one. It should also be noted that demand for personal care has significantly increased over the last 2 years and it is important to place supply and availability of care in this context.

Page 149 Agenda Item 14

Increase in Personal Care Hours Purchased by DCC

Hours Increase from Increase from purchased per May 2014 May 15

week Hours % Hours % May 2014 34,482 x x x x May 2015 36,590 2,108 6.1 x x May 2016 39,082 4,600 13.3 2,492 6.1

2. Vision Priority 2 - To reduce or delay any need for long term social care and support

2.1 A key priority of adult social care is to promote independence.

• Through prevention: – Creating the conditions where people and communities help themselves • In integration: – Making independence the key outcome of all services and core principle of shared culture • At first contact: – Effectively resolving the needs of individuals through information, advice, signposting • At assessment: – Focussing on strengths of individual, their family and social networks, and their community • Through short-term interventions: – Developing the menu of services, extending their reach, improving their effectiveness, reviewing the impact • Through long-term services: – Making the default expectation further recovery of independence, outcomes- based commissioning to achieve this

2.2 Benchmarking of performance indicates Devon has both a greater incidence of people contacting the authority for support and a higher level of spend on those eligible for support from the council. There is work underway to ensure that we understand how the ‘front door’ for social care operates to ensure that people have the best opportunity to maximise their independence by being supported to find solutions within their local community and only where necessary receive care and support from adult social care in a timely and appropriate setting. This includes ensuring that individuals and their families have access to high quality information. Devon has launched Pinpoint as the digital solution to enable people to find a wealth of information, advice and support. The usage of this new improved facility will be monitored to support future improvements.

2.3 This vision priority area includes a range of indicators that measure impact for carers. Feedback from carers is captured biannually through the national Survey of Adult Carers, which enables performance to be benchmarked nationally, regionally and against statistical neighbours. Devon performance for the composite indicator ‘Carer Reported Quality of Life’ is good and above benchmarks. Likewise for % of carers having as much social contact as they would like. Devon performs well against the carers personalisation measures and is above England and Regional Comparators for 2014/15.

Page 150 Agenda Item 14

3. Vision Priority 3 - To expand the use of community based services and reduce the use of institutional care

3.1 For those people in receipt of services there is generally good performance against comparators for use of Direct Payments and user satisfaction levels.

3.2 This vision area also includes the delayed transfers of care (DToC) monitoring. The performance in June 2016 indicates a continuing deterioration of performance both in the indicator that measures all delays (which is over the national and comparator averages), and those that relate only to adult social care. Devon is under the England and comparator average for the social care only delays

3.3 This reflects national pressures in the health and care system which is being addressed in Devon through work with NHS partners in the sustainability and Transformation plan (STP) to develop a ‘new model of care’ and improve length of stay activity in acute hospitals.

3.4 The most significant area of delay in Devon relates to ‘further non acute NHS care’ these are usually people awaiting transfer to a community hospital. For the social care only delays the main areas of delay relate to people waiting for either a care home placement or a package of care in their own home.

Delayed transfers of care – by organisational responsibility

Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 NHS 96 118 92 107 70 77 68 85 66 74 101 96 Social Care 21 17 24 22 26 22 14 27 30 20 27 31 Both NHS & Social Care 10 11 13 12 12 14 9 6 9 10 12 10 Total 127 146 129 141 108 113 91 118 105 104 140 137 NHS % 75.59% 80.82% 71.32% 75.89% 64.81% 68.14% 74.73% 72.03% 62.86% 71.15% 72.14% 70.07% Social Care % 16.54% 11.64% 18.60% 15.60% 24.07% 19.47% 15.38% 22.88% 28.57% 19.23% 19.29% 22.63% Both NHS & Social Care % 7.87% 7.53% 10.08% 8.51% 11.11% 12.39% 9.89% 5.08% 8.57% 9.62% 8.57% 7.30%

3.5 Adult social care has now fully implemented weekend working to support hospital discharge arrangements for acute and community hospitals and ensure assessment and support planning functions over the weekend.

3.6 Improvement work on this indicator is overseen by the multi-agency Better Care Fund Plan and work continues to improve and strengthen the action plans that have been developed at a Devon wide level for implementation through locality level groups (such as system resilience groups)

3.7 Devon is now actively working with NHS partners to explore opportunities to further develop the social care reablement offer and Rapid Response service into a more aligned service. This will focus on promoting independence which maximises the

Page 151 Agenda Item 14

existing capacity of the separate services and looks to develop new capability and improve the effectiveness and reach of these services. It will enhance short term interventions to enable people to remain safe and well out of hospital or return home with the right level of support from hospital in a timely way. It is anticipated that this will start to deliver from Q4 in 2016/17 and impact on DToC indicators.

3.8 Devon performs well against national and comparator authorities in relation to residential and nursing care admissions for people over 65 years. For residential and nursing admissions for people under 65 there has been improvement in 2016 which has continued in June 2016 with performance below comparator average.

4 Vision Priority 4 - To ensure that people have a positive experience of social care services

4.1 The indicators in this vision area focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of the care management service. The focus is on improving performance in key areas, for example, productivity, efficiency (by removing duplication) and demand management including pre-contact, at point of contact and when people are receiving services.

4.2 The indicators demonstrate that Devon is below target in the timeliness of assessment and completion of annual review. Now that the restructure of the service is complete a range of actions are being implemented (from August 2016) to achieve improvements in practice and streamline arrangements for front line staff which are designed to have a positive impact on these indicators. This should improve the productivity of teams and increase both assessment and review capacity.

4.3 From September 2016 there is a proof of concept in Northern Devon which will change how the service responds to people who have already had contact with adult social care. This model will direct people or referrers to staff at Care Direct Plus where there will be a more immediate and timely response to help with the presenting issue and ensure wherever possible the individual is able to use their own resources and local community capacity to resolve needs, or where necessary to respond to eligible social care needs. This should reduce demand within the service and improve performance.

4.4. Members will be aware that new ‘lead provider’ personal care arrangements are now in place. A key strategy in improving performance is to develop a ‘trusted assessor’ model and delegate some activities for review and assessment to trusted providers. This will be a key part of the personal care contract development. We expect this to have impact during 2017/18.

4.5 There are 2 employment indicators (IE and IF) where performance remains below our internal target but above or around the national average. This particularly applies to adults with mental health issues in paid employment. Underway is a piece of joint commissioning with Devon Partnership Trust to retarget our investment in this area to improve interventions against this particular group.

5 Vision Priority 5 - To ensure the social care workforce can deliver effective , high quality services

5.1 Workforce indicators are captured in this area of the report. The full workforce dashboard is in development with colleagues from HR. However it is intended to provide a combined view of the current workforce in terms of numbers, vacancies. turnover, sickness absence, qualifications, supervision and appraisal.

Page 152 Agenda Item 14

5.2 Sickness absence levels are currently good and below target, and the qualification profile of the workforce is good with over 38% qualified to NVQ Level 4 or above. There is further work needed on the accuracy of data relating to supervision and appraisal of staff groups

Tim Golby Keri Storey Head of Social Care Commissioning Head of Adult Social Care

Electoral Divisions: ALL

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers None

Who to contact for enquiries: Name: Damian Furniss Contact: 07905 710487

Cabinet Member: Councillor Stuart Barker

Page 153 Agenda Item 14

    

              !"#

    

Page 154 Agenda Item 14

11QJ&`1Q`1 77(QVJ%`V .: ]VQ]CV%1J$V`01HV`VVC:`V 8 `V1V@VV]1J$]VQ]CV:`V- 88  `V]VQ]CV`VVC1J$:`V- 88 +Q]VQ]CV1.Q`VHV10VV`01HV .1J@ .V7I:@V .VI`VVC:`V`- 88 4Q%`%VQ`+V]`10: 1QJQ`<1GV` 1V/ :JR:`R]`Q]Q` 1QJ: V- 88 `V:`V$%:`R1J$HQJHV`J:JRVJ_%1`1V1JH`V:1J$ 88 +Q1VHQII11QJV`01HV1.1H.:`V:``Q`R:GCV5%``1H1VJ :JRQ`: CV: :RV_%: V_%:C1 7- 88 4 .V`V%``1HVJ %]]C7`Q``V1RVJ 1:CLJ%`1J$H:`V5]V`QJ:CH:`V:JR%J`V$%C: VRH:`V- 88 4 .V%]]C7`Q``V1RVJ 1:CLJ%`1J$H:`V5]V`QJ:CH:`V:JR%J`V$%C: VRH:`VQ`:RV_%: V_%:C1 7-7 11QJ&`1Q`1 77(Q`VR%HVQ`RVC:7:J7JVVR`Q`CQJ$ V`IQH1:CH:`V:JR%]]Q` 88 `V1VVJ:GC1J$]VQ]CV QGV1JRV]VJRVJ `Q`CQJ$V`- 88 3Q1RQ1VGV IV:%`V .V1I]:H Q`]`V0VJ 1QJ- 88 41J`Q`I: 1QJ5:R01HV:JR1$J]Q 1J$R10V` 1J$]VQ]CV``QI`V_%1`1J$:VIVJ - 88 3Q1H:J1VV01RVJHV .V`VR%H1J$JVVRQ`]VQ]CV- 88 +Q]VQ]CV`1JR1 V:7 Q:HHV1J`Q`I: 1QJ:JR:R01HV- 8 `V1V%]]Q` 1J$H:`V`1VCC- 88 `VH:`V`:71J$ .V1`_%:C1 7Q`C1`V11I]`Q01J$- 88 `V]VQ]CV$V 1J$VJQ%$.QH1:CHQJ :H - 88 `VH:`V`GV1J$:VVR`VHV101J$:V`01HV::`V%C - 88 .: ]`Q]Q` 1QJQ`H:`V``VHV101J$:V`01HVRQQ01::]V`QJ:CG%R$V - 88 .: ]`Q]Q` 1QJQ`H:`V``VHV101J$:V`01HVRQQ01::R1`VH ]:7IVJ - 88 `V1V%]]Q` 1J$IQ`VH:`V`R1`VH C7- 88 `V1V%]]Q` 1J$IQ`VH:`V`1JR1`VH C7- 88 3Q1I:J7H:`V`:`VGV1J$:VVRL1RVJ 1`1VR- 11QJ&`1Q`1 77(QV6]:JR .V%VQ`HQII%J1 7G:VRV`01HV:JR`VR%HV .V%VQ`1J 1 % 1QJ:CH:`V 88 `V1VV6 VJR1J$H.Q1HV:JRHQJ `QC- 88 `V]VQ]CVQ``V`VR:JR :@1J$%]:]V`QJ:CG%R$V - 88 `V]VQ]CV :@1J$%]+1`VH &:7IVJ : .V]`V`V``VR]V`QJ:CG%R$V Q] 1QJ- 88 `V]VQ]CV%1J$]V`QJ:CG%R$V :71J$ .V7.:0VIQ`VH.Q1HV:JRHQJ `QC- 88 `V:CCQH: VRG%R$V 1JC1JV11 .:VVRJVVR- 88 +Q]VQ]CV`VHV10V:V`01HV_%1H@C7- 8 +Q1V.VC]@VV]]VQ]CVQ% Q`.Q]1 :C1.V`V0V`]Q1GCV- 88 `VRVC:7VR `:J`V`Q`H:`V`VR%H1J$- 88 4J]:` 1H%C:`:`VRVC:7VR `:J`V`Q`H:`V: `1G% :GCV QQH1:CH:`V`VR%H1J$- 88 `VQCRV`]VQ]CVR1H.:`$VR``QI.Q]1 :CQ``V`VR:]]`Q]`1: V`V:GCVIVJ :JR`V.:G1C1 : 1QJ- 88 4 .V`V:GCVIVJ :JR`V.:G1C1 : 1QJQ`QCRV`]VQ]CVGV1J$R1H.:`$VR``QI.Q]1 :CV``VH 10V- 88 4 /7HQJ `1G% 1J$ QI1J1I11J$.Q]1 :C:RI11QJ- 8 +Q1V.VC]]VQ]CV Q`VI:1J: .QIV1.V`V0V`]Q1GCV-L `V1VI1J1I11J$ .V%VQ``V1RVJ 1:CV`01HV- 88 `V7Q%J$V`:R%C GV1J$I:1J :1JVR1J .V1`Q1J.QIV- 88 `VQCRV`:R%C GV1J$I:1J :1JVR1J .V1`Q1J.QIV- 88 `V1V`VR%H1J$ .VG:C:JHVQ``V1RVJ 1:C0HQII%J1 7V`01HV- 88 4 .V`V:G:C:JHVQ`V`01HV]`Q011QJ1J .VI:`@V ]C:HV- `V .V`V:RV_%: VV`01HV QIVV HQII%J1 7JVVR- 88 `V1V1JH`V:1J$ .VJ%IGV`Q`]VQ]CV1V%]]Q` 1J .VHQII%J1 7- 11QJ&`1Q`1 77(QVJ%`V .: ]VQ]CV.:0V:]Q1 10VV6]V`1VJHVQ`QH1:CH:`VV`01HV 88 `V1VRVC10V`1J$:JV``VH 10VH:`VI:J:$VIVJ V`01HV- 88 `V]VQ]CV:VVR1J: 1IVC71:7- 88 `V]VQ]CV`V01V1VR1_ R 1VV@:` V`:VIVJ 5:JR11_:JJ%:CC7- 88 4 .V_%:C1 7Q`:VIVJ 5`V01V1:JRH:`V]C:JJ1J$:%R1 VR:$QQR- 88 4 .V%V`LH:`V`]V`HV] 1QJQ` .V_%:C1 7Q`:VIVJ 5`V01V1:JRH:`V]C:JJ1J$$QQR- 88 &`QR%H 101 7Q` V:I 88 4Q%`:`V$%:`R1J$`V]QJV 1IVC7- 88 `V:`V$%:`R1J$VJ_%1`1V:JRHQJHV`J`VH%``1J$`Q` .V:IV]VQ]CV- 88 4Q%`%VQ`6VJ :C7:]:H1 7 H :VIVJ ]`Q]Q` 1QJ: V- 88 .: :`V .VQ% HQIV`Q` .VHC1VJ - 88 (`:J1 1QJ1J Q R%C /V`01HV 8 `V1V1I]`Q01J$]VQ]CVC10V-80 `V1V.VC]1J$]VQ]CV Q1I]`Q0V .V1`C10V- 88 `V7Q%J$V`:R%C C101J$1JRV]VJRVJ C7- 88 `V7Q%J$V`:R%C 1JVI]CQ7IVJ - 88 `V]VQ]CV$V 1J$VJQ%$.QH1:CHQJ :H - 88 `VV`01HV%V`:71J$ .V1`_%:C1 7Q`C1`V11I]`Q01J$- 88 .: :`V .VQ% HQIVQ`1.: 1VRQ- 11QJ&`1Q`1 7 7(QVJ%`V .VQH1:CH:`V1Q`@`Q`HVH:JRVC10V`V``VH 10V5.1$._%:C1 7V`01HV 88 +Q1V.:0V:1Q`@`Q`HV1.1H.11VCC `:1JVR:JRHQI]V VJ  QIVV  .VJVVRQ`V`01HV%V`:JRH:`V`- 88 Q`@`Q`HV,(-50:H:JH1V5:$VJH7 :``51H@JV5I: V`J1 7:JR:RQ] 1QJ 88 GVJHV 88 ]]`:1:C:JR/%]V`011QJ 88 0VH`%1 IVJ :JR0V VJ 1QJ 88 1%:C1`1VRQ`@`Q`HV 11QJ&`1Q`1 7 7(QVJ%`V .:  `: V$1H]C:JJ1J$:JRHQII11QJ1J$Q`:R%C QH1:CH:`VV`01HV11J V$`: VR11 . .V23/:JRQ .V`]:` JV` 88 Page 155 Agenda Item 14

" 8  (   "9


 
 

.:$ 3      

    ! "        7 "   # $%& # '(& #)  &  

 
       <  =>  $        +% 3             *+, -+*, -.+, -.+, *+*, -.+, #.&*+.,  

      +-, -+/, *+., -+, +/, -+/, #.&+-
,

   !" #$$%$$$   ) ) ) ) ) 0 //

& "      ) ) ) ) ) 0
1/.

' (        ) ) ) ) ) 0 -

, "   )  -     )*#+#+ ) ) ) ) ) 0 -+,  

(+ ( $ "    "   ) ) ) ) ) )

+
% ;$$   " 0 1  "    "? ? =

)*#++#   . ), ) ) ) ) ) 0 */

!           / -+, +., +, .+, -+, -+, #.&-+.,     )           )*#++  0.1..  2 ) .+, ) ) )  +, +,  3 4567(     ( $ "  2 3  " )*#+ ) ) ) ) ) )  <  =
>  " " = ="       "  
++%  0   0" "   )         0  /  # .+, +, .+, .+, +, .+, #.&
+*,  

(
+ ( $ "      $ ) ) ) ) ) ) )

+
%     ;

# .    8    -+ +* +- +* -+
-+
#.&-+

.        #
  /*+, /+., /+, /-+, .+, /*+, #.&/*,    , .     3  3 6 #/& ) ) ) ) ) 0 +-,    R  %     

#.) #0 .      -   -*+., +, /+, +., )4 5! -*+., *+-,

.           #.) 0 +., .+, +
, +*, )4 5! +*, .+
,  

)*++: 60  .  0   3 ) ) ) ) ) 0 .1

/ !             .+., .+*, .+*, .+
, .+, .+*, #.&.+.,

.     0   /. /+, 
+
, /+, 
+/, /+, /+, #.&/,     0     <  =/> @ "$= 0 "  " "$    /++% @"$ " 

#.) #     -   -*+*, *+
, -/+., -/+, )4 5! -*+*, -+-,

#.)       //+,
.+,
-+,
+/, )4 5! //+, /+.,

# )          *+*, *+*, -+, +/, *+, *+*, #.&*+-.,

)*/+#+ ;  7    ) ) ) ) ) 0 /+*,

)*/+#+   0 ) ) ) ) ) 0 !
+

6 #// (    "   ) ) ) ) ) *.+-, *.+.,

Page 156 Agenda Item 14

/+
+%$ 3   $  ;$   0  4  ?#      #      03 0   --+-, -.+, -
+*, -
+, -+, -+, *
+-, 2     4 !  2'&>4  ?#            03 0  2   +., /+,
+-, /+, /+/, 0 +,   4           8          --+., +, +/, .+, )4 5! --+. --+,     

/+/%$      $;$   0 % $ "   

 -     2#:-'4  # 0          % *+ +- + .+
+ + .+.  #$$%$$$    -     2'&>40             %  +- -+
.
+- -+- .+ .+ /+* #$$%$$$   6
#/& .     3  3    R  %      ) ) ) !A! !

<  =.>  $   $   @      .++% "         <      -  6
#/ ) ) ) ) -+, -+, +*,   : /@   -  0   ) ) ) ) +, +, .+*,

)  1   -
    )*+#+/ ) ) ) ) ) 0 .+-,  )1 )  1   -)   8 )*+#+/ ) ) ) ) ) 0 +,   )  1   -60  260  )*+#+/ ) ) ) ) ) 0 #-.& 84 )         @ ) ) ) ) -, -, .+.,  3   @ ,  )           @@ ) ) ) ) -+, -+, -+,   /$ ,    

@
.   ) ) ) ) ) 0 1--

)*+# )    <3( , ) ) ) ) ) )

.+
%     4%  $    $       0        #A +, *+, *+*, /+/, 
+, *+, .+-,                # +*, /+-, +
, *+, +-, 0 .+/,    %     

#7     0      +-, +/, +, +, -+, -+, +,

        #* +/, -+., -+., +-, +., 0 +,         #
 # .
+-, .+, .+., ..+-, .+, ..+-, .
+*,    ,

# "    8    *+ *+/ *+
*+ *+ *+ #.&*

<  =>  $  ; 3 

++%$  ; 3 ;$$;  " "  $"   "   

# )   ,    , ) ) ) ) .+-, .+, .+
,

/ "      ) ) ) ) +, +, -+.,

67( "     ) ) ) ) +, +,    "

B

Page 157 Agenda Item 14

/V`01HV%V`01V1:`VH:] %`VR:JJ%:CC7:]:` Q` .VJ: 1QJ:C R%C /QH1:C7:`VV`/%`0V78&%GC1.VRR: :`VC: V QR 51.V`V+V0QJ]V``Q`I:JHV`VI:1J GVCQ1GVJH.I:`@`Q`GQ . /78,]V`HV] 1QJIV:%`VQ`:`V 78&`Q011QJ:CQ% HQIV`Q` R .Q11I]`Q0VIVJ 1JGQ .1JR1H: Q`8+-&04 (4828, <4B-0(4-// ,-C 0+/^+Q

:7-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`"V`01HV%"V`"1.Q":7 .Q"V"V`01HV"I:RV .VI`VVC 7-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`"V`01HV%"V"1.Q`VVC":`V ":`V +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q L L L L L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L          +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 884Q%`%VQ`+V]`10: 1QJQ`<1GV` 1V/ :JR:`R]`Q]Q` 1QJ: V-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ

7: VQ`6+8:]]C1H: 1QJ"]V`5]Q]%C: 1QJ^`QCC1J$I ."_ 7: VQ`6+8:% .Q`1": 1QJ"]V`5]Q]%C: 1QJ^`QCC1J$I ."_

+V0QJ /2GVJH.I:`@L /L -J$L +V0QJ /2GVJH.I:`@L /L -J$L               A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR 88 `V:`V$%:`R1J$HQJHV`J:JRVJ_%1`1V1JH`V:1J$-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ

:`V$%:`R1J$HQJHV`J`: V]V`5]Q]%C: 1QJ^`QCC1J$I ."_ :`V$%:`R1J$VJ_%1`7`: V]V`5]Q]%C: 1QJ

 +V0QJ /2GVJH.I:`@L           

  A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

-V`HVJ :$VQ` QJHV`J" .: IQ0V Q&J_%1`1V" ^`QCC1J$I ."_

Q CCHQJHV`J 7QJHV`J Q 2Q`%` .V`:H 1QJ  8Q  8Q 2,/   8 Q  8 Q Q 2,/ R1J`Q:R01HV    8Q 8Q 2,/ RQH1:CH:`V:VIVJ  8 Q 8 Q Q &`QHVVR QVJ_%1`7   8 Q  8 Q (Q :C    Q 2Q`%` .V`:`V$%:`R1J$:H 1QJ^2,/ _ A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

Page 158 Agenda Item 14





 .QCV /V`01HV/:`V$%:`R1J$&`V0VJ 1QJR: : %JRV`RV0VCQ]IVJ 



 A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

01@`VR%HVRL`VIQ0VR 01@`VI:1J 01@4RVJ 1`1VR  Q 01@4RVJ 1`1VRQ 8 Q 2Q01@1RVJ 1`1VRL1JHQJHC%10V  Q 2Q01@1RVJ 1`1VRL1JHQJHC%10VQ 8 Q Q 7V:VR: 1JR101R%:C`V_%V  7V:VR: 1JR101R%:C`V_%V Q 8 Q Q Q Q A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

Q +V0QJ (:`$V Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR /%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R (.V7:`V1%:C1 77QII11QJ^717_H.:J$VR1 1J]VH 1QJ`V$1IV1J8H QGV`81%:C1 71:VVRG7 .V]V`HVJ :$VQ`:CCQH1:CH:`V]`Q01RV``: VRCQQRQ` 8%  :JR1J$G77178&V``Q`I:JHV.: V:R1C7GVVJ1I]`Q01J$:JR1::  Q^6:7 _1.1H.1C1$. C7.1$.V` .:J .V`: V`Q`-J$C:JR^ Q_5:JRC1$. C7 CQ1V` .:J .V/Q% .V `V$1QJ`: VQ` Q81%:C1 7`Q`HQII%J1 7G:VR]`Q01RV`^ Q_1I:`@VRC7.1$.V` .:J`Q` .V`V1RVJ 1:CH:`VVH Q`^ Q_8(.1 `VI:1J:]`1Q`1 7:`V:`Q`RV0VCQ]IVJ :CQJ$11 .:GV V`%JRV` :JR1J$Q`I:`@V %``1H1VJH7:JR]`1HV8 884 .V`V%``1H1VJ %]]C7`Q``V1RVJ 1:CLJ%`1J$H:`V5]V`QJ:CH:`V:JR%J`V$%C: VRH:`V- J`%C`1CCVRH:`V]:H@:$V BVCQ11:JV6 `:H ``QI .VJ`%C`1CCVR7:`V&:H@:$V`V]Q` 5R: VR L L 8 (.V`V1V`V: Q :CQ` ]VQ]CV11 .%J`%C`1CCVRH:`V]:H@:$V .: 1VV@5Q`1.1H.  1V`VJV1 Q .VC1 1J .: 1VV@8 :  .VVJRQ`A%JV  .V`V1V`V  ]VQ]CV1J`VHV1] Q`]V`QJ:CH:`V5IV:J1J$7&`V]`VVJ 8 QQ`]V`QJ:CH:`V C`:JR(Q :C 3QIVRJQH:`V11 .HQJ 1J$VJH7]C:J1J]C:HV 3Q]1 :C HC1VJ 8.1C -: V`J.: .VIQ J`%C`1CCVR]:H@:$VQ`H:`V5/Q% .V`J.:  H:V1.1H..:0VGVVJ1:1 1J$ .VCQJ$V 88]]Q1 V1:$`:]..Q11J$ .V IQJ .C7J:].Q  `VJR1JHVLL5:JR1JHC%RVJ%IGV`Q`HC1VJ 1.Q:`V  1J.Q]1 :C5Q`: .QIV11 .JQH:`V8

 

Page 159 Agenda Item 14

884 .V%]]C7`Q``V1RVJ 1:CLJ%`1J$H:`V5]V`QJ:CH:`V:JR%J`V$%C: VRH:`VQ`:RV_%: V_%:C1 7-7 /78, 7Q0V`:CC: 1`:H 1QJQ`]VQ]CV1.Q%VV`01HV11 . .V1`H:`V:JR%]]Q` L L L L L      8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q +V0QJ -J$C:JR / : 1 1H:C2V1$.GQ%` Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q Q Q

Q

Q

Q

Q L L L L L

RV V`I1JVRG7 .V`V$%C: Q`-7174J]VH 1QJ

^%I%C: 10V Q R: V_

8%  :JR1J$ CQQR 0V_4I]`Q0 4J:RV_%: V +V0QJ< :`V: /Q% .V -J$C:JR Q  Q      Q        Q       Q       Q                Q    R     Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

+V0QJ< :`V: /Q% .V -J$C:JR Q +V0QJ< :`V: /Q% .V -J$C:JR Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q +V0QJ +V0QJ Q Q /Q% .V /Q% .V Q Q -J$C:JR -J$C:JR Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q /:`V -``VH 10V 7:`1J$ 0V]QJ10V VCCCVR 80V`:CC /:`V -``VH 10V 7:`1J$ 0V]QJ10V VCCCVR 80V`:CC RV V`I1JVRG7+V0QJ-1%:C1 7 %`:JHV:JR4I]`Q0VIVJ (V:I^1 4(_

/%]VJ1QJ R01Q`72Q 1HV Q`@1J$11 .1%:C1 7(V:I /%]VJ1QJ R01Q`72Q 1HV Q`@1J$11 .1%:C1 7(V:I

     

      A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

.V`:`V:1JRV0VCQ]IVJ 7%II:`7Q` V:I]`QHVV601V1VRG7 .V%V`Q` .VV`01HV:JR .V1`H:`V`-   : 1J$`V]Q` 6%]VJ1QJ`V]Q` 1J$ ``QI .V6"V:C .1: H.H.VH@

Page 160 Agenda Item 14

1"1QJ-`1Q`1 77 Q`VR%HVQ`RVC:7:J7JVVR`Q`CQJ$ V`I"QH1:CH:`V:JR"%]]Q` 8`V1VVJ:GC1J$]VQ]CV QGV1JRV]VJRVJ `Q`CQJ$V`- /%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R ,QCCQ11J$`VVRG:H@ .1:`V:1GV1J$`VRRV0VCQ]VR:JR11CCGV:0:1C:GCVC: V`1J1%:` V`8

8841J`Q`I: 1QJ5:R01HV:JR1$J]Q 1J$R10V` 1J$]VQ]CV``QI`V_%1`1J$ 883Q1RQ1VGV IV:%`V .V1I]:H Q`]`V0VJ 1QJ- :VIVJ - `V:`Q`R1H%1QJ:JRRV0VCQ]IVJ QGV`VRV0VCQ]VR11 ..V:RC1JV``QI .VJV1IQJ .C7 V:I]`QR%H 101 7R: :R $`1I:`7T]%GC1H.V:C .Q% HQIV``:IV1Q`@ HQJ VJ  QGV:$`VVR11 .) VHQJR:`7THQII%J1 7H:]:H1 7G%1CR1J$51J`Q`I: 1QJ:JR:R01HV5 `V:GCVIVJ L`V.:G1C1 : 1QJL`VHQ0V`7V H V` 1:`7TQH1:C :`V V:GCVIVJ L QII%J1 7(J:GC1J$51IV`Q`)1`V 883Q1H:J1VV01RVJHV .V`VR%H1J$JVVRQ`]VQ]CV-

88+Q]VQ]CV`1JR1 V:7 Q:HHV1J`Q`I: 1QJ:JR:R01HV-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ $#$3## $##3# $#3#/ $#/3# $#3#& <  6"V`01HV%"V`"H:`V`"`1JR1J`Q`I: 1QJ:GQ% "V`01HV"V:"7 / -)     Q    Q       @ @'+# @/+# Q     Q   0  Q    Q / 2#4-)     Q          @+' @+@ @#+$ Q       Q 0    Q / 24-)     L L L L L       ''+#      0  + +1 +11 :`$V    8`V1V"%]]Q` 1J$H:`V`"1VCC- /%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R 4I]CVIVJ : 1QJQ` .VH:`V`VCVIVJ Q` .V7:`V H .:`V%C VR1J:`V01VR .`VV 1V`Q``V``Q`H:`V`51.1H..:`V%C VR1J1$J1`1H:J ]`:H 1HV:JR]`QHV H.:J$V8(.V7:`V H ]`Q01RVRH:`V`11 .:JVJ 1 CVIVJ  Q1JR101R%:C:VIVJ :JR1JHV ]`1C  5 7:`V` VIVJ .:0VGVVJ :` VR5Q`1.1H.5  .:RGVVJHQI]CV VRG7 .A%JV 88` .VHQI]CV VR:VIVJ `Q`IR%`1J$ L  8 Q.:R:JQ% HQIVQ`/QH1:C7:`VQ``V`8,VVRG:H@``QIH:`V`1 H:] %`VRG1VJJ%:CC7 .`Q%$. .VJ: 1QJ:C/%`0V7Q` R%C 7:`V`51.1H.VJ:GCV]V``Q`I:JHV QGVGVJH.I:`@VR2: 1QJ:CC750V$1QJ:CC7:JR:$:1J / : 1 1H:C 2V1$.GQ%`8+V0QJ]V``Q`I:JHV`Q` .VHQI]Q1 V1JR1H: Q` /78,+57:`V``V]Q` VR1%:C1 7Q`<1`V1$QQR:JR:GQ0VGVJH.I:`@8<1@V11V`Q` /78,4^]:` _Q Q`H:`V`.:01J$:I%H.QH1:CHQJ :H : .V71Q%CRC1@V8+V0QJ]V``Q`I1VCC:$:1J  .VH:`V`]V`QJ:C1: 1QJIV:%`V /78,7]:` G:JRG:JR1:GQ0V -J$C:JR:JR0V$1QJ:C7QI]:`: Q``Q`L 8 88 `VH:`V`:71J$ .V1`_%:C1 7Q`C1`V11I]`Q01J$- 88 `V]VQ]CV$V 1J$VJQ%$.QH1:CHQJ :H -

6 :`V``V]Q` VR@%:C1 7Q`81`V 4]:` R -`Q]Q` 1QJQ`H:`V`"1.Q`V]Q` VR .:  .V7.:R:"I%H. +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ "QH1:CHQJ :H :" .V71Q%CRC1@V /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q L L L L L L

+V0QJ +V0QJ (:`$V  + L -J$L /L L -J$L /L +V0QJ(:`$V 4]  L  L -J$L /2L 8Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q +V0QJ    8  8 88 `VH:`V`GV1J$:VVR`VHV101J$:V`01HV::`V%C -

;4 R :`V`"`VHV101J$JVVR":""V""IVJ L`V01V1:JR:"]VH1`1HH:`V`" :`V`""V""IVJ Q% HQIV" "V`01HV /QH1:C7:`V8``V` /QH1:C7:`V8``V`RRH:`V`8% Q`7Q%J 7 +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V J10V`:C/V`01HV8JC7 J10V`:C/V`01HVL(:`$V VR/%]]Q`  Q Q   Q  Q Q   Q Q  Q  A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  2 6:`R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R +V0QJ 8Q 8 Q  8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q

Page 161 Agenda Item 14

88.: ]`Q]Q` 1QJQ`H:`V``VHV101J$:V`01HVRQQ01::]V`QJ:CG%R$V -

+V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ -: 2Q` . /Q% . /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR 7]  7]  B ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR B 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q -: 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 2Q` . 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q /Q% . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 88 .: ]`Q]Q` 1QJQ`H:`V``VHV101J$:V`01HVRQQ01::R1`VH ]:7IVJ -

+V0QJ -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q -: 2Q` . /Q% . Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

7^B_ ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR 7^B_ 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q  8Q 8Q  8Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q -:  8 Q  8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q 8Q 8 Q 2Q` . 8Q 8Q 8 Q  8Q  8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q /Q% . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 88  `V1V%]]Q` 1J$IQ`VH:`V`R1`VH C7- 88  `V1V%]]Q` 1J$IQ`VH:`V`1JR1`VH C7- `V:1JRV0VCQ]IVJ 77:`V`GVJV`1 1J$``QI:V`01HV]`Q01RVR Q .VH:`VR`Q` ]V`QJ^`V]C:HVIVJ H:`V_ 

         

  ]`R 6:7R A%JR ]`R 6:7R A%JR

88 3Q1I:J7H:`V`:`VGV1J$:VVRL1RVJ 1`1VR-

/ :` VR 7QI]CV VR 











 A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

Page 162 Agenda Item 14

11QJ&`1Q`1 77(QV6]:JR .V%VQ`HQII%J1 7G:VRV`01HV:JR`VR%HV .V%VQ`1J 1 % 1QJ:CH:`V 88 `V1VV6 VJR1J$H.Q1HV:JRHQJ `QC- /%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R +V0QJ]V``Q`I1VCC:$:1J  .VJ: 1QJ:C]V`QJ:C1: 1QJIV `1H7 /78,7]:`  :JR 51.1H.IV:%`VVC`R1`VH VR%]]Q` :JRR1`VH ]:7IVJ 6GVJH.I:`@1J$1J V6HVQ`HQI]:`: Q`1JR 87%``VJ ]V``Q`I:JHV:$:1J GQ .IV:%`V.:RVHC1JVRR%`1J$ R :JR1H%``VJ C7%JRV`1J0V 1$: 1QJ8/V`01HV%V`]V`HV] 1QJ :`VIV:%`VR:JJ%:CC7 .`Q%$. .VJ: 1QJ:C R%C /QH1:C7:`VV`/%`0V751.1H.VJ:GCVGVJH.I:`@1J$Q`]V``Q`I:JHV84JR 5+V0QJ]V``Q`I:JHV:$:1J  /78, B^&`Q]Q` 1QJQ`]VQ]CV1.Q`VVC .V7.:0VHQJ `QC1J .V1`R:1C7C10V_1::GQ0VJ: 1QJ:C:JR`V$1QJ:CHQI]:`: Q`8 JV1`VQ%`HV:CCQH: 1QJ7 VI1:1J `QR%HVR1J  R  Q]`Q01RV:IQ`VV_%1 :GCV:JR `:J]:`VJ G:1`Q``%JR1J$RVH11QJ8

Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 7: 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR : 6:`R ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L -J$L +V0QJ 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q -: 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 3+V0QJ]V``Q`I:JHV]`1Q` Q6:`H. 1:G:VRQJ .V]`V01Q%RV`1J1 1QJQ`H 2Q` . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q ]:`  /Q% . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 88 `V]VQ]CV :@1J$%]+1`VH &:7IVJ : .V]`V`V``VR]V`QJ:CG%R$V Q] 1QJ-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ `V:G`V:@RQ1JQ`]V``Q`I:JHV  ]:` -`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "`VHV101J$R1`VH ]:7IVJ "  ]:` -`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "`VHV101J$R1`VH ]:7IVJ " +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ -: 2Q` . /Q% . Q  Q

Q Q

Q  Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR 7]:`  +V0QJ 7]:`   6:`R ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L -J$L  2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q 8Q 8 Q  8Q -:  8 Q  8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q (:`$V  8Q  8Q  8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 2Q` . 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q /Q% .  8 Q  8Q  8 Q  8 Q  8 Q  8 Q  8 Q  8Q 88 `V]VQ]CV%1J$]V`QJ:CG%R$V :71J$ .V7.:0VIQ`VH.Q1HV:JRHQJ `QC-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ (.12: 1QJ:C4JR1H: Q`1 :@VJ``QI .V JJ%:CV`/%`0V78+V0QJ]V``Q`I:JHV `Q`L .:1I]`Q0VRC1$. C7 Q 8 Q:JR1IVV 1J$ .VL  :`$V 8 :R -`Q]Q` 1QJQ`]VQ]CV1.Q%"V"V`01HV"1.Q.:0VHQJ `QCQ0V` .V1`R:1C7 C1`V &V``Q`I:JHV1J+V0QJ1.1$.V` .:J .VL -J$C:JR:0V`:$VQ` 8Q:JR .V +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ L/`V$1QJ:C:0V`:$VQ` 8 Q Q

Q

Q

Q L L L L L (:`$V  -J$ 7QI] B L L L L L  L L L +V0QJ 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q

Page 163 Agenda Item 14

88 `V:CCQH: VRG%R$V 1JC1JV11 .:VVRJVVR-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ

0V`:$V$`VVR:%R$V ^8 _ 0V`:$V$`VVR:%R$V ^8 _ +V0QJ +(Q :C <+(Q :C -: 2Q` . /Q% . (  (  ( (  (  ( ( ( 

( ( (  ( ( A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

Q0:`1:JHV``QIV" 1I: VR Q:$`VVRG%R$V ^8 _ Q0:`1:JHV``QIV" 1I: VR Q:$`VVRG%R$V ^8 _ +V0QJ +(Q :C <+(Q :C -: 2Q` . /Q% . Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q RQ RQ Q R Q Q R Q RQ Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

88 +Q]VQ]CV`VHV10V:V`01HV_%1H@C7-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ 4 6:`R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q ;4:1 1J$ 1IV`Q`"V`01HV" -: 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q +V0QJ -: 2Q` . /Q% . +V0QJ(:`$V 2Q` . 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q

Q /Q% . 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q

Q (:`$V  8 Q Q  L Q Q Q Q :`V: QGVRV0VCQ]VRR:1 1J$ 1IV`Q`V`01HV]`Q011QJ6IVV 1J$IQ VC1$1GCV Q JVVR`Q`CQ1V HQ A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

86Q1V.VC]@VV]]VQ]CVQ% Q`.Q"]1 :C1.V`V0V`]Q""1GCV- /%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R JRV` :JR1J$:JR1I]`Q01J$RVC:7VR `:J`V`Q`H:`V1:]`1Q`1 7:`V:8

88 `VRVC:7VR `:J`V`Q`H:`V`VR%H1J$- 884J]:` 1H%C:`:`VRVC:7VR `:J`V`Q`H:`V: `1G% :GCV QQH1:CH:`V`VR%H1J$-

 ]:` :CCRVC:7VR `:J"`V`"Q`H:`V  ]:` QH1:C :`VQ`=Q1J C7: `1G% :GCV QQH1:C :`V:JR;
RVC:7VR `:J"`V`"Q`H:`V +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ +V0QJ +V0QJR/QH1:C7:`VQJC7 +V0QJ(:`$V  -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$



 

  A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V  +V0QJ (:`$V  +V0QJ -J$ 7]  6:`R ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R  L  L -J$ L 7]  6:`R ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R  L  L  L +V0QJ  8  8  8  8  8 8  8 8 +V0QJ 8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8

Page 164 Agenda Item 14

88.V`V .V`V:`VRVC:7VR `:J`V`Q`H:`VRQ1V%JRV` :JR1.7-
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ
V:RC1JV-V``Q`I:JHV`Q`6V0QJ

 ^1_0V`:$VIQJ .C7`: VQ`RVC:7"G7`V:"QJ]V`5Q`]Q]%C: 1QJ  ^11_0V`:$VIQJ .C7`: VQ`RVC:7"G7`V:"QJ]V`5Q`]Q]%C: 1QJ ^:7 _ ^:7 _

-J$C:JR / +V0QJ -J$C:JR / +V0QJ

7QI]CV 1QJQ` 7QI]CV 1QJQ` VIVJ VIVJ   3Q%1J$ &%GC1H,%JR1J$ +1]% V &%GC1H,%JR1J$  ,%` .V`JQJ +1]% V    :H% V23/7:`V &: 1VJ Q` &C:HVIVJ 7   `:I1C7H.Q1HV 0V1RVJ 1:C &: 1VJ Q` &C:HVIVJ 7 `:I1C7H.Q1HV 0V1RVJ 1:C 7QII%J1 7 &C:HVIVJ 7 7QII%J1 7 &C:HVIVJ 7 -_%1]L:R:] 1QJ 2%`1J$ -_%1]L:R:] 1QJ 2%`1J$ 7:`V&:H@:$V 7:`V&:H@:$V 1JQ1J.QIV 1JQ1J.QIV

88 `VQCRV`]VQ]CVR1H.:`$VR``QI.Q]1 :CQ``V`VR:]]`Q]`1: V`V:GCVIVJ :JR`V.:G1C1 : 1QJ-

:] -`Q]Q` 1QJ UQ``V`VR`V:GCVIVJ "V`01HV"%]QJR1"H.:`$V``QI  7;V17V`V``:C" -6V V` 3QJ1 QJ (10V` QJ B:`J :]CV /3+ (V1$JG`1R$V .Q"]1 :C  +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$  Q 



Q 

 /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR Q -V`HVJ :$VQ` 77V`V``:C"`Q`
Q"]1 :C61"H.:`$VR %JV Q

Q  Q

Q

 Q Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR Q

(:`$V  +V0QJ -J$ Q  ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L L L /L 0+- (Q`G:7 +V``1`Q`R 2Q` .+V0QJ 7QII%J1 7 8% Q`:`V: +1 `1H 3Q]1 :C .Q]1 :C +V0QJ 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 88 4 .V`V:GCVIVJ :JR`V.:G1C1 : 1QJQ`QCRV`]VQ]CVGV1J$R1H.:`$VR``QI.Q]1 :CV``VH 10V-

:] -`Q]Q` 1QJ U" 1CC: .QIV R:7":` V`.Q"]1 :CR1"H.:`$V1J Q 6+% HQIVQ`".Q` R V`I"V`01HV"7"V_%VC" Q"V`01HV" `V:GCVIVJ L`V.:G"V`01HV" +V0QJ -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V  +V0QJ -J$ +V0QJ -J$ / B]  6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L L L /L + ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L L L +V0QJ 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 88 4 /7HQJ `1G% 1J$ QI1J1I11J$.Q]1 :C:RI11QJ- :`V: QGVRV0VCQ]VR "V:C .`V]Q` QJ0Q1R:GCV(IV`$VJH7RI11QJT:J7 .1J$VCV-,Q " V:I`VR%HV:RI11QJ- )1J@ Q .V( -V`01HV8 / 0 :`$V T(IV`$VJH7RI11QJ

Page 165 Agenda Item 14

/%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R &V`I:JVJ :RI11QJ Q`V1RVJ 1:C:JRJ%`1J$H:`V^ /78, _`Q`V`01HV%V`:$VR R ^]:` _:JR :JRQ0V`^]:` _.:0VVVJ:J1I]`Q0VIVJ R%`1J$ R  1.VJHQI]:`VR QR 8&V``Q`I:JHV`Q`GQ .]:` Q` .V1JR1H: Q`1:.V:RQ` :`$V 8,Q` .V R HQ.Q` 5]V``Q`I:JHV`VI:1J:GQ0V .VR -J$C:JR HQI]:`: Q`^8_:JR`Q`V`01HV%V`:$VR :JRQ0V`5]V``Q`I:JHV11$J1`1H:J C7GV V` .:JR HQI]:`: Q`8 88 `V7Q%J$V`:R%C GV1J$I:1J :1JVR1J .V1`Q1J.QIV-

+V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$  -: 2Q` . /Q% . JRV V`I1JVR       

    A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  (:`$V  +V0QJ -J$    L L L  6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR /L  R  R  R  R  R  +V0QJ  8  8  8 8  8  8 8  8 88 `VQCRV`:R%C GV1J$I:1J :1JVR1J .V1`Q1J.QIV-

+V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ -: 2Q` . /Q% .                A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  (:`$V  +V0QJ -J$   ]  6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L L L /L R  R  R  U +V0QJ 8 8  8  8  8 8 8 8 88 `V1V`VR%H1J$ .VG:C:JHVQ``V1RVJ 1:C0HQII%J1 7V`01HV- QGVRV0VCQ]VR 884 .V`V:G:C:JHVQ`V`01HV]`Q011QJ1J .VI:`@V ]C:HV- `V .V`V:RV_%: VV`01HV QIVV HQII%J1 7JVVR- `V:Q`RV0VCQ]IVJ R-:`@V $Q1 1QJ : VIVJ 88  `V1V1JH`V:1J$ .VJ%IGV`Q`]VQ]CV1V%]]Q` 1J .VHQII%J1 7- `V:`Q`RV0VCQ]IVJ 7 : VQ`]VQ]CV`VHV101J$:HQII%J1 7G:VRV`01HV]V` `V:`Q`RV0VCQ]IVJ 7 : VQ`]VQ]CV`VHV101J$ L (Q`$V`QJ:C :`V]V`5 56

Page 166 Agenda Item 14

/%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R (.VH:`VI:J:$VIVJ V`01HV.:`VHVJ C7GVVJ`VQ`$:J1VRCV:R1J$ Q1J V$`: 1QJQ`CV:`J1J$R1:G1C1 7 V:I11 .QCRV`]VQ]CV:JR].71H:CR1:G1C1 7 V:I8(.V :``1J$ V :GC1.IVJ .:GVVJ:]`V01Q%HQJHV`J5G% 0:H:JH7CV0VC.:0VJQ1`V %`JVR QIQ`VJQ`I:CCV0VC8(.V`QH%1JQ1QJ1I]`Q01J$]V``Q`I:JHV1J@V7:`V:5`Q`V6:I]CV5 ]`QR%H 101 75V``1H1VJH7^G7`VIQ01J$R%]C1H: 1QJ_:JRRVI:JRI:J:$VIVJ ^]`VRHQJ :H 5: ]Q1J Q`HQJ :H :JR1.VJ]VQ]CV:`V`VHV101J$V`01HV_8

88 `V]VQ]CV:VVR1J: 1IVC71:7- +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -: 2Q` . /Q% . Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

L  4 6:`R ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ (:`$V 24 6:`R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q -: 8Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 2Q` . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q /Q% . 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q

Q

Q

Q

Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

Page 167 Agenda Item 14

884 .V_%:C1 7Q`:VIVJ 5`V01V1:JRH:`V]C:JJ1J$:%R1 VR:$QQR- /%II:`7Q`6:`H. &`:H 1HV1%:C1 70V01V1  8(.V]`QHV1RVJ 1`1V:`:JRQI:I]CVQ`H:V QGV`V01V1VR:$:1J :V  Q` :JR:`R1VR:VIVJ H`1 V`1:8+%`1J$A%JV5 H:V1V`V1RVJ 1`1VR`Q``V01V111 . HQI]CV VR^ 8 Q_8(.V]`QHV1H%``VJ C7GV1J$VIGVRRVR:JR1 1:J 1H1]: VR .: HQI]CV 1QJ`: V11CC1I]`Q0VQ0V` 1IV88` .QVH:V`V01V1VR1JA%JV5: Q :C 8 QQ`:CC_%V 1QJ:`VHQ`VR:,%CC7IV 511 .8 QGV1J$&:` 1:CC7IV 8+%`1J$6:75 /:`V$%:`R1J$&`:H 1HV1%:C1 70V01V11V`V`V_%V VR:JR HQI]CV VR^ 8 Q_88` .VV51J Q :C 8 Q1V`VHQ`VR:,%CC7IV :JR 8 QGV1J$&:` 1:CC7IV 8,%` .V` `V]Q` 1J$IV `1H:`V1JRV0VCQ]IVJ 11 . .V&`1J1H]:C/QH1:CQ`@V`8

R,%CC76V R&:` 1:CC76V R2Q 6V 8R2Q/HQ`VC10VJ R,%CC76V R&:` 1:CC76V R2Q 6V 8R2Q/HQ`VC10VJ

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q /VH 1QJ(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C C`:JR(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C /VH 1QJ(Q :C C`:JR(Q :C

 Q Q  Q Q  Q Q  Q Q Q Q  7`Q

Q 7`Q

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q Q Q 0V`:$VQ`/VH 1QJ 0V`:$VQ`/VH 1QJ 0V`:$VQ`/VH 1QJ 0V`:$VQ`/VH 1QJ 0V`:$VQ`(Q :CQ 7`Q

884 .V%V`LH:`V`]V`HV] 1QJQ` .V_%:C1 7Q`:VIVJ 5`V01V1:JRH:`V]C:JJ1J$$QQR- QGVRV0VCQ]VRR%II:`7Q`_%:` V`C7HQI]C:1J LHQI]C1IVJ  `V:`Q`RV0VCQ]IVJ R`VVRG:H@

88 &`QR%H 101 7Q` V:I

-: V`J





 



  6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R

Page 168 Agenda Item 14

88 4Q%`:`V$%:`R1J$`V]QJV 1IVC7-

+V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -: 2Q` . /Q% . Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V < : 6:`R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ  8Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q  8 Q 8Q -: 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q 8 Q  8 Q 8 Q  8 Q  8 Q 2Q` . 8 Q  8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q  8Q /Q% . 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -: 2Q` . /Q% . Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

< 6:`R A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V < 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q -: 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 2Q` . 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q /Q% . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 88  `V:`V$%:`R1J$VJ_%1`1V:JRHQJHV`J`VH%``1J$`Q` .V:IV]VQ]CV- `V:1JRV0VCQ]IVJ 7 V]V: VJ_%1`1V:JRHQJHV`J11 .1JIQJ .

88 4Q%`%VQ`6VJ :C7:]:H1 7 H :VIVJ ]`Q]Q` 1QJ: V- 88 .: :`V .VQ% HQIV`Q` .VHC1VJ - `V:1JRV0VCQ]IVJ 7R/ <(V_%VC Q:VIVJ 7C1VJ .:01J$I%C 1]CV:VIVJ  .`Q%$. .V7V:` +V0QJ 8% HQIVQ`:VIVJ 1VHCQVLJ`:6QH1:CH:`VQ``V` QQ`]Q]%C: 1QJ`V`V``VR QQH1:CH:`VT]`V0VC:JHVQ`JVVR 5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

< 6:`R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 5 5  5  5  5  5  5 5  88(`:J1 1QJ1J Q R%C /V`01HV `V:1JRV0VCQ]IVJ 7$`V]:`1J$`Q`R%C .QQR:H 101 7IQJ1 Q`1J$:JR`V]Q` 1J$

/%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R +%`1J$R 5V`01HV%V`HC:1`1H: 1QJH.:J$VR``QI]`1I:`7HC1VJ $`Q%] Q`VHQ`R1J$ .V]`1I:`7`V:QJ`Q` .V1`%]]Q` 8(.1`VR%HVR .VJ%IGV`Q`V`01HV%V` `VHV101J$

Page 169 Agenda Item 14

88 `V7Q%J$V`:R%C C101J$1JRV]VJRVJ C7-

!-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "11 .CV:`J1J$R1":G1C1 1V"1J" :GCV:HHQIIQR: 1QJ -: 2Q` . /Q% . +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ Q /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L  +V0QJ -J$C:JR C 6:`R 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V L L C 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q -: 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 2Q` . 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q /Q% . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q
-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "1JHQJ :H 11 ."VHQJR:`7IVJ :C.V:C . "V`01HV"1.QC10V1JRV]VJRVJ C711 .Q`11 .Q% "%]]Q`

+V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR

(:`$V  -J$C:JR 3 6:`R 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR  L L /L +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 88 `V7Q%J$V`:R%C 1JVI]CQ7IVJ -

&-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "11 .CV:`J1J$R1":G1C1 1V"1J]:1R &-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "11 .CV:`J1J$R1":G1C1 1V"1J]:1R VI]CQ7IVJ VI]CQ7IVJ +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ -: 2Q` . /Q% . /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ -J$C:JR - 6:`R 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V L L - 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q Q -: 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 2Q` . 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q /Q% . 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q

G-`Q]Q` 1QJQ`:R%C "1JHQJ :H 11 ."VHQJR:`7IVJ :C.V:C . 1J]:1RVI]CQ7IVJ +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ Q

Q

Q

Q

Q A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR +V0QJ -J$C:JR , 6:`R 6:`R ]`R 6:7R A%JR (:`$V L L +V0QJ 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q

Page 170 Agenda Item 14

88 `V]VQ]CV$V 1J$VJQ%$.QH1:CHQJ :H - 88 `VV`01HV%V`:71J$ .V1`_%:C1 7Q`C1`V11I]`Q01J$-

+V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ +V0QJ +V0QJ(:`$V -J$C:JR 0$ /Q% .1V  0$ 7QI]:`: Q` 0$ 

Q  Q

Q

Q 

Q

Q  L L L L L L L L L L

(:`$V  -J$C:JR / (:`$V  -J$C:JR 7QI]8 4]  L L  L L L  L L L L L  L L L +V0QJ  8 Q 8 Q 8 Q 8 Q  8 Q +V0QJ  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8 88 .: :`V .VQ% HQIVQ`1.: 1VRQ- `V:`Q`RV0VCQ]IVJ 7J`Q`I: 1QJ``QIV`01HV%V`:JJ%:C`V01V1.: R: :1QJ .V`V01V1 :G-.: H:J1  VCC%-(IGVRR1J$Q` .V$
(_%V 1QJJ:1`V1J Q`% %`V]`:H 1HV :JR]`QHV

Page 171 Agenda Item 14

/%II:`7Q`&V``Q`I:JHV^4J1$. :JR4I]:H :J:C71_R (.1VH 1QJQ` .V R%C &V``Q`I:JHV,`:IV1Q`@.:GVVJRV0VCQ]VR QIQJ1 Q` .V_%:C1 7Q` .V R%C /QH1:C7:`V1Q`@`Q`HV84 `QH%1 Q]`Q01RV:HQIG1JVR01V1Q` .VH%``VJ 1Q`@`Q`HV1J V`IQ`J%IGV`50:H:JH1V8 %`JQ0V`51H@JV:GVJHV5_%:C1`1H: 1QJ5%]V`011QJ:JR:]]`:1:C8(.V1J VJ 1QJ1 Q:J1V`:`:J$VQ`1I]Q` :J  _%V 1QJ5`Q`V6:I]CV74 .V1Q`@`Q`HV.:]]7L%J.:]]7- `V .V7%]]Q` VRG76:J:$V`-+Q1VVJ:GCV .VI QRV0VCQ]-+Q1VI:@V%`V .V7.:0V .V`1$.  QQC Q RQ .V1`=QG1VCC- `V1V:GCV Q`VH`%1 %1 :GCV :``-

3V:RC1JV .VIV7+V0QJ R  %`JQ0V``: V`Q`/QH1:CQ`@V`11JV6HVQ` .VJ: 1QJ:CGVJH.I:`@]%GC1.VR1J .V26+/R/784J V`J:CC75HQI]:`1J$ %`JQ0V` GV 1VVJ`QCV.Q1.1$.V` %`JQ0V`1J/QH1:CQ`@V` .:J`Q`8HH%]: 1QJ:C(.V`:]1 8(.V`VHVJ `V$`:R1J$Q`/QH1:CQ`@V`1 :` 1J$ Q :G1C1V .1]Q1 1QJ8 /1H@JV:GVJHVCV0VC:`VH%``VJ C7$QQR:JRGVCQ1 :`$V 5G%  .VCV0VCQ`:GVJHV: `1G% :GCV QIVJ :C.V:C .L]7H.QCQ$1H:C1%V^ 8 Q_HQ%CR$10VH:%V`Q` HQJHV`J8(.V_%:C1`H: 1QJ]`Q`1CVQ` .V1Q`@`Q`HV1$QQR11 .Q0V` Q_%:C1`1VR Q21

88Q`@`Q`HV,(-50:H:JH1V5:$VJH7 :``51H@JV5I: V`J1 7:JR:RQ] 1QJ (.V`QCCQ11J$H.:` :1I Q.Q1 .V:H %:C,(-1Q`@VRR%`1J$ .VIQJ .HQI]:`VR Q .VG%R$V VR,(-8(.V7:CQ.Q1:G`V:@RQ1JQ`:$VJH7 :``VI]CQ7VR50:H:JH1V :JR,(-CQ  Q1H@JV5I: V`J1 7:JR:RQ] 1QJCV:0V8(.VJV$: 10V`1$%`V`Q`6:`R :H:JH7`Q`3/7(/Q% .1GVH:%VQ`:JV``Q`1.V`VJQB%R$V VR,(-1R1]C:7VR `Q` .V3Q]1 :C+1H.:`$V(V:I8 $VJH7:JR0:H:JH7R: :1QJC7:0:1C:GCV1JHV6:`H.

(.VV`1$%`VRQJQ  :@V1J Q:HHQ%J :J7:JJ%:CCV:0V :@VJR%`1J$ .V ]V`1QRQ`R:7]VJ QJ `:1J1J$HQ%`V8

 &:"               +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R

 8  8  8 8 8  8 8  8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8  8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8  8 8

 ;Q` .

       8  8 8   8  8  8     8  8  8  8 8  8   +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R

8 8 8  8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8  8  8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8  8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8  8

 Q% .

     8 8 8 8 8 8  

   8 8  8 8 8 8     +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R

8 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8  8  8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8  8  8  JL: JL: JL: 8  8  8  JL: JL: JL: R8 8 8  Page 172 Agenda Item 14

          

  +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R  8  8 8   8  8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL:  8  8  8  JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL:  8  8 8  JL: JL: JL: 8 8 R8

       

   

  +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R

8  8 8 8  8 8 8  8 8 8  8  8 8  8  8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8  8  JL: JL: JL: 8 8 R8

 8  8  8  8  8  8   (.VH.:` GVCQ1:1I Q.Q1 .V:H %:C,(-1Q`@VRR%`1J$ .VIQJ .  HQI]:`VR Q .VG%R$V VR,(-`Q`/VJ1Q`/QH1:CQ`@V`:JR8HH%]: 1QJ:C  8 8  8 8  8 8  (.V`:]1 8(.V7:CQ.Q1:G`V:@RQ1JQ`:$VJH7 :``VI]CQ7VR50:H:JH1V

 :JR,(-CQ  Q1H@JV5I: V`J1 7:JR:RQ] 1QJCV:0V8

 +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R (.VV`1$%`VRQJQ  :@V1J Q:HHQ%J :J7:JJ%:CCV:0V :@VJR%`1J$ .V ]V`1QRQ`R:7]VJ QJ `:1J1J$HQ%`V8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 8 JL: JL: JL: 8 8 R8

 8 8 8 8 8 8 

 

  8 8 8 8 8 8

 8 8 8 8  8 8 

   8  8  8 8   8  8 

  +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8 8 8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8  8  8 8 8 JL: JL: JL:  8  8  8 JL: JL: JL: 8  8  8  JL: JL: JL: 8  8  8  JL: JL: JL: 8  8  8

Page 173 Agenda Item 14

88 GVJHV 8R Q`@1J$R:7"CQ" R%V Q"1H@JV""^R%C  :`V:J:$VIVJ _ Q]`V:"QJ"`Q`1H@JV""G"VJHV^R%C QH1:C :`V_ <R&V`HVJ :$VQ`1Q`@1J$R:7CQ ^ 76_ /1H@JVR(:`$V &7H.QCQ$1H:CL6VJ :C3V:C . /@VCV :CL6%H%C:` /%`$V`7 7QCRL7Q%$.L,C%

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q

Q Q 6:7R A%CR /V]R 2Q0R A:JR 6:`R 6:7R %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R ]`R 6:7R

88 ]]`:1:C:JR%]V`011QJ

-V`HVJ :$VQ`V6]VH VR"%]V`01"1QJ"1.1H..:0V :@VJ]C:HV VV 1J$"1.1H..:0V :@VJ]C:HV1JIQJ .]V`1QR" Q   Q    Q   ]`R 6:7R A%JR A%CR %$R /V]R 8H R 2Q0R +VHR A:JR ,VGR 6:`R Q A%J A%C %$ /V] 8H 2Q0 +VH A:J ,VG 6:` ]` 6:7 7C1J1H:CL&`Q`V1QJ:C        BQ .^<67&_              Q 6:7R A%CR /V]R 2Q0R A:JR 6:`R 6:7R <1JV6:J:$VIVJ           8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 8 Q 8Q 8Q 8Q 880VH`%1 IVJ :JR`V VJ 1QJ

QC%J :`7 :`` %`JQ0V`^G &_`QCC1J$IQJ .C7  :`` %`JQ0V`G7QG`QCV L 6QJ1 Q`1J$Q`V :GC1.VR]Q 

@%:C1`1VR :`` (.V_%:C1`1VR :``R: :1V6 `:H VR``QI .V26+/R/77 VIG:VRQJR: :

2Q NJQ1J?1.1H.:`VJQ 

J7Q .V`_%:C1`1H: 1QJ^_ 8Q

2Q_%:C1`1H: 1QJ.VCR  8 Q

Q Q Q Q Q Q

Page 174 Agenda Item 14

:JRQ .V`]:` JV`"

88

Page 175 Agenda Item 14

)-. .-)0))
. %. ^
.
 
%. _
 7 +1 1$: 1J$QJ `QC7
0V`R%V VR IGV` `VVJ QI]CV VR `V01V1

1@7 V01V1Q0V` V`71$. 1$.U "VR1%IU #Q1U R%VU^ VR_ U^ %`]CV_ ^ VR_ ^ IGV`_ ^VCCQ1_

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 %7+:`@V H:]:H1 7 1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ .V`V1)`1)@ .: 7 .V %]]C7 Q` ]V` QJ:C 1@)1JV`7 :R%C QH1:CH:`V H:`V Q` .V `1$. _%:C1 7 1 H%``VJ C7 `V H.VR 1J QIV ]:` Q` 21IQCG7 V0QJ 1JH`V: 1J$ .V `1 @ .: 1V H:JJQ I:1J :1J :CC ]VQ]CV 1.Q J.V`VJ   `V_%1`V 1 :`VC7 1J .V1` Q1J .QIV 5 :H.1V0V :`V R1 H.:`$V ``QI
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 1@7 .Q ]1 :C :JR 11 . ]Q VJ 1:C Q 1JH`V: V :RI1 1QJ Q `V 1RVJ 1:C -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) :JR J%` 1J$ H:`V8 RR1 1QJ:CC7 .V  ]C:JJVR HCQ %`V Q` %``VJ   HQII%J1 7 .Q ]1 :C ]`V VJ : `%` .V` I:`@V H:]:H1 7 `1 @ 11 . 1@7 `V$:`R Q 1J V`IVR1: V H:`V8 +1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7

`VVJ :_ V]`QH%`VIVJ Q`]V`)QJ:CH:`V01:JV1 p 71R)`Q`8`:IV1Q`@QJ `:H )H%``VJ C7GV1J$V0:C%: VR8
JR$Q1J$ ``:IV1Q`@7HQJ `:H ):1:`RVR1J":`H.5 `:J)1 1QJ Q 1Q`@11 .]`Q01RV`) Q)VH%`V1IIVR1: V)%]]C711 .`V$%C:` JV1:``:J$VIVJ )1J-%JV8 IQJ1 Q`1J$Q`]Q)1 1QJ8 GQ0V1J`C: 1QJ:`7:1:`R1))%VR`Q`H%``VJ  IGV` G_ V``V).Q` R%C 0QH1:C:`V":`@V  Q)1 1QJ v 7V:`8#:%JH.1J$:]`QIQ 1QJ:CH:I]:1$J11 .]`Q01RV`) Q 0 : VIVJ VJHQ%`:$V1Q`@`Q`HV`VH`%1 IVJ :JR`V VJ 1QJ:H`Q)) .V)VH Q`8 `VVJ H_ `Q01RV`3J$:$VIVJ :V 1Q`@ v

IGV` R_ V``Q`I:JHVIQJ1 Q`1J$Q`H:CCQ``:$:1J)  .V v ``:IV1Q`@:$`VVIVJ IGV` V_Q`@11 .]`Q01RV`) Q:RR`V))H:]:H1 7).Q` `:CC v

IGV` `_1J0V) 1$: 1QJ)Q`JV1)QC% 1QJ)LJV11:7Q`1Q`@1J$ v

`VVJ $_VV@C7012 3 0:JRV)H:C: 1QJ v IGV` ._ `Q01RV`Q`C:) `V)Q` Q] 1QJ v

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 % 7VR%H 1QJ1J 1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ) .V`V1)`1)@ .: 7 ]Q VJ 1:C CQ Q` 1@)1JV`7 21IQCG7 `%JR1J$:``VH V`01HV `%JR1J$ :``VH 1J$  V`01HV RVC10V`7 1J .V V0VJ Q` H.:J$V I:RV J.V`VJ   1J .V QI]`V.VJ 10V ]VJR1J$ V01V1 :JR %G V_%VJ QH:C
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 1@7 Q0V`JIVJ V CVIVJ $10VJ 1J`C: 1QJ:`7 ]`V %`V 1J I:`@V :JR -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) RVIQ$`:].1H $`Q1 .8 C Q5 ]Q VJ 1:C =%R1H1:C `1 @5 V8$8 H%``VJ %``VJ   %]`VIV HQ%` H: V QJ V]:`: 1J$ HQ Q` J%` 1J$ H:`V ``QI HQ 1@7 Q` H:`V8 +1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7

`VVJ :_
] 1QJ)QJQ]`VHV] v 2.VH%``VJ `1)@`VI:1J):))V))VR: ^3 1_:):`V)%C Q` IGV` G_1JH`V:)V1J78`%JR1J$ v .VQJR$Q1J$`1J:JH1:C]`V))%`V)GV1J$V6]V`1VJHVRG7:38 JJQ%JHVIVJ Q`0%HHV)) V$1IV:JRJ: 1QJ:C`QH%)QJ

Page 176 Agenda Item 14

)-. .-)0))
. %. ^
.
 
%. _
 7 +1 1$: 1J$QJ `QC7
0V`R%V VR IGV` `VVJ QI]CV VR `V01V1

1@7 V01V1Q0V` V`71$. 1$.U "VR1%IU #Q1U R%VU^ VR_ U^ %`]CV_ ^ VR_ ^ IGV`_ ^VCCQ1_

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 %7+:`@V :]:H1 7 1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ) .V`V1)`1)@ .: 7 .V %]]C7 Q` 1@)1JV`7 21IQCG7 ^V1RVJ 1:C%`1J$_ `V 1RVJ 1:C :JR J%` 1J$ H:`V Q` .V `1$. _%:C1 7 1 H%``VJ C7 J.V`VJ   `V H.VR 1J QIV ]:` Q` V0QJ 1JH`V: 1J$ .V `1 @ .: 1V H:JJQ
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) 1@7 :H.1V0V :`V R1 H.:`$V ``QI .Q ]1 :C8 1``1H%C 1V 1J `VH`%1 1J$ H:`V %``VJ   :`` `%` .V` 1JH`V: V .1 `1 @8 RR1 1QJ:CC75 .V  ]C:JJVR 1@7 HCQ %`V Q` HQII%J1 7 .Q ]1 :C ]`V VJ : `%` .V` I:`@V H:]:H1 7 `1 @ 11 . `V$:`R Q 1J V`IVR1: V H:`V8

+1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7 :_:]1 :C1J0V) IVJ ]`Q$`:IIVCVRG77  V:I Q 1JH`V:)VH:]:H1 71J:`V:)Q`.1$.V) JVVR

G_:V1H:`V.QIV)HQJ `:H 1JHC%R1J$GCQH@GVR ]`Q01)1QJ) R H_Q`@1J$11 .)`V81J V`IVR1: VH:`V QVJ)%`V `1  QHQJ `:H

R_1I]`Q01J$`VC: 1QJ).1]11 . .VI:`@V 01:)VH Q` CV:R Q1JH`V:)VI:`@V VJ$:$VIVJ

V_8VV%]C1` .:)) :G1C1)VRI:`@V `:1C%`V

`_Q`@`Q`HVRV0VCQ]IVJ ]`Q$`:IIVGV1J$ V6 VJRVR Q]`10: V)VH Q`

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 % 75%R$V  1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ) .V`V1)`1)@ .: : G`Q:RV` HQ`]Q`: V 1@)1JV`7 21IQCG7L@V`10 Q`V7L0%VC:`@VL-Q +:J:$VIVJ Q0V`01V1 Q` 1I1J$5 1I]:H Q` HQ]V Q` V`01HV Q` ]QC1H7 H.:J$V
C))QJ J.V`VJ   $10V `1 V Q `V01V1 Q` `VHQJ 1RV`: 1QJ Q` ]`Q]Q :C
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) 1@7 %``VJ   1@7 +1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7

IGV` :_2.Q`Q%$.JV))Q`HQJ)%C : 1QJQ`]`Q]Q):C) v

IGV` G_2.Q`Q%$.`1)@:))V))IVJ Q`]C:J):JR]QC1H7 v H.:J$V)

Page 177 Agenda Item 14

)-. .-)0))
. %. ^
.
 
%. _
 7 +1 1$: 1J$QJ `QC7
0V`R%V VR IGV` `VVJ QI]CV VR `V01V1

1@7 V01V1Q0V` V`71$. 1$.U "VR1%IU #Q1U R%VU^ VR_ U^ %`]CV_ ^ VR_ ^ IGV`_ ^VCCQ1_

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 . 7QJ 1J%1J$0V:C . 1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ) .V`V1)`1)@ .: 7 1$J1`1H:J RVC:7 1J 1@)1JV`7 @V`10 Q`V7 :`V : V IVJ :JR RV V`I1J: 1QJ Q` ' VC1$1G1C1 7 CV:R1J$ Q J.V`VJ   Q]V`: 1QJ:C 1JV``1H1VJH1V 5 ]Q 1GCV HC1J1H:C `1 @ 1` ]VQ]CV 11 .
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) 1@7 ]`1I:`7 H:`V JVVR :`V JQ GV1J$ :]]`Q]`1: VC7 H: V I:J:$VR G7 %``VJ   (' ]`Q`V 1QJ:C 6 :JR `1J:JH1:C `1 @ Q .V Q%JH1C : 1VCC : 1@7 1I]:H QJ 1JR101R%:C :JR `:I1C1V +1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7 IGV` :_1))%V)V)H:C: VR Q:3

IGV` V_<1)H%))1QJ)%JRV`1:711 . QHQJ)1RV``% %`V 1VV@`%JR1J$:``:J$VIVJ ) IGV` `_:3

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 7)7.1CR`VJ.V`01HV 1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ) .V`V1)`1)@ .: 7 .V 1I]:H :H`Q 1@)1JV`7 5%R$V `V%`V:JR $VQ]CV V`01HV Q` G%R$V ]`V %`V :JR :CCQH: 1QJ 1 %V 11 .1J -Q
C))QJL0%VC:`@V
CCQH: 1QJ H.1CR`VJ V`01HV 8 1$J1`1H:J Q0V` ]VJR :`V H%``VJ C7 GV1J$ J.V`VJ   `Q`VH: 11 .1J %R%H: 1QJ `:J ]Q` :JR : `:J$V Q` QH1:C H:`V
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) 1@7 G%R$V HQ%CR .`V: VJ Q0V`:CC `1J:JH1:C :G1C1 7 :JR 1I]:H QJ %``VJ   HQ`V V`01HV RVC10V`78 1@7 +1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7

IGV` :_ V$%C:``1J:JH1:C]V``Q`I:JHV`V]Q` 1J$ Q#2 v 01$J`1H1:J Q0V`)]VJR):`VH%``VJ C7GV1J$`Q`VH:) 11 .1J 3R%H: 1QJ `:J)]Q` :JR:`:J$VQ`H.1CR`VJ))QH1:CH:`VG%R$V )5 IGV` G_VV@C7H.1CR`VJ))QH1:CH:`VI:J:$VIVJ  v 1.1H. .`V: VJ .VQ0V`:CC`1J:JH1:C) :G1C1 7Q` VQ]CV)0V`01HV)8 IVV 1J$)`QH%))1J$QJG%R$V ]`V))%`V) IGV` H_8QH%)`Q`#2 R1)H%))1QJ) v IGV` R_0H`% 1J7`V]Q` 1J$ v IGV` V_2:)@`Q%]CVRG7#V:RV`Q` .VQ%JH1C p

1@QRV:JR. : %7 .HQ]VQ`1@7 %``VJ ]Q1 1QJL:H 1QJ :@VJL:HHQ%J :GCVQ``1HV`7 .7.H.QQC`:J]Q` 1 .Q% I1 1$: 1J$:H 1QJ) .V`V1)`1)@ .: 7 1 1J$ Q0V` ]VJR QJ 1@)1JV`7 .QIV Q H.QQC `:J ]Q` 1 .:01J$ : RVCV V`1Q% V``VH QJ 0%VC:`@V %R%H: 1QJ :JR V:`J1J$ HQ`V G%R$V :JR 1J1 1: 10V .: :`V J.V`VJ  
HHQ%J :GCV)``1HV`7 H%``VJ C7 :G Q`G1J$ .V %G :J 1:C Q0V` ]VJR8 H 1QJ Q :RR`V -VJJ1V0 V].VJ) 1@7 Q0V` ]VJR .: .:R C1I1 VR .Q` V`I 1I]:H :$:1J `1 1J$ HQ %``VJ   R%V Q 1JH`V: VR V6]VH : 1QJ :JR .V HQI]CV61 7 Q` 1JR101R%:C 1@7 `:J ]Q` `V_%V VR8 +1 1$: 1J$HQJ `QC^1JHC%R1J$
%`: 1J$_7 1`VH 1QJQ``:0VC7
RR1 1QJ:CHQIIVJ ^1`:]]`Q]`1: V_7 IGV` :_":J:$VIVJ :H 1QJ)11 .1J2`:J)]Q`  v QJ 1J%1J$Q0V`)]VJR)QJ.QIV Q)H.QQC `:J)]Q` :`V.:01J$ QQ`R1J: 1QJ0V`01HV^20_1J0QC01J$`Q% V:J:C7)1) RVCV V`1Q%)V``VH )QJ3R%H: 1QJ:JR#V:`J1J$HQ`VG%R$V ):JR :JRV``1H1VJH7):01J$)82`:J)`V`Q`I:J:$VIVJ Q` 1J1 1: 10V)51.1H.:`VH%``VJ C7:G)Q`G1J$ .1))%G) :J 1:C 3R%H: 1QJ2`:J)]Q` 2V:I Q208 Q0V`)]VJR8

IGV` G_20IQJ1 Q`1J$:JR`V$%C:``V01V1:H`Q)):CC:`V:) v Q`)]VJR IGV` H_ QC1H7`V$%C:`C7`V01V1VR:JR:R=%) VR Q`VR%HV v :`V:)Q`R1)H`V 1QJ:`7)]VJR

IGV` R_ H 1QJ)1RVJ 1`1VR .`Q%$.HQ`]Q`: V `:J)]Q`  v ]`Q=VH GQ:`R Page 178