Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Date: Thursday 11 March 2010

Time: 2:00pm

Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich

Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.

Membership

Mr J Carswell (Chairman)

Mr R Bearman (Spokesperson) Ms D Irving Mr B Bremner (Spokesperson) Mr M Kiddle-Morris Miss C Casimir (Vice-Chairman) Mr W Nunn Mrs J Chamberlin Mr M Scutter (Spokesperson) Mrs D Clarke Mr B Spratt Mr G Cook Mr P Wells Mr T Garrod Mr A Wright Mr B Hannah

Parent Governor Representatives

Mr P East Dr L Poliakoff

Church Representatives

Mrs J O’Connor Mr A Mash

Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative

Dr B Carrington

Non-Voting Cabinet Member

Mrs S Hutson

Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Member

Mrs J Murphy Education Mrs A Thomas Vulnerable Children Non-Voting Co-opted Advisors

Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr P Large Secondary Education Mr L Poulson Post-16 Education Mrs H Rowlinson Special Schools Mr M Sale Norfolk Governors Network

For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Kristen Jones on 01603 223053 or email [email protected] A g e n d a

1 To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending

2 Minutes

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Children’s Services (Page 1) Overview & Scrutiny Panel held on 14 January 2010.

3 Members to Declare any Interests

Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is prejudicial. A declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest, the member may speak and vote on the matter. Please note that if you are exempt from declaring a personal interest because it arises solely from your position on a body to which you were nominated by the County Council or a body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority), you need only declare your interest if and when you intend to speak on a matter.

If a prejudicial interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, in which case you may attend the meeting for that purpose. You must immediately leave the room when you have finished or the meeting decides you have finished, if earlier.

These declarations apply to all those members present, whether the member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

4 To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency

5 Public Question Time

Fifteen minutes for questions from members of the public of which due notice has been given.

Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Officer by 5pm on Monday 8 March 2010. Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda. For guidance on submitting public questions, please view the Council Constitution, Appendix 10, Council procedure rules. www.norfolk.gov.uk/reviewpanelquestions 6 Local Member Issues/Member Questions

Fifteen minutes for local members to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given. Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Officer by 5pm on Monday 8 March 2010. Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda.

7 Cabinet Member Feedback

Scrutiny Items

8 Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny (Page 11) Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Overview Items

9 Future Provision for Environmental and Outdoor Learning (Page 18) Opportunities

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

10 Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance (Page 24) Monitoring Report for Quarter 4 2009-2010

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

11 School Closures in Emergencies (Page 48)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

12 Admission Arrangements for September 2011 (Page 64)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

13 Fair Funding (Page A1)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

14 School Organisation Issues: Consultation on the Closure of The (Page 76) Park High School, King’s Lynn and Academy Update

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

15 Children’s Services Service Plan 2010-13 (Page 110)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services 16 Norfolk Youth Offending Team Service Plan 2010/13 (Page 114)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

17 Annual Approval of the Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s (Page 157) Residential Children’s Homes and a Summary Review of the Year

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Group Meetings

Conservative 1:00 pm Colman Room Liberal Democrats 1:00 pm Room 504

Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services

County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH

Date Agenda Published: 3 March 2010

If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Minutes of the Meeting Held on Thursday 14 January 2010

Present:

Mr J Carswell (Chairman)

Mr R Bearman (Spokesperson) Mr B Hannah Mr B Bremner (Spokesperson) Ms D Irving Mr M Carttiss Mr M Kiddle-Morris Miss C Casimir (Vice Chairman) Mr R Rockcliffe Mrs D Clarke Mr M Scutter (Spokesperson) Mr G Cook Mr B Spratt Mr T Garrod Mr A Wright

Parent Governor Representatives:

Mr P East Dr L Poliakoff

Church Representatives:

Mr A Mash

Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative:

Dr B Carrington

Non-Voting Cabinet Member:

Mrs S Hutson

Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Members:

Mrs J Murphy Education Mrs A Thomas Vulnerable Children

Non-Voting Co-Opted Advisors:

Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr P Large Secondary Education Mrs H Rowlinson Special Schools Mr M Sale Norfolk Governors’ Network

1. Apologies and substitutions

Apologies were received from Mrs J Chamberlin (Mr R Rockcliffe substituting), Mr W Nunn (Mr M Carttiss substituting), Mr L Poulson, and Mr P Wells.

2. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2009 were agreed by the Panel and signed as an accurate record of the meeting.

3. Declarations of Interests

Members declared the following interests:

 Mr B Hannah Item 15 Prejudicial

4. Items of Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business.

5. Public Question Time

There were no public questions.

6. Local Member Issues/Member Questions

There were no local member issues or questions.

7. Cabinet Member Feedback

The Cabinet Member explained that the closure of schools due to the recent inclement weather would feature in a report at the next meeting of the Panel.

In regards to the GCSE exam results, nearly 50% of Norfolk young people achieved the ‘gold standard’, or 5 A*-C, including English and Maths.

Scrutiny Items

8. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny

The annexed report (8) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report asked Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny, to consider the Outline Programme and agree the scrutiny topics listed and their reporting dates, to approve the Terms of Reference for the scrutiny review of the recruitment and retention of head teachers, and to consider new topics for inclusion on the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria set out in the report.

2 The Panel AGREED:

 The scrutiny topics listed and reporting dates laid out in the paper

 To approve the Terms of Reference for the scrutiny review of the recruitment and retentions of head teachers.

9. Carbon Management and Sustainability

The annexed report (9) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report set out the current and planned Children’s Services actions to address the carbon reduction imperative in the context of the wider sustainability agenda. The report asked the Panel to consider and comment on the position set out in this report, to endorse the current and proposed actions and offer any additional proposals to support the sustainability agenda in schools.

During the discussion the following points were made:

 It was noted that from 2011, schools in the county would contribute to the carbon reduction obligations of Norfolk County Council under the Carbon Reduction Commitment. Members asked whether schools or the local authority would be ultimately responsible for the carbon footprint produced by Norfolk schools. The Head of Planning and Buildings for Children’s Services replied that Norfolk County Council was ultimately responsible for the total carbon footprint of schools and that the penalties and rewards would fall to the county council. It was added that the Schools Forum had formed a sub- group to look at the mechanisms for how the penalties and rewards mechanisms should apply to individual schools in the light of any government guidance given.

 It was mentioned that there was a 17% increase in energy consumption from last year. The Head of Planning and Buildings for Children’s Services replied that it was apparent that new school buildings did not necessarily use less energy. This is partly because updated buildings allow for new and more computers and ICT equipment, using significant power to operate. Therefore, it was important that the Council focuses on other solutions, such as renewable energy, as from 2016 all new school buildings would be required to be carbon neutral. Work was also taking place to ensure the procurement of energy efficient technologies and associated programmes that reduced energy use (hibernation settings etc).

 Four secondary schools participated in the Energy Busters programme between January and August 2009 but only one managed to meter energy use effectively. The Head of Planning and Buildings for Children’s Services emphasised the importance of schools’ ability to monitor their own carbon emissions although this proved difficult as many meters were inaccessible. The Energy

3

 Members requested a yearly comparison of data with weather corrections. It was also highlighted that Children’s Services officers were engaging with staff at the University of East Anglia and internationally to help discover ways to reduce carbon emissions in schools. The development of ‘real time’ monitoring and interpretation was key as was the development of ‘collaborative leagues’, so that schools could compare themselves with other similar schools – and learn from each other.

 Members questioned whether the requirement to reduce carbon emissions would be a burden for the head teacher who would already be struggling to fulfil other numerous responsibilities. The Director of Children’s Services explained that the department did all they could to help to manage the demands on head teachers.

 It was emphasised that reducing carbon emissions in schools was a tremendous educational opportunity for Norfolk pupils and young people would use many different skills to manage this problem in their own school. Not only would this programme help the environment and engage young people in a constructive learning project, it would also save money and resources.

The Panel AGREED to endorse the position set out in the report and the current and proposed actions to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability within Norfolk schools.

Overview Items

10. Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Report for Part Quarter 3 2009-2010

The annexed report (10) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report provided an update on performance and finance monitoring information for the two months of Quarter 3 of 2009-2010 financial year. This report covered the progress of the Corporate Objectives within the County Council Plan that were related to Children’s Services as well as Ofsted’s 2009 rating of which Norfolk County Council was found to be performing well. The report also set out the projected variations between the approved budget for 2009/10 and year end spending projections as known at 31 March 2010. It also commented on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions. Members of the Panel were asked to note and comment on the information contained in the report and to consider whether any aspects should be identified for further scrutiny.

During the discussion the following points were made:

4

 It was noted that out of the fourteen indicators, eleven of the targets set for these were not met and six were getting worse. The Head of Policy and Performance clarified that these were not end-of-year figures and also needed to be seen in the context of the narrative of the report. This highlighted the significant increase in contacts and referrals which was having an impact on in-year performance figures. The Director of Children’s Services agreed saying that the actual figures would be published at the end of the financial year. She also indicated that seasonal fluctuations needed to be taken into account. Referring to National Indicator 60 (NI60, the ‘percentage of children’s social care core assessments that were carried out within 35 working days’), she emphasised that this did not mean that children, young people, and their families were not getting a service in the interim.

 Members welcomed the news that Children’s Services forecast a balanced budget for the year. It was questioned whether delaying recruitment for non-urgent posts would have normally been carried out to make savings or if this had only happened due to the extreme budget pressures faced by the service. The Assistant Director for Resources and Efficiency noted that these cuts, while not affecting front line services, had an effect on the back office functions and the delay of recruitment would not occur under normal circumstances.

The Panel AGREED to note the report.

11. Service and Financial Planning 2010-13

The annexed report (11) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. Following a detailed report at November’s Panel meeting, this report updated Members on further information and changes affecting proposals. The report included confirmation of the Provisional Grant Settlement, information from the recent Pre-Budget Report 2009, updated information on revenue budget proposals and capital funding bids and the latest information on the cash limited budget for services relevant to the Panel. Members were asked to consider and comment on the proposals contained within the report and to consider the prioritised bids for capital funding in order to inform Cabinet discussion at its meeting on 25 January 2010.

During the discussion the following points were made:

 In regards to the funding of Learning and Skills Staff transferring to Norfolk County Council, it was clarified that provision had been made to cover the initial personnel costs but expenses associated with accommodation for the additional staff had not yet been determined. The Director of Children’s Services explained that this was a national issue and it may be helpful to consult on ways of covering these costs with other local authorities which would likely be in a similar situation.

5

 It was noted that £425k had been removed from the base budget in relation to the pay award provision.

 Following on from the Cabinet Member’s decision not to reduce or remove the Post-16 transport subsidy, further savings had been identified to bridge this savings gap. The savings identified related to changes to processes and procedures for taking children into care, contract monitoring costs which would be recharged back to private finance initiative schemes, and the transfer of Student Support functions to Student Loan Company.

 Members questioned the proposal to remove the subsidy given for Holt and Wells Field Study Centres. The Deputy Director of Children’s Services explained that a report on this proposal would be forthcoming at the next Panel meeting in March 2010.

The Panel AGREED the report.

12. Schools Budget 2010/11

The annexed report (12) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report set out changes that needed to be made to the 2010/11 forecast Schools Budget. The report explained the reasons for the changes to the forecast budget and the impact the changes would have on 2010/11 school funding allocations. The Panel was asked to consider and comment on the proposed redetermined 2010/11 Schools Budget and the proposed guideline for budget construction in 2011/12 and 2012/13.

During the discussion the following points were made:

 The issue of schools in financial difficulty was discussed and the Panel was referred to the appropriate section in the report which explained that two schools in the county had totalled £1.5m of debt. A question was asked about what safeguards were in place to prevent this from happening in the future. The Assistant Director for Resources and Efficiency explained that the local authority now managed the finances and human resources of the two schools in question. It was difficult to say how much this would cost the local authority but the report recommended £500k was set aside for this purpose and that this issue be continually reviewed. The local authority did all it could to assist schools but they relied on the governance of the school to manage financial decisions and processes. Children’s Services were in discussions with the Schools’ Forum regarding training for school governors and staff on governance and finance. The Director of Children’s Services went on to add that a close working relationship with the School’s Forum and good risk management were key to reducing the likelihood that schools would fall into financial difficulty. However, with nearly 450 schools in Norfolk there would at times be situations which did not

6

 It was hoped that the reduction in Threshold and Performance Pay allocated funding would not mean that performance would not be adequately rewarded in financial terms. It was noted that if school staff were not paid in accordance to their contracts, costs from grievances and pay claims could potentially cost schools more in the long term. The Assistant Director for Resources and Efficiency replied that once schools were allocated funding they could spend the funding however they thought best.

 In regards to the social deprivation funding revision to remove the additional allocation of £1.5m, there was concern that this would only magnify the difficulties in raising educational achievement in areas of social deprivation. The Assistant Director for Resources and Efficiency noted that this £1.5m uplift was a ‘bonus’ which unfortunately could not be maintained in the budget.

The Panel AGREED the report and the redetermined 2010/11 Schools Budget and the proposed guideline for school budget construction in 2011/12 and 2012/13.

13. Fair Funding: Consultation Responses

The annexed report (13) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report sets out the results of the recent consultation on proposed changes to school funding from April 2010. The report sought the views of the Panel before the recommendations for changes to the Fair Funding arrangements were considered by Cabinet on 25 January 2010.

During the discussion the following points were made:

 It was noted that the early years sub-group had agreed to support the early years pathfinder status.

 With a pending general election within the next few months, it was noted that there was a risk of a new government scrapping the Fair Funding scheme. However, it was thought that Norfolk County Council would still want to carry on with the process.

The Panel AGREED the report.

14. Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s Adoption Agency Annual Consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel

7 The annexed report (14) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report included in its appendix the Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s Adoption Agency, fulfilling the statutory requirement to publish and regularly update this document which described the ethos and goals of the adoption service, its management and oversight arrangements and the knowledge and experience of its staff group and priorities for the coming year. The Panel was asked to scrutinise and question the Adoption Statement of Purpose 2010 and to forward it, with comment, onto Cabinet.

Meera Spillett (Deputy Director of Children’s Services, SEN) joined the Panel to present the report. The Chairman announced that this meeting would be Ms Spillett’s last as she would be joining Oxfordshire County Council as their Director of Children’s Services in February. The Panel congratulated and thanked her for her support and dedication to Norfolk County Council and to Norfolk’s children and young people.

Members praised the adoptive carers and the success that the adoption team had achieved in keeping adoptions above average despite a fall of those adopted nationally.

The Panel AGREED the report.

15. Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s Fostering Services Annual Consideration by Cabinet

The annexed report (15) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The Statement of Purpose of the Fostering Service must be considered and approved annually by the elected members of the local authority to comply with Fostering Services Regulations 2002. The report was accompanied by Norfolk County Council’s Fostering Statement of Purpose 2009/2010. The Panel was asked to recommend approval of the Statement of Purpose to Cabinet.

During the discussion the following points were made:

 Members praised the amazing work of Norfolk’s foster carers and kinship carers and asked how Children’s Services adequately recognised this personal contribution.

 It was noted that the Fostering Service received complaints and Members questioned the confidence of the service that children were kept safe without being over-robust in their investigation of complaints. The Deputy Director Prevention, Early Intervention and Specialist Services replied that significant training and support was offered. The service was required to investigate all complaints and Children’s Services supported their social workers that registered allegations. The Director of Children’s Services added that she regularly signed long service awards for foster carers, some of which had served 25 or even 40 years.

8  Children’s Services had a £6m overspend, although this was being managed within the budget primarily as a result of the Looked After Children (LAC) costs and the question was asked whether this related to a lack of foster carers. The Director of Children’s Services replied that the highest priority was to meet the needs of the child. Sometimes this meant purchasing external specialist care provision however whenever possible Children’s Services managed their internal resources to meet this need.

The Panel AGREED to approve the Statement and Purpose of the Fostering Service.

16. Early Years Proposals

The annexed report (16) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report set out three development proposals within the County Council’s nursery class provision—one requiring Statutory Notices and two requiring additional revenue resources as a result of expansion. The capital funding for these schemes would come from the Surestart Early Years Quality and Access Grant.

The report thus made recommendations for proposals affecting three schools in Norwich—Tuckswood Community Primary School, West Earlham Infant School, and Catton Grove Primary School. Regarding Tuckswood Community Primary School, it was proposed to establish a County Council-maintained nursery class, requiring a change in age range. Regarding West Earlham Infant School and Catton Grove Primary School, it was proposed to enlarge the maintained nursery classes in each school and to accept the additional revenue implications arising from this decision.

During the discussion the following points were made:

 The Local Member for Catton Grove expressed her support for the proposals for the three schools as outlined in the report.

 The Head of Planning and Buildings for Children's Services stated that increasing the provision at West Earlham Infant School from 52 to 78 places was appropriate as this would meet a significant shortfall in provision within the area served by the school.

The Panel AGREED the report and endorsed the recommendations outlined above.

The meeting concluded at 4:00 pm.

CHAIRMAN

9 If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011

(textphone) and we will do our best to help.

10 Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 11 March 2010 Item No. 8

Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary This report asks Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny

1. The Programme

1.1. The Outline Programme for Scrutiny (Appendix A) has been updated to show progress since the 14 January 2010 Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

1.2 Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel can add new topics to the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria below: -

(i) High profile – as identified by:  Members (through constituents, surgeries, etc)  Public (through surveys, Citizen’s Panel, etc)  Media  External inspection (Audit Commission, Ombudsman, Internal Audit, Inspection Bodies)

(ii) Impact – this might be significant because of:  The scale of the issue  The budget that it has  The impact that it has on members of the public (this could be either a small issue that affects a large number of people or a big issue that affects a small number of people)

(iii) Quality – for instance, is it:  Significantly under performing  An example of good practice  Overspending

(iv) It is a Corporate Priority

1.3 All Overview & Scrutiny Panel members may put forward considered proposals for a future scrutiny review. Such proposals will need to include supporting information and an outline of the objectives that may be achieved. The Scrutiny Planning Group will consider all proposals in the light of the guidance contained in paragraph 1.2 above and seek further information where necessary. The Group will then report back to the Panel recommending approval to add items to the scrutiny forward programme on the basis of their relative priorities.

Originated by Mick Sabec 2010-02-12 version: Final

2 Planning the Forward Programme

2.1 The Scrutiny Planning Group met on 11 February and considered the following topics previously identified for inclusion within the forward programme:-

a. Bullying This is a problem that has an extremely adverse impact on a large number of young people and their parents. It is also an issue that has a high profile in the media and one which generates concern amongst the public, young people, parents and schools. The working group noted that bullying was a high priority area in the Children’s and Young People’s Plan. It was recognised that a range of effective initiatives were underway and that considerable progress had been made in Norfolk in tackling this problem. Nevertheless, the Scrutiny Planning Group felt that a scrutiny exercise would provide an opportunity to increase Members knowledge and involvement in tackling this issue. In doing so a scrutiny review would be able to highlight areas of good practice in schools and elsewhere and identify further improvements.

b. The take up of 14-19 diplomas This was identified as an important new educational initiative that has been running for approximately 18 months. As the first cohort of young people complete the diplomas this school year, the Scrutiny Planning Group felt that it would be an opportune time to consider how successful the diploma programme has been. Therefore, an early scrutiny of this item in the summer or early autumn will enable Members to be involved in influencing changes and improvements in Norfolk.

c. Levels of attendance in schools Attendance levels have a high profile in terms of media coverage and were also the subject of concerns raised by schools and the public. At an individual level, a low level of attendance has a significant impact on the educational attainment of a young person and hence their outcomes later in life. This is also a key area of performance and one which will be examined in future inspections of Children’s Services.

The Scrutiny Planning Group felt that scrutiny would be beneficial in considering the strategies and plans that are in place. It also felt that this was an item that would require close working with schools in order to highlight areas of best practice and success. The objective of a scrutiny review would be to identify how, in partnership with schools and other agencies, further improvements could be made to raise levels of attendance in Norfolk.

d. Child protection after Lord Laming’s report Following the publication of Lord Laming’s report, there has been a significant increase in the number of child protection referrals both nationally and in Norfolk. This has led to an increase in child protection plans and in the number of children placed on the Child Protection Register.

This is a high profile important topic and one that has a very significant impact on the children and young people affected. The Scrutiny Planning Group was aware that a previous scrutiny review had considered issues relating to the number of Looked after Children in Norfolk. Whilst it was conscious of the need to avoid replicating previous work, it felt that it was important to raise Members awareness and examine how Children’s Services were responding and coping with increased levels of demand. A scrutiny review was also seen as being an appropriate means of considering how priorities for the future delivery of child protection responsibilities should be planned and resourced.

e. The take up school meals and free school meals School catering is currently subject to a cross departmental project in Children’s Services involving schools and NORSE. The project is looking at all aspects including quality, supply, contractual arrangements, healthy eating, payments and the take up of meals. It was felt that scrutiny of this item would be more effective when the project has completed its review and implemented changes.

2.2 The Scrutiny Planning Group decided that whilst all the items warranted scrutiny some were more pressing than others. It also considered the means by which items should be scrutinised and felt that the working group approach was not appropriate in all cases. Consequently, it agreed to recommend the method by which scrutiny of specific topics should be undertaken. In doing so it recognised that during the scrutiny of items by the full panel, issues may then be raised that require more detailed work to be undertaken by a working group.

2.3 The Scrutiny Planning Group’s recommendations are that the items below should be added to the programme in the following order of priority:-

Priority Topic Scrutiny Method 1 Bullying Full Panel 2 The take up of (14-19) diplomas Full Panel 3 Levels of attendance in schools Scrutiny Working Group 4 Child protection after Lord Laming’s report Scrutiny Working Group 5 The take up of school meals & free school meals Full Panel

2.4 The Scrutiny Planning Group recommends that the items above be given a higher priority than the current items on the forward programme:-

 The availability and condition of toilets in schools for pupils.  A strategy to combat racism and promote inter cultural understanding.

3 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

3.1 The crime and disorder implications of the various scrutiny topics will be considered when the scrutiny takes place

4 Equality Impact Assessment

4.1 This report is not directly relevant to equality, in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups.

5 Any Other implications

5.1 Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

Action Required

(1) The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to consider the attached Outline Programme (Appendix A) and agree the scrutiny topics listed and reporting dates. (2) The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to amend its forward programme of scrutiny items in line with the recommendations made by its Scrutiny Planning Group (paragraph 2.3)

(3) To agree to appoint a working group to consider the level of attendance in schools. (4) The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is invited to consider whether there are any further new topics for inclusion on the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria at para 1.2.

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Name Telephone Number Email address

Mick Sabec 01603 223499 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help. Appendix A Outline Programme for Scrutiny

Standing Item for Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel: Update for 11 March 2010 This is only an outline programme and will be amended as issues arise or priorities change Scrutiny is normally a two-stage process: • Stage 1 of the process is the scoping stage. Draft terms of reference and intended outcomes will be developed as part of this stage. • The Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Panel or a Member Group will carry out the detailed scrutiny but other approaches can be considered, as appropriate (e.g. ‘select committee’ style by whole O&S Panel). • On the basis that the detailed scrutiny is carried out by a Member Group, Stage 2 is reporting back to the O&S Panel by the Group.

This Panel welcomes the strategic ambitions for Norfolk. These are: • A vibrant, strong and sustainable economy • Aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills • An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity

These ambitions inform the NCC Objectives from which scrutiny topics for this Panel will develop, as well as using the outlined criteria at para 1.2 above.

Changes to Programme from that previously submitted to the Panel on 14 January 2010

Added  None Deleted  None

Topic Outline Objective Cabinet Stage 1 Stage 2 Requested by Comment Portfolio Terms of (report Area Reference back to Panel) Scrutiny Items Outstanding/ Ongoing 1. The Recruitment  To review the current Children’s 14 January Autumn Children’s The scrutiny working group and Retention of strategy and situation Services 2010 2010 Services met on 2 February and Head Teachers relating to the recruitment Overview & considered statistical data and retention of head Scrutiny Panel relating to the recruitment teachers. July 2007 and retention of head teachers in Norfolk and  To draw up nationally. The next step for recommendations to help the working group will be to improve the recruitment try to ascertain the and retention of head underlying reasons for head teachers. teachers in Norfolk leaving their posts. *2. The availability To be determined Children’s To be To be Children’s This topic was placed on the and condition of Services determined determined Services forward programme by the toilets in schools Overview & former Overview & Scrutiny for pupils. Scrutiny Panel Panel. September 2007 *3. Strategy to To be determined Children’s To be To be Children’s This topic was placed on the combat racism and Services determined determined Services forward programme by the promote inter Overview & former Overview & Scrutiny cultural Scrutiny Panel Panel. understanding. September A briefing paper was 2006 presented to the Panel in March 2008

* Reviewed by the scrutiny planning group – see para 2.4 above

Scrutiny items completed since 2007

Date completed Topic Method July 2009 Consultation processes within Children’s Services Scrutiny working group July 2009 Portrayal of young people in the media Scrutiny working group January 2009 Area based youth services Scrutiny working group May 2008 Staff development in Children’s Services Scrutiny working group May 2008 Priorities for educational aspects of Children’s Services, developed as a result of Ofsted’s Full panel Annual Performance Assessment. March 2008 The number of Looked After Children Scrutiny working group March 2008 Financial management and reserves (in Children’s Services) Scrutiny working group May 2007 Education for children with medical needs Scrutiny working group May 2007 School balances Scrutiny working group

Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 11 March 2010 Item No 9

Future provision for Environmental and Outdoor Learning Opportunities

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary

This report sets out proposals which will ensure appropriate provision of residential and other opportunities in Environmental and Outdoor Learning. It considers how the County Council can continue to provide high quality teaching and learning, support to schools and others, and ensure expertise is maintained to support the climate change, carbon management and sustainable living agendas.

Norfolk County Council has a good reputation for delivering Environmental and Outdoor Learning through a range of provision including Holt Hall and Wells Field Study Centres (FSCs), tailored packages at schools and other educational settings, and through a well supported training and INSET programme. The paper sets out the proposed changes in the provision of Environmental and Outdoor Learning opportunities in view of the decision made at the County Council Budget meeting on 15 February 2010 to reduce the subsidy paid to Holt Hall and Wells FSCs. There are issues over the changing trends in demand for, and provision of, the service and the need to ensure that the service is financially sustainable in the future.

Members of the Panel are asked to endorse the proposals in the report and recommend the following to Cabinet: a) The Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team maximise in-school service provision in line with curriculum demands and Council priorities. b) The Council explore possible alternative uses of the Centres. This to include consultation with local communities and other stakeholders. c) The Council continues to directly provide residential opportunities in Environmental and Outdoor Learning focused on Holt Hall FSC. d) That a review of staffing requirements for the Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team be undertaken.. 1. Background

The Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team have an excellent reputation for biodiversity education, raising achievement through outdoor learning (science, geography and numeracy), the global dimension and modelling sustainable lifestyles. The Team have an excellent track record in supporting personal and social development, which is given a high priority during both planning and delivery.

Recent Team successes include:

 Establishing a successful horticultural programme (Roots and Shoots) supporting vulnerable young people and students with SEN, young people not in education or employment and new adult groups  Holt and Wells FSCs being two of the first centres nationally to achieve the new Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badges.  A sponsored Ecoschools project for West Norfolk schools supporting teacher training and a whole school approach to more sustainable living  Grants supporting four new schools in challenging circumstances to access residential opportunities  New links and activities with Looked After Children  Increase in uptake of INSET training opportunities  A National Children’s Bureau pilot on Climate Change with 3 Pupil Referral Units  Extension of Early Years Outdoor Learning support to schools and settings including further ‘Forest Schools’ activity  New business and community links including a growing volunteers base

The Team are responsible for the operation of Holt Hall and Wells FSCs. Over the past three years the centres have both significantly improved their finances and reduced dependency on core funding by making efficiency savings, through diversifying the programmes and by obtaining grants. However there are still budget pressures relating to staffing costs and ongoing grounds and capital expenditure.

2. The current challenges

2.1 At this time four significant factors are emerging for the Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team.

a) The significant reduction in the number of Norfolk Pupil Days being taken up at both Holt Hall (a loss of 6% predicted for 2009/2010 against 2008/09) and Wells (a loss of 12% predicted over the same period).

In total, there are 864 fewer Norfolk Pupil Days being taken up at both FSCs, and a total of 2,238 fewer 'visitor days' (number of visitors x no of days).

This reduction in overall demand for both FSCs can be partly explained by the increase in use of schools to teach Environmental and Outdoor Learning (dealt with in section (b), below).

b) The strengthening demand for learning opportunities in Environmental and Outdoor work from schools and others at their own locations.

As the new primary and secondary curricular changes take effect, it is highly likely that this demand will accelerate. Development of school grounds (including those in Early years settings) together with training around cross curricula outdoor learning within school grounds, have been identified as growing areas of need, which will assist the raising achievement agenda.

A recent OFSTED report (December 09) ‘Education for sustainable development, Improving schools – improving lives,’ pulls together the findings of a three year inspection programme looking at improvement in education in a selection of schools. “Schools that have improved education for sustainable development have seen benefits not just in the actions of pupils and their families but also from cost savings and improved behaviour”

c) The increasingly significant contribution required from the Team to the sustainability agenda across the Council.

This contribution from the relatively small Environmental & Outdoor Learning Team to include support to wider County Council sustainability, Carbon reduction and Learning Outside the Classroom agendas; the Regional and National Department for Children, Schools and Families Sustainable Schools Framework agenda and finally; the international grant opportunities relating to ‘Learning for Sustainability’ e.g. INTERREG secondary energy programme (ANSWER programme) and INTERREG Gaywood Valley Sustainable Urban Fringe project (SURF).

The Government has set out the aspiration that every school should by 2020 become a ‘sustainable school’ (DCSF Sustainable Schools Framework) – ‘in practice, integrating high standards of achievements and behaviour with the goals of healthy living, environmental awareness, community engagement and citizenship’. These aspirations sit closely with the five Every Child Matters outcomes. Within this there is a strong focus on developing young peoples' informed involvement in decision making.

d) It has been recognised for some time that in order to sustain the opportunities provided by the Team at Holt Hall FSC a significant capital investment will be required in order to ensure the building is fit for purpose and meets required standards. A condition survey carried out by NPS suggested a sum of £383,000 would be required. In order for this sum to be economically viable, it will first be important to assess the demand and usage for Holt Hall FSC in view of the future provision of the Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team's other priorities.

2.2 The following section proposes a number of actions in order to meet the four specific challenges outlined in section 2. These should all be seen in the context of the reduction in subsidy to both FSCs, the increase in demand for in-school learning, and the ability of other service providers to support the Team in ensuring Norfolk School Children receive the best possible environmental and outdoor education.

3. Proposed actions

3.1 The following actions would support the Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team to address the emerging factors and in addition may provide a means of utilising significant Council assets to support other local priorities.

3.2 In developing future plans for this service a major consideration is to ensure that the direct provision of residential field studies opportunities can continue to be part of our Environmental Education offer. It is suggested that the Team focus residential field study centre work on Holt Hall, as this Centre has only seen a 6% decrease in Norfolk Pupil Days, whereas Wells has seen a 12% decrease. If this course of action is taken, there is likely to be a significant increase in usage at Holt Hall as School Groups who currently use Wells will be encouraged to transfer to Holt Hall.

Should Members agree, the Team can fully utilise the facilities at Holt Hall for at least the next two academic years, during which time a full evaluation of the Centre's viability can be undertaken. Of the two FSCs, Holt Hall has a greater potential to become financially viable in the future. This is due to a higher capacity (it can accommodate 60 children as opposed to only 30 at Wells). Holt Hall is already engaged in developing a diversity of programmes and clients.

If these proposals are accepted, Holt Hall is more likely to be fully utilised and an evaluation undertaken of its value and economic viability. If this is proven, Members may wish to allocate some funding from the capital programme to improve the condition of the building at a later date.

3.3 To achieve the above, it will be necessary to cease all field study centre operations at Wells. The Centre would not be financially viable even if it operates close to capacity, which it is currently not doing (only 48% on 08/09 figures). It is proposed that the operations cease after Summer 2010 as a number of schools are currently booked in until that time and to ensure that income is secured from the busiest period of the year.

3.4 The Holt Hall and Wells premises though, could be suitable for alternative/additional use which may prove valuable as responses to other Council priorities. Therefore as part of this overall proposal it is suggested that the Council use the next two years to explore the future potential use of both Centres. Some suggestions for future use which have been mentioned include; the development of one Centre as a Field Study Centre; community use in Wells; wider training purposes in environmental and sustainability fields; a residential facility to support the reduction in out of county placements for children and young people with particular needs. An important part of this exploration of future use would be to involve local communities through a consultation process similar to the process used when a school closure is proposed. If the council wishes to develop alternative uses to meet other budget pressures then detailed investigations will be necessary including input from appropriate design expertise, planning support and business planning.

3.5 The Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team would then focus its energy on the delivery of advice, support and opportunities to schools and Early Years settings, the delivery of high quality residential learning opportunities at Holt Hall FSC, externally funded projects as well as contributions to the Council’s own priorities around sustainable development and carbon reduction.

4. Resource Implications

4.1 Finance  Possible costs involved in the review of Team staffing structure.  Wells FSC remaining open until end of summer term 2010, and any subsequent costs related to alternative use.  Resource will need to be identified to take forward the exploration of the use of both facilities.

4.2 Staff  There would need to be a review of the service staffing structure in order to meet the requirements of the new arrangements.

4.3 Property Implications Management arrangements for both buildings will need to be put in place to take account of alternative/additional use. Both premises are valuable council assets and could be suitable for a range of use, some of which may require adaptation and investment. This will be considered as part of the ongoing corporate property rationalisation.

4.4 IT: There are no IT implications

5. Other Implications

5.1 Legal Implications: There are no legal implications for these immediate proposals.

5.2 Human Rights: There are no Human Rights implications.

5.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) There are no equality implications.

5.4 Communications: Communications issues relating to the future of Holt Hall and Wells FSC have been handled by the Communications Team.

5.5 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk:

The closure of the Wells FSC will reduce the choice of residential environmental and outdoor learning opportunities for children and young people in the County. However it is envisaged that the current spare capacity at Holt Hall FSC and other private and voluntary sector centres will satisfy demand both for environmental and outdoor learning as well as for residential educational experiences. The Environmental & Outdoor Team will also seek to work at school and other learning settings, in addition to the development of projects.

6. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

There are no Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act implications.

7. Risk Implications/Assessment

7.1 A full risk assessment has been undertaken. It is identified against the team service plan and is largely managed at team level. The following risk is noted as significant to this way forward:  Continued downward trend in use of Holt Hall FSC and failure of strategy and restructure to deliver expected budgetary savings within the desired timescales (8)

8. Action Required

8.1 Members of the Panel are asked to endorse the proposals in the report and recommend the following to Cabinet:

a) The Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team maximise in-school service provision in line with curriculum demands and council priorities. b) The Council undertake an exploration of possible alternative uses of the Centres. This to include consultation with local communities and other stakeholders. c) The Council continues to directly provide residential opportunities in Environmental and Outdoor Learning focused on Holt Hall FSC. d) That a review of staffing requirements for the Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team be undertaken immediately.

Background Papers

Condition Survey Report 0149/024 Holt Hall

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Officer Name Tel No; email address Fred Corbett 01603 223493 [email protected] Sue Falch-Lovesey 01553 774023 [email protected] 07884 118630 Martyn Livermore 01603 223239 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 11 March 2010 Item no 10

Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Report for Quarter 4 2009-2010

Report by Director of Children’s Services

Summary

This report provides an update on performance and finance monitoring information for the 1 month of quarter 4 of the 2009-2010 financial year.

The report monitors progress against the Corporate Objectives set out in the County Council Plan that are covered by the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The first section covers key performance information, and the second financial performance.

The report also sets out the projected variations between the approved budget for 2009/10 and year end spending projections as known at 31 March 2010. The paper comments on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions.

The main financial points within the paper are:  The Children’s Services revenue budget remains on target to be on budget at year end. The report highlights a significant budget overspend on Looked After Children agency costs and school pension/redundancy costs which are offset by a number of savings on other budgets.  The Schools Budget variations remain contained within the approved contingency fund.  The Capital Budget is being managed with a reduced level of slippage and a small projected overspend of £0.011 million on a budget of £96.262 million  The projected level of school balances at 31 March 2010 has increased by £0.652 million or 4.8% since the January report  The projected level of balances and provisions at 31 March 2010 has reduced by £1.250 million or 5.5% since the January report.

Recommendation Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report and consider whether any aspects should be identified for further scrutiny.

1. Performance update

The following sections set out current progress against our Service Plan objectives and highlights:  Progress in, or concerns, about performance  Progress against National Indicators (NIs) (set out in Appendix A). New year end data is available for NI 55, 56, 76, 78, 85a, 85b, 85c, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102a, 102b, 104, 105 and 112  Progress against selected key actions.

CO3 Help make Norfolk a safe place to live and work

Improve the early identification of and support to parents struggling with the development and behaviour of their children – The Family Service Directory is available on the norfolk.gov.uk website. This Directory, an online guide, pulls useful information together in one place on services and information. It gives parents, carers, children and young people, partners and providers quick access to information about childcare and family services available in Norfolk. More work is underway to improve the quality and presentation of some of the information in the directory.

CO3.3 Youth offending – the rate of first time entrants into the Youth Justice System (NI 111) continues to fall. Between April and September 2009 the rate was 544 per 100,000 (provisional figures based on local data), compared to 766 for the same period the previous year. This represents a 28.9% reduction from the number of first time entrants this time last year and we continue to compare very well both nationally and regionally.

CO3.7 Keeping children and young people safe – As reported in January the number of contacts from the public and other agencies about children or young people at risk has been increasing. It has risen from 502 in November 2008 to 809 in December 2009. This has had an effect throughout the system with increases in the number of initial assessments, full assessments and family group conferences. Consequently the time taken to complete stages has lengthened with the % of initial assessments carried out in 7 days being 73.1% against a target of 89% (although this has still improved from last year’s figure of 68.1%). The number of children subject to a Child Protection Plan per 1000 population has risen from 19.1 in April 2008 to 28.6 against a target of 16 – in terms of actual numbers this is an increase from 267 in April 2008 to 466 in December 2009. The fact that it is taking longer to complete an assessment does not mean that young people are not receiving a service. Work with the child or young person and their family begins from the moment a referral is accepted. Those not meeting the threshold for formal assessment under Child Protection legislation are advised of other ways in which help can be provided such as the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) process. However this increase in case load has not led to a rise in the number of children who are Looked After by the local authority due to improvements in the way we and partners seek solutions to allow children to remain within the care of their family. Numbers initially rose from 836 in December 2008 to 862 in July 2009 but have since stabilised at around that level. Work is underway linked to the Total Place Deep Dive on High Contact families to improve processes supporting Looked After Children and achieve efficiency savings across the partnership as well as improved outcomes. CO3.8 An action plan to support young people aged 14-18 who need housing support has been agreed across a wide range of agencies in Norfolk. The plan from the Supporting People Commissioning body, agreed by the Norfolk Children and Young People’s Trust Board, aims to both reduce the number of young people leaving home prematurely and support those who do. This includes Looked After Children. The Routes to Independence Plan brings together housing and health services, probation, third sector support agencies and Children’s and Adult Services and follows a research report which showed one of the key actions needed was to support young people in making sensible decisions around planning for independence rather than leaving home prematurely.

CO4 Improve educational attainment and help children and young people achieve their ambitions

CO4.1 Improve the achievement of young children at the end of the Foundation Stage –Thirteen new children’s centres have been designated this year and we remain on track to reach our end of year target which is 16.

CO4.6 Reduce the number of schools in Ofsted categories – Between 1st September 2009 and the end of January 2010 academic term, 4 schools were removed from categories. In all 47 schools were inspected with 18 being rated as good, 21 satisfactory, 5 given a notice to improve, and 3 placed in special measures. There are currently 8 schools on notice to improve and 3 schools in special measures compared with 12 this time last year. The time taken on average for a school in Norfolk to come out of special measures remains at 21 months against our target of 19 months.

Of the National Challenge schools (below 30% 5+ A*-C GCSE’s in 2008), the 2009 GCSE results show that 7 improved all at a faster rate than the Authority average with three of the schools improving by more than 8 percentage points. Structural solutions are in hand for schools which remain below the 30% threshold.

CO4.5 Increase levels of attendance in schools – Procedures for Children Missing Education have been reviewed and revised, there is also regular challenge to providers and practitioners as and when any issues arise. Currently plans are being developed to enhance checks when pupils are removed from the school roll. The Children Missing Education practices and procedures formed part of an Ofsted visit last year and were judged as being of a very high standard.

CO4.2 Increase the number of children and young people reaching expected levels of attainment at age 7 and 11 - Key Stage 1 results are similar to national in reading and writing and slightly above national in maths, the trend for KS1 over the last 3 years is static. Norfolk is one of five national pilots of Every Child Counts, which is aimed at enabling children at year 2 (age 6) who have greatest difficulties with maths to catch up and reach Level 2 by the end of Key Stage 1 (age 7). It has also been delivering Every Child a Reader since September last year to achieve similar support for children with issues around reading. So far the average gain in the 35 schools in the Maths programme has been 13.5 months of progress in a single term, with some making 2 years worth of progress in a term. Importantly, this gain is sustained after the intensive intervention period has ended.

Work on improving attainment will also be supported by the Total Place Deep Dive on skills, which is concentrating on working together across all agencies more effectively to improve attainment at age 7. Results show that children who do not achieve Level 2 in Key Stage 1 do not catch up and gain Level 4 by Key Stage 2. Below average performance at Key Stage 2 generally means poor performance at GCSE. This year there were 35 schools where fewer than 55% of pupils achieved level 4 in KS2 English and Maths (NI 76) compared to 30 schools last year. This increase in numbers of schools between last year and this year is reflected nationally, however, the large number of small schools in Norfolk has an impact on this measure which makes it difficult to compare with national figures. As 24 out of the 35 schools have small numbers on roll the performance of one or two pupils makes a difference to the school achieving the threshold. At an individual pupil level, only 44 pupils fewer than last year, out of a total of more than 8,000 in Norfolk, failed to meet the threshold.

CO4.3 Increase the number of young people reaching expected levels of attainment at age 16 (GCSE) – GSCE results have been analysed for 2009 and 1208 pupils have been identified who passed 4 GCSEs at Grade C or above in either English or mathematics, but not both subjects. Opportunities are being taken with schools to talk about the difference it would have made if pupils had achieved a C grade in both core subjects. The proportion of pupils achieving two good sciences has fallen from 2008 by 1 percentage point.

The gap between the Key Stage 4 performance of girls and boys in 2009 was 8.6 percentage points. Girls results have remains close to those for girls nationally. Boys reduced the gap with girls in 2008 but this seems to have slipped to 8.6 percentage points in 2009. The gap between boys and girls is wider in Norfolk than it is nationally.

As part of improving secondary schools, a target has been set that all Norfolk high schools are designated as specialist schools. Currently two schools, Hammonds High School and Old Buckenham High School, do not have a specialist status they are though exploring possibilities and will submit applications in due course.

The Building Schools for the Future readiness to deliver resubmission has been approved by Partnerships for Schools. Plans for delivery of the programme and recruitment of the team are well under way.

CO4.15 Improve the attendance and achievement of looked after children Last years results for NI 99 Children in care reaching level 4 in English at Key Stage 2 (NI 99) were well above national performance and above target. 2009/10 was just below target (statistical neighbour and national comparators will not be available until April) however this years results still show very good progress over 6 year trend and good progress over 3 year trend. The low numbers of pupils in the 2009/10 year group low meant that 3 pupils achieving L3 rather than L4 resulted in the target not being achieved. The other cause for the lower achievement is that a lower percentage of the year group sat the SATs (76%). Action is being taken to target L3/L4 borderline pupils for next year.

The results for children in care reaching level 4 in Maths at Key Stage 2 (NI 100) was just below target (statistical neighbour and national comparators will not be available until April 2010), however maths results as a trend over time are very positive. Low numbers in the 2009/10 year group meant that 3 pupils achieving L3 rather than L4 resulted in the target not being achieved. Action is being taken to target L3/L4 borderline pupils for next year.

Last years results well above national performance and local target. 2009/10 results for Children in care achieving 5 A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) at Key Stage 4 (including English and Maths) (NI 101) were an improvement but below local target due to a range of reason including turbulence in the cohort, a number of young people joining the cohort during KS4 and a very high percentage of children with statements of special needs in the cohort (just under 40%). Until this year national targets were not set for this national indicator. The overall performance at KS4 this year was most positive.

CO4.16 Increase the numbers of 16 to 19 year olds reaching level 2 and 3 qualifications or equivalent - The ‘Drop out’ in School Sixth Forms and in other Post 16 providers (colleges and the training providers) can be measured in several ways, and at present only part of the whole picture is collected and analysed. As part of the transfer of responsibility for 16-19 education and training from the Learning and Skills Council to Children’s Services this area is being developed in order to have a clear understanding of drop out rates.

A Level results are only available on an individual school or institution basis, and at county level. A Levels results contribute to the number of 16-19 year olds reaching level 2 and 3 qualifications or equivalent (NI 79 and NI 80). The data is based on many types of qualifications over and above traditional GCSEs, including apprenticeships, and at all types of establishments, including independent schools and work-based learning and is published by the DCSF as part of the statistical release in March.

Provisional results show the number of participants in the physical sciences at A level has reduced in the past year, with a reduction from last year of 288 to 256 in Physics, 322 to 362 in Chemistry and 532 to 482 in Maths. It is not known if this is line with a national trend until comparison data is published.

CO4.4 Maximise participation in learning throughout the 14-19 age group and reduce the number not in education, employment or training (NEET) – The September Guarantee has been completed for all 16 year olds and extended to all 17 year olds. 95. 8% of 16 year olds and 86.3% of 17 year olds in 2009 had an appropriate offer of learning compared to 94.3% and 71.2% in 2008.

Post 16 Participation groups are active in each area and are working to ensure that provision meets the needs of the NEET in their area with management information being used proactively to target resources and provision to vulnerable groups and geographical hotspots.

CO8 Build vibrant, confident and cohesive communities

CP08 Increase the range of places for young people (11 to 19) to go and positive activities for them to engage in – The Playbuilder Project will deliver 22 new or refurbished play areas in Norfolk by 2011. The thirteen sites will be completed by end of March this year and applications are currently being accepted for next years programme of work.

In October 2009 88% of Schools were delivering the full core offer of extended services which includes access to a wide range of services from 8am – 6pm, 48 weeks a year, including school holidays. At the beginning of 2010 this figure has now improved to 94% and we remain on track to achieve the target of 100% by April 2011.

CO4.19 Reshape SEN provision in line with the SEN Strategy to ensure that for most children their needs are met in the local area – Following the report to and the determination at Cabinet in December 2009, the Department for Children Schools and Families have logged a formal change of designation from special schools to Complex Needs Schools with effect from 01.01.10. Development and support work continues with all special school head teachers to progress the changes within each individual school.

CO5 Improve the health and well-being of Norfolk’s residents

CO5.3 Improve the sexual health of young people - Figures released by the Office of National Statistics show that Norfolk’s teenage pregnancy levels fell by 15.2pc between 2007 and 2008, from 40.4 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17, to 34.2 per 1,000.

The figures mean nearly 100 fewer young women in Norfolk became pregnant in 2008 than in the previous year - a drop from 591 to 500. This is the lowest since the national teenage pregnancy strategy was launched in 1999. The results evidence the impact of the strategy put in place with partners. Nationally, the teenage pregnancy rate has also fallen from 41.7 per 1,000 in 2007, to 40.4 per 1,000 in 2008 - a 3.3pc drop.

CO5.15 Promote the physical health of children: in particular obesity – Childhood obesity is decreasing in NHS Norfolk’s area and shows that the initiatives partners have put in place are having an impact. There has been an actual decrease in the obesity prevalence in both Reception and Year 6.  The number of children in the Reception age group who were ‘obese’ decreased from 9.1% to 8.8% (England 9.6%, East of England SHA 8.7%)  The number of children in the Year Six age group who were ‘obese’ decreased from 18% 2007/08 to 17.7% (England 18.3%, East of England SHA 16.6%)  The number of children in Reception who were ‘overweight’ fell from 13.7% to 13.6%, while the number of children from this age group in the ‘healthy- weight’ category increased to 77.1% from 76.4% the year before.  The number of children in the ‘underweight’ categories for both Reception and Year 6 saw decreases for 08-09, when compared with 07-08.

For NHS Great Yarmouth and Waveney area:  The number of children in the Reception age group who were ‘obese’ decreased from 10.4% to 9.6% (England 9.6%, East of England SHA 8.7%)  The number of children in the Year Six age group who were ‘obese’ decreased from 19.6% 2007/08 to 18.9% (England 18.3%, East of England SHA 16.6%).

Obesity targets remain challenging both for Norfolk and Nationally.

The percentage of young people aged 5-19 who participate in Competitive Inter School Sport has increased by 6% to 37% in 2009/10 from the baseline of 31% in 2008/09. This narrows the gap between Norfolk and the national average of 42%.

There has been a decrease in the amount of PE being delivered in schools. The percentage of schools who deliver at least 2 hours or PE a week to pupils aged 5-16 has decreased 5%, from 93% in 2008/09 to 88% in 2009/10. Initial analysis suggests that this is partly due to curriculum pressures and the new 14 - 19 pathway although further analysis is being undertaken.

CO5.16 Develop services for disabled children and young people in partnership with their parents and other agencies - In 2008, parents in 30 local authorities including Norfolk were surveyed about services for disabled children (NI 54) provided against the five elements of the Core Offer as set out in the Aiming High for Disabled Children report. In 2009 parents in all local authorities were surveyed, the national average was 61% and Norfolk's achieved 64% - the seventh highest score in England.

We are making good progress towards the short breaks Full Service Offer and the good practice and innovation in our approach ahs been recognised by The Together for Disabled Children Partnership. 2. Performance indicators Appendix A sets out any new year end information that has been published since the last report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel in January and any indicators that are monthly monitored.

3. Revenue – Local Authority Budget

The 2009/10 Children’s Services revenue budget is £166.447 million. There is no Local Authority funding of schools as they are funded completely by the Dedicated Schools Grant.

Since the start of the year the 2009/10 budget has been reviewed to:  ensure the adequacy of each budget;  ensure the savings projections built into the 2009/10 budget are deliverable, and  reflect the management review of spending undertaken to achieve a balanced budget.

This current report based on November monitoring information shows a projected balanced revenue budget at the end of the year.

The following summary table shows for budgets with an in year variances, the spending projections for the period. The table shows the projected variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget.

Revenue – Local Authority Budget

Division of service Approved Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance budget Outturn +Over/- +Over/Underspend in forecast £m £m Underspend as % of budget since last £m report £m Budget Increases Looked After 16.474 22.419 5.945 36 Children School Pension 4.029 5.318 1.289 32 /Redundancy costs Spending Reductions Staff 64.703 62.524 -2.179 -3 Transport 28.952 26.994 -1.958 -7 Staff training 1.606 1.377 -0.229 -14 School Support 5.000 4.386 -0.614 -12 Grant Income n/a n/a -1.138 n/a Additional Income 5.897 5.557 -0.340 -6 Other Savings 9.350 8.689 -0.651 -7 Service Level 6.587 6.462 -0.125 -2 Agreements Total 0 0

4. Revenue – Schools Budget

The Dedicated Schools Grant funds the Schools Budget. The Schools Budget has two main elements, the amounts delegated to schools and the amounts held centrally for pupil related spending. The amount delegated to schools includes a contingency which will be allocated to schools for specific purposes.

The Dedicated Schools Grant can only be used for specified purposes and must be accounted for separately to the other Children’s Services spending and funding.

Variations on Dedicated Schools Grant Funded Budgets The variations are presented in the same way variations within the budget for Local Authority services are being reported. The following summary table therefore shows for budgets with an in year variances, the spending projections for the period. The table shows the projected variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget. The table also shows movements in the projections since the last report.

Revenue – Schools Budget

Division of service Approved Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance budget Outturn +Over/- +Over/Underspend in £m £m Underspend as % of budget forecast £m since last report £m Pupil Specific Special 27.166 27.666 0.500 2 1.500 Education Needs Non-maintained 8.089 9.089 1.000 12 0.250 School Placements Academy schools n/a n/a 0.153 n/a Dedicated Schools 421.651 421.588 -0.063 n/a Grant School Pension costs 0 0.100 0.100 n/a Suspended school 0.269 0.594 0.325 121 staff costs School staff 0.176 0.454 0.278 158 redeployment costs School staff maternity 1.773 1.420 -0.353 -20 costs School supply special 0.266 0.015 -0.250 -94 circumstances Standards Fund 38.084 37.584 -0.500 -1 -0.500 Grant

Schools Contingency 0.921 -2.019 -2.940 -319 -1.250 Fund

Total 0 0

5. Monitoring of budget investment decisions

The County Council Plan 2009/10 update includes two key target investments within the Achievement objective to improve educational attainment and help children and young people achieve their ambitions.

The first relates to the Children’s services capital programme which in 2009/10 stands at £96 million. As set out in paragraph 6 below as a result of tight control and monitoring, available resources are being spent on agreed priorities.

The second key investment was the £0.44 million revenue to support the BSF submission. This investment was subsequently increased to £1 million, however as Norfolk’s admission into the programme is later than originally anticipated the level of revenue investment is likely to be less than £0.5 million in 2009/10.

6. Capital Programme

2009/10 Future Years £M £M Approved Budget 96.262 169.925 Forecast Outturn 96.273 169.725 Variation from Approved Budget 0.011 0.200

The 2009/10 approved capital budget contained £91.112 million of estimated payments in 2009/10. Since approval the approved budget has increased by £5.150 million to £96.262 million. This is made up of £5.150 million slippage from 2008/09. Since September’s monitoring report £0.002 million of funding has been reprofiled from 2009/10 to future years and £0.577 million of additional external funding has been added to future years.

The projected 2009/10 outturn based on the latest monitoring information is £96.273 million. A overspend of £0.011 million.

All funding has been committed to individual schemes and programmes of work. The reasons for the variance is analysed in the following table.

Capital Programme - Variances

Scheme or Approved Forecast Slippage Reasons programme 2009-10 2009-10 since the of work capital capital previous budget outturn report £m £m Queen’s 0.382 0.393 0.011 A small overspend Hill – High is expected on this Growth project Total 0.011

7. School Balances

The Scheme for Financing Schools in Norfolk sets out the local framework within which delegated financial management is undertaken. In respect of budget plans the expectation is that schools submit budget plans:  at the end of the Summer term, taking account in particular the actual level of balances held at the end of the previous financial year;  at the end of the Autumn term, taking account in particular of staff and pupil on roll changes;  and if necessary, during the Spring term. Based on budget information provided by schools the original projection of balances and actual balances at 31 March 2010 is as follows:

School Balances as at 31 March 2010

Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for 31-03-09 balance at £m variance £m 31-03-10 £m Nursery 0.064 0.085 0.021 Underspend of annual budget Primary 12.195 8.293 -3.902 School use of balances Secondary 6.018 3.704 -2.314 School use of balances Special 0.817 0.782 -0.035 School use of balances Partnerships 2.803 1.378 -1.425 Partnership use of balances Total 21.897 14.242 -7.655

8. Reserves and Provisions

A number of Reserves and Provisions exist within Children’s Services. The following table sets out the balances on the reserve and provision in the Children’s Services accounts at 1 April 2009 and the projected balances at 31 March 2010.

The table has been divided between those reserves and provisions relating to Schools and those that are General Children’s Services reserves and provisions.

Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions

Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 31-03-09 balance at £m £m 31-03-10 £m Schools Transport Days 0 0.295 0.295 Reduced number of Equalisation home to school/college Fund transport days in the 2009/10 financial year as a result of the timing of Easter. Schools 3.910 0.970 -2.940 Part of the School Contingency Budget and used to fund Fund Dedicated Schools Grant variances Schools Non- 0.256 0.256 0 Teaching Activities Building 0.923 0.400 -0.523 Used for large school Maintenance building and engineering Partnership maintenance projects Pool Childcare 0.100 0 -0.100 Write off of fund to revolving loans revenue fund School 1.473 1.473 0 Sickness Insurance Scheme School Playing 0.117 0.130 0.013 Additional annual surface sinking contribution to the fund reserve Education 0.042 0.031 -0.011 Frozen holiday pay Provision for entitlement paid to Holiday Pay former Education staff now employed by Norse Ltd on their retirement. Non BMPP 1.204 1.204 0 Building Maintenance Fund Provision for 6.973 6.973 0 Modern Reward Strategy Norfolk PFI 9.433 9.433 0 Sinking Fund

Schools total 24.431 21.165 -3.266

Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 31-03-09 balance at £m £m 31-03-10 £m Children’s Services IT Earmarked 0.138 0.138 0 Reserves Repairs and 0.156 0.100 -0.056 Part use of the fund for Renewals Fund replacement of assets

Children’s 0.294 0.238 -0.056 Services total

Total 24.725 21.403 -3.322

9. Other Implications

9.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

There are no specific implications. The scope of the CAA includes an assessment of the impact in tackling inequalities including the way in which we are working in partnership to meet the needs of diverse groups.

9.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

Measuring performance against the service plan actions and the national indicators is used to monitor progress against the service plans objectives and measure the impact for the children and young people’s plan 2009-2010. The financial changes outlined in this report are designed to minimise the impact on children and young people and maximise the allocation of resources to priority areas.

9.3 Any Other implications

Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

10. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

There are no specific implications. The inspection framework includes an assessment of how well Children’s Services is working with partners to achieve shared priorities including reviewing how it is delivering safer and stronger communities for Norfolk.

11. Risk Implications / Assessment

Risks to improving performance are contained within the Children’s Services risk register. These continue to be monitored and reported on.

12. Action Required

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report and consider whether any aspects should be identified for further scrutiny.

Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Paul Fisher tel:01603 223464 [email protected] Katherine Attwell tel:01603 638002 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.

Appendix A Performance Monitoring Key: On target or better Below target but within 5% variance More than 5% below target

Performance indicator Description of indicator Previous year-end Current in Year- Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) result (financial year end current performance based on year end year end unless performance target target (not profiled) otherwise stated) (month) NI 55 The percentage of children in 9.1% 8.8% 8.4% -Whilst we did not Obesity among primary reception year (age 5) who are achieve the school age children in obese, as shown by the National Year end challenging target, Reception Child Measurement Programme. result we achieved 99.5% Children are defined as obese if participation rate their body mass index exceeds (compared 91.2% reference levels for their age and England, & were best sex. Obesity can cause heart and in East of England) other health problems. Tackling as well as a this by promoting healthy decrease in the lifestyles, exercise and eating will obesity prevalence improve young people’s physical and emotional health. NI 56 The percentage of children in 18.3% 17.7% 15.3% Whilst we did not Obesity among primary year 6 (age 10-11) who are achieve the school age children in obese, as shown by the National Year end challenging target, Year 6 Child Measurement Programme. result we achieved 92.5% Children are defined as obese if participation rate their body mass index exceeds (89.1% England) & reference levels for their age and an actual decrease in sex. Obesity can cause heart and the obesity other health problems. Tackling prevalence in year 6. this by promoting healthy This goes against the lifestyles, exercise and eating will national trend which improve young people’s physical has actually seen a and emotional health. slight rise NI 59 It is important to diagnose the 68.1% 70% 80% Percent of children’s social needs of children and young Despite volume of work care initial assessments people at risk quickly in order to January 2010 numbers carried out carried out within 7 working put services in place to meet within timescale days of referral these before they get worse. remains good NI 60 It is important to diagnose the 79.9% 76.4% 80% Percent of children’s social needs of children and young care core assessments that people at risk quickly in order to January 2009 were carried out within 35 put services in place to meet working days these before they get worse. This is the second stage of that process, once immediate needs have been dealt with. Performance indicator Description of indicator Previous year-end Current in Year- Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) result (financial year end current performance based on year end year end unless performance target target (not profiled) otherwise stated) (month) NI 62 The more stable the caring 9.5% 8.7% 9% Percent of children looked environment for looked after after with 3 or more children the more secure they are January 2010 placements during the year and the better progress they make. NI 64 The more stable the caring 3.4% 2.8% 1.3% Progressing towards Percent of children ceasing environment for looked after year end target to be the subject of a Child children the more secure they are January 2010 Protection Plan who had and the better progress they been the subject of Plan make. continuously for 2 years or longer NI 65 Children’s needs should be dealt 23.8% 18.7% 14% Performance is Percent of children with as fully as possible during improving though not becoming the subject of a their first period of time under a January 2010 as fast as predicted Child Protection Plan for a Child Protection Plan so the need due to increased second or subsequent time to have one later on should be numbers of referrals reduced. NI 66 We need to ensure that young 76.2% 75.9% 95% Action plans are in Percent of looked after people’s needs are met place, target will not children whose cases were throughout their time under our December be achieved reviewed in timescale. supervision. 2009

Performance indicator Description of indicator Previous year-end Current in Year- Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) result (financial year end current performance based on year end year end unless performance target target (not profiled) otherwise stated) (month) NI 67 We need to ensure that young 100% 99.4% 100% Percent of children whose people’s needs are met Child Protection Plan has throughout their time under our January 2010 been reviewed in timescale supervision. NI 68 It is important to diagnose the 63.7% 74.8% 70% Percent of children’s social needs of children and young care referrals that lead to people at risk quickly in order to January 2010 an initial assessment put services in place. NI 76 Children’s attainment is 30 35 20 This reflects the Reduce number of schools monitored from pre-school to national trend – only where under 55% of pupils leaving school in order to track Year end 44 fewer pupils than achieve level 4 in KS2 progress and tackle poor result last year out of total English and Maths performance and its roots either of more than 8000 in personal circumstances or failed to meet the teaching target quality. NI 78 Children’s attainment is 7 4 This result is a Reduction in number of monitored from pre-school to number there is no schools where fewer than leaving school in order to Year end comparator 30% of pupils achieve 5 or track progress and tackle poor result information available more A*- C grades at performance and its roots either from Ofsted GCSE and equivalent in personal circumstances or including GCSEs in English teaching and Maths quality. NI 85a Children’s attainment is 288 256 This result is a Post-16 participation in monitored from pre-school to number there is no physical sciences (A Level leaving school in order to Year end comparator Physics) track progress and tackle poor result information available performance and its roots either from Ofsted in personal circumstances or teaching quality. NI 85b Children’s attainment is 362 322 This result is a Post-16 participation in monitored from pre-school to number there is no physical sciences (A Level leaving school in order to Year end comparator Chemistry) track progress and tackle poor result information available performance and its roots either from Ofsted in personal circumstances or teaching quality. NI 85c Children’s attainment is 532 482 This result is a Post-16 participation in monitored from pre-school to number there is no physical sciences (A Level leaving school in order to Year end comparator Maths) track progress and tackle poor result information available performance and its roots either from Ofsted in personal circumstances or teaching quality. NI 86 Schools with good qualities of 64.7% 59.6% 68.5% This is an annual Secondary schools judged behaviour provide an snapshot of the most as having good or environment in which children Year end recent behaviour outstanding standards of learn better. result grades for the behaviour secondary schools in each local authority

NI 87 Pupils who are absent from 6.6% 5.8% 5.9% Provisional result Secondary school school often achieve less well. persistent absence rate Year end result

NI 89a Special measures’ is a term used 12 3 3 Number of schools in by Ofsted, the schools inspection special measures at the agency, to describe schools it January 2010 end of the summer term believes are failing to supply an each year acceptable level of education. NI 89b Reducing the number of schools 19 months 21 months 15 Average time Average time (whole in special measures should months remains, as months) spent by schools indicate that a satisfactory January 2010 previously, at 21 in special measures during education service is being months based on previous academic year provided locally. Special Ofsteds pattern of 5 Measures are a category monitoring reviews assigned by Ofsted to schools that are not performing well judged by inspections. This looks at how many schools fall into that category and how quickly we put remedial measures in place to get them out. Performance indicator Description of indicator Previous year-end Current in Year- Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) result (financial year end current performance based on year end year end unless performance target target (not profiled) otherwise stated) (month) NI 90 Learning Diplomas are a new 226 450 Baseline year Take up of 14-19 learning qualification which are judged to diplomas be better for some pupils. This Year end measures take up. result NI 93 Children’s attainment is 77.9% 76.9% 91.0% Provisional result. Progression by 2 levels in monitored from pre-school to Gap between target English between Key Stage leaving school in order to Year end & achievement is 1 and Key Stage 2 track progress and tackle poor result 1,142 pupils. Action performance and its roots either plans in place to in personal circumstances or raise standards teaching quality. NI 94 Children’s attainment is 74.3% 76.1% 86.0% Provisional result. Progression by 2 levels in monitored from pre-school to Action plans are in Maths between Key Stage leaving school in order to Year end place to raise 1 and Key Stage 2 track progress and tackle poor result standards performance and its roots either in personal circumstances or teaching quality. NI 99 Children with challenging 52.8% 47.6% 62.5% - Key Stage 2 is a Percent of children looked circumstances generally do less continued area of after for at least a year who well at school so the difference Year end focus, our work is achieve level 4 in English between their performance and result being assisted by the at Key Stage 2 (aged 11) other pupils is monitored so success we have had in reducing the level of action can be taken to support absence & permanent them. exclusions. Of the 42 children that this result relates to, 26% have a statement of special needs NI 100 Children with challenging 56.6% 52.4% 62.5% Key Stage 2 is a Percent of children looked circumstances generally do less continued area of after for at least a year who well at school so the difference Year end focus, our work is achieve level 4 in Maths at between their performance and result being assisted by the Key Stage 2 (aged 11) other pupils is monitored so success we have had in reducing the level of action can be taken to support absence & permanent them. exclusions. Of the 42 children that this result relates to, 26% have a statement of special needs NI 101 Children with challenging 10.5% 12.3% 32.8% At Key Stage 4 we Percent of children looked circumstances generally do less have improved better after in year 11 achieving 5 well at school so the difference Year end than National in the A*-C GCSEs (or between their performance and result number sitting GCSEs. equivalent) at Key Stage 4 other pupils is monitored so We are also above the National figures for the (including English & Maths) action can be taken to support % of those pupils them. sitting GCSEs and for those achieving 5+ A*- G. Of the 50 children this result relates to, 31.5% have a statement of special needs Performance indicator Description of indicator Previous year-end Current in Year- Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) result (financial year end current performance based on year end year end unless performance target target (not profiled) otherwise stated) (month) NI 102a Children with challenging 26.1% 26.5% 17.0% Provisional result Achievement gap between circumstances pupils eligible for free generally do less well at school Year end school meals and their so the result peers achieving the difference between their expected level at Key performance and Stage 2 other pupils is monitored so action can be taken to support them. NI 102b Children with challenging 27.1% 27.7% 23.0% Provisional result Achievement gap between circumstances pupils eligible for free generally do less well at school Year end school meals and their so the difference between their result peers achieving the performance and other pupils is expected level at Key monitored so action can be Stage 4 taken to support them. NI 104 Children with challenging 52.6% 56.3% 49.9% Provisional result The Special Educational circumstances generally do less Needs (SEN)/ non-SEN well at school so the difference Year end gap - achieving Key Stage between their performance and result 2 English and Maths other pupils is monitored so action can be taken to support them. NI 105 Children with challenging 41.5% 45.0% 40.9% Provisional result The Special Educational circumstances generally do less Needs (SEN)/ non-SEN well at school so the difference Year end gap - achieving 5 A*-C between their performance and result GCSE inc. English and other pupils is monitored so Maths action can be taken to support them.

Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 11 March 2010 Item No 11

School closures in emergencies

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary

This report sets out the issues raised by schools and members of the public concerning school closures during the period of adverse weather in recent months. It identifies the context for the difficult decision headteachers have to make when there is adverse weather that may affect the ability to continue to provide education when children and staff find it difficult to travel to and from school, when conditions in the school make it difficult to provide a safe environment for schooling.

The report has two important appendices attached which set out the statutory position with regard to trying to keep schools open and also shows the advice that was given to schools by both the DCSF and the Local Authority during the period of recent adverse weather.

The report concludes with a number of suggested actions;- 1) In all communications the local authority systems should include a more positive emphasis on keeping schools open rather than on how to close schools. 2) There should be further development of the positive relationship with the media to ensure that good quality, up to date information is readily available to parents and the wider public. 3) There should be discussions with the media about how to emphasise the need to keep schools open while at the same time acknowledging that school closure is, regrettably, sometimes necessary. 4) All schools are recommended to have clear risk assessments in place to deal effectively with all school closures. 5) All schools should be encouraged to establish clear business continuity plans to address what should happen during any period when the school is unable to function effectively.

Members are asked to endorse these actions and identify other actions they feel appropriate.

1. Background

1.1 The short periods of severe weather during the last few months have raised a number of questions concerning the procedures, and how decisions are made, relating to the closure of schools during periods of adverse weather or in other emergencies. Some severe weather was experienced in parts of the county on the 18th and 19th December 2009, and during the period from the 6th to the 11th January 2010. The paper is based on an examination of complaints made during the period of extensive closures on the 7th and 8th January 2010. It should be remembered that while the recent periods of snow have raised this question there are, inevitably, other pressures on schools such as the need for additional training, inducting pupils with particular needs, flooding, illness or damage to the buildings that may require emergency decisions about how to keep the school open. In addition, recent concerns about the flu pandemic and the longer-term impact of floods in parts of the country, such as in Hull last year, have highlighted the need for all schools to have clear business continuity planning in place.

1.2 Only a few complaints received from the public during the recent closures focused on the impact on the children or on the possible impact on their achievements. Most complaints asserted that there was a culture within too many schools of taking the easy way out and reverting to closure too early. Other complaints focused on the impact on other businesses or on families in relation to childcare needs.

1.3 A few complaints related to the reliability of the communications system and the ability of the County Council’s web based system to cope with large numbers of inputs. Other complaints came from schools that had stayed open during the same period and these focused, in the main, on the way the media encouraged people to stay indoors and also on the adverse impact on attendance performance by remaining open.

1.4 The following discussion is based on a review of current procedures, the complaints received and a meeting to review the position which involved; Local Authority officers, headteachers, representatives from the passenger transport team and representatives from the County’s communications team.

2. Issues identified from a review of the recent school closures.

2.1 The decision as to whether a school is to close in an emergency is a delegated responsibility to the governors of each school. In most cases that decision is in turn delegated to the headteacher. Our discussions with schools have reinforced that this decision weighs heavily on headteachers. Despite some of the comments in the media and in complaints received about schools closing, headteachers do seem to take this decision very seriously. However, it seems that many schools do not have a detailed and agreed risk assessment process linked to an agreed business continuity plan. The decisions seem to be left to headteachers in many schools to weigh up a complex flow of information frequently made in the early hours of the morning and sometimes based on weather information they get from local and national media.

2.2 The significant differences in weather across the county make it right for the decision about closure due to adverse weather to be made by the school based on local intelligence. While we have no evidence of the decision being made lightly there does seem to be a difference in views amongst headteachers about the thresholds on risk. Some headteachers seem to be very worried about aspects of health and safety. Many are concerned that, even if the school is open to receive students, if the weather deteriorates students may find it difficult to get home again. Other headteachers are concerned that they will be penalised if they stay open, and that if many children are kept at home by parents, then the school’s attendance data will be adversely affected.

2.3 There does seem to be a difference in attitudes expressed by headteachers concerning closure. These can be characterised around the reaction to risk. There are headteachers who make the decision to minimise any risk and lean more to ensuring an efficient closure set of procedures are in place. On the other extreme there are headteachers who start from a position of trying everything they can to keep their school open.

2.4 A key factor in influencing the decision is the nature of the geography of the catchment area of the students. Secondary schools and special schools tend to have students travelling much longer distances and for many are very dependent on whether the transport system is kept open. There are several schools that do not appear on the gritting priority for clearing important transport arteries. Primary schools have a wide range of size of catchment but tend to have larger proportions of the students who could walk to school.

2.5 The Local Authority’s position was set out clearly in the following Management Information sheet sent out to all schools.

'There has been considerable comment in the media in recent days about school closures and we have been asked by schools and parents to set out the Local Authority's position. All of the most useful guidance is available on Teachernet but some governors and headteachers have asked if we could draw together the information in easily printed word formats. So, attached are three interrelated documents:-

Guide 1 - is for governors and headteachers generally about the legal position on unavoidable school closures, adverse weather, school training days etc.

Guide 2 - is Norfolk's version of the DCSF guidance emailed to schools last Friday 8th January - this is the most urgent to read.

Guide 3 - is the DCSF guidance on supporting learning if schools need to close for extended periods by using recent IT developments.

Guides 1 and 2 are attached to this report in the appendices.

2.6 The key issue when the decision is made to close is to ensure that the communications are clear for all staff, students and their families. A single point of reference, web based system has been set up to make it easy for the headteacher to let the LA know the school is closed and for that information to be accessible to the public and the media. In the main this system has worked well though there were problems with it on Monday 11th January and it was not available in the second week of February when revisions were being made to the system

2.7 The County Council’s data on school closures 2009/10 shows that we get 11,000 visits to the corporate site www.norfolk.gov.uk on an average day. In December 2009 and January 2010, the number of visits to the school closures page alone was as follows:

Friday 18 December 2009 45,446 visits (29% of visits were via the link on the Heart Radio website) 279,085 page views 146 schools closed

Tuesday 5 January 2010 27,641 visits (28% of visits were via the link on the BBC website) 81,541 page views 12 schools closed – mainly because of heating issues.

Wednesday 6 January 2010 49,467 visits (26% of visits were via the link on the BBC website) 132,734 page views 31 schools closed

Thursday 7 January 2010 130,231 visits (25% of visits were via the link on the BBC website) 477,412 page views 382 schools closed

Friday 8 January 2010 78,530 visits (22% of visits were via the link on the BBC website) 353,715 page views 355 schools closed

2.8 School heads are successfully using the system and we have received positive feedback from local radio stations which receive updates from the County Council’s system as schools close. However, the section of the site where schools can put in a short description of the reason for closure is also open to the public and a few frivolous comments placed by a few schools could have led to the impression of the closure not being taken seriously. We are currently working on a replacement system for school closures to:  Provide improved technical support for the system  Simplify the ‘close your school’ screen for headteachers (with easy instructions)  Enable us to include added functionality, like a text message service for parents and RSS feeds  Give us a better platform for adding extra services like libraries and day care centres.

3. Proposed actions

Members are asked to endorse the following actions and recommend further areas to investigate and develop guidance or clarify procedures;-

 In all communications the local authority systems should include a more positive emphasis on keeping schools open rather than on how to close schools.  There should be further development of the positive relationship with the media to ensure that good quality, up to date information is readily available to parents and the wider public.  There should be discussions with the media about how to emphasise the need to keep schools open while at the same time acknowledging that school closure is, regrettably, sometimes necessary.  All schools are recommended to have clear risk assessments in place to deal effectively with all school closures.  All schools should be encouraged to establish clear business continuity plans to address what should happen during any period when the school is unable to function effectively.

4. Resource Implications

4.1 Finance: There are no specific financial implications related to this paper. However, effective business continuity plans may have small financial implications for schools and there are potential risks in the future that where schools fail to carry out effective risk assessments than some future claims could be made against schools if there are long periods of school closure.

4.2 Staff: There would need to be a review of the terms and conditions of employment for school staff to see if redeployment during periods of temporary closure is possible and to examine other contractual issues.

4.3 IT: The communications system is dependent on a reliable and effective web based information system.

5. Other Implications

5.1 Legal Implications: There are no legal implications for these immediate proposals though clarity is needed about the possibilities of claims against schools if longer term interruptions to schooling occurred.

5.2 Human Rights: There are no Human Rights implications.

5.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) There are no equality implications.

5.4 Communications: Communications issues are central to this issue and all aspects of the information system are being reviewed.

5.5 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk: There is a clear relationship between school attendance and performance. The County Council and all its partners should communicate with all in the community to reinforce the importance of regular attendance at school. School procedures should emphasise keeping schools open and not school closure.

6. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

There are no specific Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act implications though there is anecdotal evidence that areas with high levels of school absence have increased levels of youth crime.

7. Risk Implications/Assessment

Attendance is a key performance indicator for the Local Authority as it is for each school. Ensuring schools stay open as much as possible should reduce risk.

8. Action Required

Members are asked to note the current procedures and identify further areas requiring investigation or where further guidance is required.

Background Papers

See appendices for guides 1 and 2. Guide 3 is available on line.

Appendix 1 - Guide 1 - is for governors and headteachers generally about the legal position on unavoidable school closures, adverse weather, school training days etc.

Appendix 2 - Guide 2 - is Norfolk's version of the DCSF guidance emailed to schools last Friday 8th January - this is the most urgent to read.

Guide 3 - is the DCSF guidance on supporting learning if schools need to close for extended periods by using recent IT developments.

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Officer Name Tel No; email address Fred Corbett 01603 223493 [email protected] Terry Cook 01603 433976 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

APPENDIX 1 – Guidance sent out for governors and headteachers generally about the legal position on unavoidable school closures, adverse weather, school training days etc

Keeping Schools Open – GUIDE 1

Guidance for school governors and headteachers on setting school training days and on Unavoidable School Closures.

1 - INTRODUCTION

This guidance sets out the statutory requirements for school sessions and provides advice to schools on the issues that should be considered when, in exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to close a school for a temporary period. When considering if a school should close temporarily, the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) have asked Local Authorities to emphasise to schools that they should endeavour to open their premises and provide a full curriculum, or failing this, that they should provide care for children to enable parents to go to work.

2. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Governing Bodies and Headteachers are reminded that the Education Act 1996 and the associated Regulations (The Education (School Day and School Year (England) Regulations 1999 (No 3181) require that schools should meet for at least 380 sessions (190 days) for pupils.

When schools are used by Returning Officers as polling stations they should try to ensure that where possible any announced election date(s) coincides with one of the five non-pupil training days.

There are some exceptional and emergency circumstances that may arise when it is necessary to temporarily close the whole or part of a school. The decision to close should not be taken lightly. However, in view of the nature of unplanned and unexpected events, a decision based on a site specific risk assessment, may be required to be taken on the day of the closure.

The Education Act 2002, Section 21, together with the Education (School Government) (Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations 2000 (No 2122), provide that the conduct of the school shall be under the direction of the Governing Body and that the Headteacher is responsible for the management of the school. Therefore, the decision to close rests with the Headteacher and Governing Body, but schools must consider the National and Norfolk County Council guidance and should liaise with the Local Authority (and for denominational schools, the appropriate Diocesan/Church Authority - In Norfolk - The Norwich and Ely C. of E. Diocesan Directors and the East Anglian R.C. Diocesan Director have agreed that all Diocesan schools should adhere to this guidance and use the Local Authority as the first point of contact on matters relating to temporary closure covered by this guidance).

3.SCHOOL CLOSURES AND TRAINING DAYS – KEY QUESTIONS

3a - How are a school’s non-pupil or INSET days set?

The responsibility for setting the days when pupils will be in school lies with the Authority. We consult with neighbouring Authorities, The Local Government Association is proposing a pattern of 190 days for pupils to be at school and therefore for schools to be open. We then consult locally with cluster chairs, the teachers joint consultative committee and elected members before the Local Authority sets the days. Once these are set we inform the passenger transport department that transport is only required on those days. . The Authority leaves the choice of the Training Days to schools, with all decisions to be approved by the Governing Body. These cannot be taken on any of the 190 days when the school should be open to pupils. Once the Training Days are agreed at the school then the remaining closure days are for the school to specify as the school holidays for staff. The Governing Body may decide, on the advice of the Headteacher, that “twilight” INSET activity may count against a planned Training Day.

3b - How many days must the school be open to pupils?

The school must be open to pupils for at least 380 half-day sessions (190 school days) in each school year, beginning with the first term to start after July. This fits in with the 190 days a year when a teacher may be required to teach pupils by a teacher’s statutory conditions of service.

A teacher is required to be available for work up to 195 days. This leaves the 5 non-teaching work days; these are usually referred to as INSET days, non pupil days or Training Days as they are normally used for in-service training. However, they can be put to other uses relating to school activities, as directed by the Headteacher. This is set out in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document which is a statutory document and has the force of law. Teachers Continuing Professional Development is considered to be of such importance that Norfolk schools are strongly encouraged to maximise the time available for training within this invaluable resource of time.

3c - What must happen for the school to be deemed “open to pupils”?

The school is only “open to pupils” when staff contact time is being provided to pupils. DCSF guidance is that, if most pupils are left alone for a large part of the day to work without contact time from staff, even if the pupils are on the school site, then the school is at those times not “open” to those pupils, and that day must not count as one of the 190 days (or 380 half-day sessions) for which by law the school must open.

This means that, for example, if the school is closed so as to provide consultation time with parents, the relevant session(s) do not count towards the 380 required by law.

3d - How long must the school be open to constitute a working day or half-day session?

The start and finish times of each half-day session - and, therefore the length of the midday break - are decided by the Governing Body. There is an elaborate statutory process for changing these times. Guidance on Teachernet

There is no law on the length of the morning or afternoon sessions nor the midday break, although schools would be expected, in law, to behave reasonably, as with all discretions. While there is currently no statutory length of time set for the school day or for curriculum time there is an expectation by the Local Authority and inspectors that teaching time will be between 21 and 25 hours per week depending on the age of the student. (Contact time for nurseries is set separately)

4. GUIDANCE ON DECIDING WHETHER A CLOSURE IS NECESSARY

The Headteacher must establish the nature of the problem. Whatever the reason for an unavoidable closure, the Headteacher should consult as quickly as possible with the: a) Chair of Governors (or in his/her absence the Vice Chair of Governors), b) appropriate County Council Officer – In emergencies the Critical Incident Duty Officer (07623912974) or The School Organisation Team on 01603 222572, c) Diocesan/Church Authority representative (for denominational schools though as stated above the Diocesan Directors have agreed that VA and VC schools should contact the LA as in (b) above and the school organisation office will contact the relevant Diocesan Office as soon as is practicable).

Advice should be sought to ascertain whether the problem can be resolved, to avoid any closure, or to ensure that any closure is as brief as possible. The use of one or more training days to ensure continuity of educational provision should be considered.

A decision to close the school (either as a full or partial closure) lies with the Headteacher. However, the decision to close must take into account this guidance and the decision to close should only be taken following consultation with the relevant parties unless, owing to the emergency nature of the situation or for any other compelling reason, such an agreement cannot be secured. If after due consideration the school is deemed to be unfit to receive pupils, then it would clearly not be possible for the school to meet as intended.

Assuming the Headteacher has acted reasonably, this should not place the Headteacher, Governing Body or the Local Authority in any breach of their obligations. It is strongly recommended that the Headteacher and Governing Body agree a school policy, based on this guidance, and set out arrangements for the management of unavoidable closures.

Schools should also consider possible arrangements for providing suitable programmes of work for pupils during periods of unavoidable closure. However, where there is any doubt concerning the health and safety of pupils and staff, then the Headteacher should err on the side of caution.

4A - Major Incidents

In the event of a major incident (bomb alerts, fires, death of a pupil etc), the Local Authority should be informed immediately to provide senior level support and guidance – use the Critical Incident Phone.

Snow and other severe weather – please follow the agreed snow-line procedures involving the County Council’s school closure communications system and its link to the regional media. See also Keeping Schools Open – GUIDE 2 from Norfolk County Council.

4B - Council, General and European elections.

The Representation of the People Acts regulate such matters, for example, requirements to close all or part of the school, use of separate entrances etc. For details of whether your school is required as a polling station please contact the Returning Officer based in your District/Borough Council. The use of school premises for predictable or pre-programmed elections is not to be regarded as an acceptable reason for an unavoidable closure. The dates of elections should be built into the staff training days where possible. Where a by- election or general election is called on a pupil-contact day, the school must close to pupils unless the Electoral Registration Officer deems this unnecessary.

Where the Headteacher feels that the school should not be closed to pupils during the polling, the Electoral Registration Officer can be asked to consider the situation and where necessary visit the school to make an inspection. The Electoral Registration Officer’s decision will be based on a number of considerations, including whether or not the school has a self-contained area in which polling can take place which can be isolated from the school and which has its own entrance. The Electoral Registration Officer’s decision is final.

A polling station requires safe, secure access to the public and must comply with other legislation governing ease of access and working conditions for employees. It may also require safe storage facilities for the election paraphernalia for a day or so before and after the election.

5. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO CLOSURE

(a) Are there any reasonable alternatives to a closure? For example:  partial closure of a Key Stage and  the availability of alternative accommodation (e.g. in the church hall or another local school).

(b) Can the Local Authority and / or Diocesan/Church Authorities assist? For example:  Alternative accommodation,  Pastoral/ counselling support from the Diocesan/Church Authority or the  Critical Incident Support Team  Employee Counselling and Welfare Service and  The provision of transport  The provision of additional catering

6. WHAT ARE NOT UNAVOIDABLE SCHOOL CLOSURES?

a) Staff Training Days Unavoidable closures cannot be used to increase the number of staff training days. The number of training days is set as up to five. An amendment of the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999 would be required if additional days were to be set.

Can the school take additional non-teaching or INSET days beyond the 5 set out in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD)?

Teachers cannot be required to work additional non-pupil or INSET days beyond the 5 set out in the STPCD unless government amends the regulations.

It is also not permitted to take additional non-teaching or INSET days at the expense of the 380 half-day sessions during which the school must be open to pupils. This includes consultation time with parents. The school must provide pupils with their entitlement to 380 half-days of education unless circumstances make this impossible or dangerous (for example, heating failure in winter, extremely bad weather or a very high level of staff absence through for example an epidemic).

Neither the Governing Body nor the Authority can approve an additional or alternative non- teaching or INSET day except in a response to circumstances that make it impossible or dangerous to open the school to pupils. Where there are such circumstances, the decision to close should be made by the Headteacher, in consultation with the Chair of Governors or Governing Body wherever possible. It is good practice to discuss this with senior officers in Children’s Services before the decision is made.

Such circumstances will generally be unexpected or beyond the school’s control. However, where building work has taken place on a school site, it may be appropriate to close the school to all or some pupils to enable the setting up of classrooms etc. In these circumstances, please consult the school’s Planning and Buildings Officer who will be able to advise on what may be necessary, drawing on experience of previous situations. The decision must be agreed with the School Organisation Office at County Hall if the closure relates to a building programme.

Please note that DCSF “expects schools to make up lost days where they can, but recognises it may sometimes be impractical”. However, the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999 state that where a school is unable to open to pupils for one or more sessions, and where it is not reasonably practicable to arrange for the school to make up the session(s) at an alternative time(s), the school should be treated as if it had met as intended for those sessions.

b) Academic Review Days or Target Review Days or Pupil Planning Days Norfolk County Council recognises that academic review days have a very positive impact on student outcomes. However, a small number of schools are still holding academic review days during school hours and counting this day towards the required 190 days. Despite the fact that the pupils are in school for a very short time, the registers are being marked as if pupils are in attendance for both sessions. This action by schools may be in breach of the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999 and The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. Norfolk County Council cannot condone this practice.

c) Phased entries of Reception and Year 7 Pupils At the start of the Autumn Term some schools phase the entry of reception pupils in primary schools and Year 7 pupils in secondary schools and as a result the school is closed to some pupils during those sessions. This action by schools may be in breach of the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999, as the school has reduced the number of available teaching days.

The school attendance regulations and guidelines are available on the DCSF website: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolattendance/legislation/

There is useful guidance on Teachernet on: how schools can organise pupil review days without breaching the regulations: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/behaviour/attendance/guidance/review/ and on the length of the school day: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/l/lengthofschoolday/

Keeping Schools Open – GUIDE 2 - Information for headteachers (and LAs).

1. - General advice to schools in periods of snow and other adverse weather-

Many schools face difficulties as a result of adverse weather particularly during periods of very low temperatures and heavy snow. The County Council acknowledges the difficult judgement that sometimes has to be made as to whether to temporarily close the school for safety reasons. We appreciate the efforts made by governors, headteachers and their staff to keep schools open wherever possible. Recent evidence shows that headteachers try to inculcate a culture in their pupils and the wider community that attending school is essential to children’s life chances and start from a position of seeking to keep the school open if at all possible. As a County Council we strongly endorse that approach.

In some circumstances closure is unavoidable, for example where there would not be enough staff on school sites to ensure pupil safety. It is right that the judgement on whether a school should close is made locally by those who are closest to the situation. School closure has widespread consequences and is never taken lightly. The community has to have confidence in headteachers to make the right decision for their school, to communicate the position promptly and regularly to parents and to do everything possible to re-open as soon as possible.

Norfolk supports the national guidance which emphasises the importance of taking a proportionate approach, balancing any risks arising from less supervision and minor slips and bumps against disruption to pupils' learning.

There is sometimes too much credence given to fears about the way in which inspectors or LA officers may interpret absence data that has been skewed by large numbers of pupils being kept away from school because of transport difficulties or because parents choose to keep children off school during the bad weather. Schools should produce a short, clear statement to go with any self-evaluation to be provided for governors and subsequently for external evaluation or inspection, to explain any significant impact on their attendance data such as from adverse weather. If schools wish to have a supporting statement from the Local Authority to go with their self-evaluation then this can be provided by the Director of Children’s Services. The national guidance clarifies that where a school is open but some pupils cannot attend because of transport difficulties, those pupils' absence may be recorded as authorised at the school's discretion. Pupils beyond walking distance whose LA- or school-provided transport is unavailable should be recorded using the special code Y (which does not count as absence in the statistics).

If adverse weather affects any test or examination period it is important that examination centres make every effort to open for this purpose even if the school as a whole remains closed. It is very important that parents and all students are given clear information about attendance for examinations and any way in which arrangements are varied. Norfolk fully endorses the national advice from DCSF on contingency arrangements for the examinations, agreed with Ofqual and the awarding bodies. This can be found on teachernet.

2. DCSF's guidance endorsed by Norfolk County Council – (for the latest information please visit the teachernet website). When severe weather is forecast, the Department encourages you to review the measures you have in place to reduce disruption to learning. In the interest of keeping your school open, the two main messages are (i) plan ahead, including being clear about who would take the decision whether to close; and (ii) make sure — in line with HSE's 'Sensible Risk Management' campaign — that you take a proportionate approach to risk as you take decisions regarding whether to close your school or to keep it open.

 Plan ahead. Assess now what hazards any snow, for example, could bring; identify the measures you already have in place to reduce risk to your pupils and staff; and do your best to bring in any extra measures that will enable your school to meet as normal despite bad weather.  Be clear who will make the decision. The DCSF advises LAs that decisions on whether an individual school stays open in bad weather should be delegated as far as possible and should be consistent with clear information for parents in each local area. LAs may however take decisions with respect to community and voluntary controlled schools if they wish to adopt a consistent approach across an area; Norfolk LA hopes that schools would only use their powers in this respect in exceptional circumstances which would on a case-by-case basis justify the closure of almost all schools in the area. LAs do not have the power to oblige foundation or voluntary aided schools or academies to close, but may come to an agreement with the governing bodies of those schools that they will follow LA advice in the event of the blanket closure of community and voluntary controlled schools.  Take a proportionate approach. If the decision to close or remain open rests with you as a head, you will have to balance the risks arising from less supervision, late return journeys, minor slips and bumps, etc. against disruption to pupils' learning.

Closing your school could be the right decision, where your judgement is that pupils or staff would face significant risks of serious injury in school or travelling to school. But remember that every lesson counts; and consider whether it would be reasonably practicable for you to keep your school open. If the school is open, and some pupils whose homes are not within walking distance of the school get to school by transport provided by the school or a local authority, and that transport is not available because of adverse weather conditions, those pupils should be marked using code Y (Forced and Partial Closure). Code Y does not count as absence in the statistics.

3. Frequently asked questions

 Is the DCSF encouraging headteachers to take unnecessary risks with pupil safety? No. The DCSF wants headteachers, who are very good at managing risk, to continue making sensible decisions. It want parents to feel reassured that schools will stay open where risks of less supervision, late journeys home, or minor bumps are less than the disruption to pupil learning; and that they will only close where there are serious risks.

See - information on sensible risk management from the HSE.

 Could pupils get stuck at school? It's unlikely. Even if it happens, as long as schools can keep parents informed, pupils getting home late is unlikely to cause more than minor inconvenience.  What if school staff can't get to work? It is recognised that headteachers might have fewer staff to supervise pupils on days of bad weather. Schools should plan for how, if they have fewer staff available in the short term, they will continue to supervise pupils and deliver as much of the curriculum as possible.  What if traffic organisations recommend only essential travel? In the Department's view, essential travel includes pupils going to school to keep learning, and school staff going to work. The DCSF is confident that headteachers and parents will support this.  Is the Department telling LAs not to issue LA-wide closure advice? The Department recommends delegating as far as possible any advice on whether an individual school stays open in bad weather. It is clear that the LA makes the judgement on the day about delegating any advice or decision to schools. Local authorities may however take decisions with respect to community and voluntary controlled schools if they wish to adopt a consistent approach across an area; it is hoped that they would only use their powers in this respect in exceptional circumstances which would on a case-by-case basis justify the closure of almost all schools in the area. LAs do not have the power to oblige foundation or voluntary aided schools or academies to close, but may come to an agreement with the governing bodies of those schools that they will follow LA advice in the event of the blanket closure of community and voluntary controlled schools.

 Should schools and local authorities take decisions in advance, based on Met Office advice, or wait and see conditions in the morning? When considering the point at which to make a decision about closure, schools and LAs will want to balance the benefits of an early decision (parents having time to plan childcare, avoiding wasted journeys) against the risk of closing schools and finding next day that there is no problem. If forecasts make it very likely that a school will not be able to open the next day then a decision the previous afternoon may be appropriate.

Find out about local conditions forecast for your area by checking the Met Office website.

If our school is open, but some pupils cannot get into school because of severe disruption to school buses, public transport or parents being unwilling to risk driving on icy roads, do we have to record those pupils as 'absent'? If the school is open, then if some of a school's pupils whose home is not within walking distance of the school get to school by transport that is provided by the school or a local education authority, and that transport is not available because of adverse weather conditions, then if the school stays open, those pupils should be marked using code Y (Forced and Partial Closure). Code Y does not count as absence in the statistics. All other children should be expected to attend and should be recorded as present/absent as normal. It is down to headteachers to make professional and common-sense judgements about marking children as authorized or unauthorized absences during very severe weather. If a school which remained opened is satisfied that the reason a child could not get to school was because of the adverse weather then that absence should be authorised; if a school judges the child could have made it to school, than that absence should be unauthorised. The data do not enable the DCSF to alter the formula in any way that would isolate the absences due to inclement weather, or even for the days concerned. The only available data is for total numbers of absences for each term and particular days (or even weeks) cannot be isloated. This does mean that the absence percentage for a school that stays open may be higher than if it had closed if significant numbers of pupils are unable to attend. However, the main focus is on persistent absence (which is defined as missing 20 per cent or more of possible sessions). It is unlikely that persistent absence would be significantly affected by short periods of adverse weather. Moreover when looking at attendance, Ofsted inspectors look at trends over time. When looking at registers, if there appear to be specific days or periods of time when there is high absence inspectors will discuss with the school the reasons for it. Similarly the National Strategies will take account of such circumstances in their support and challenge work on persistent absence with LAs and schools.

4. EXAMINATIONS AND SEVERE WEATHER

This advice covers general qualifications, including GCSEs, GCEs (A levels) and the Principal Learning, Project and Functional Skills components of the Diploma.

Further information is available on the awarding body websites. The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) and Ofqual have also provided information on their websites, which can be accessed via the following links:

JCQ: http://www.jcq.org.uk/ Ofqual: http://ofqual.gov.uk/ If the school or college is to be closed until shortly before examinations start, how do I make arrangements for any outstanding examination papers to be securely delivered? It is important that you liaise with the awarding body. They will be able to make arrangements to ensure papers can be securely delivered in such circumstances.

Where the school or college is closed during the exam series, would pupils still be able to sit exams? The school or colleges will need to decide whether it would be feasible to open to run the examinations. If not then there are two further options, the candidates could be re-entered to take their examinations in the summer series or a later examination series. Alternatively, it may be possible for the candidates to take the examination at an alternative location (see ‘Can arrangements be made for candidates to take examinations in a school or college nearby?’ below). The awarding bodies have said they would look favourably at applications for ‘Special Consideration’ from schools or college where this is the last examination slot for a candidate taking a re-sit for a legacy specification.

‘Special consideration’ allows an awarding body to award a grade where an examination cannot be taken or the pupil has been disadvantaged, provided there is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable judgement. This is the fairest possible approach for all candidates. The requirements for special consideration are published by Ofqual in the GCSE, GCE and AEA Code of Practice. Ofqual GCSE, GCE and AEA Code of Practice [http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2009-04-14-code-of-practice.pdf]. Information on ‘Special consideration’ and application forms are available on the JCQ website.

Can arrangements be made for pupils to take examinations in a school or college nearby? The DCSF thinks it is unlikely that this would be a useful option in most cases, and could create significant difficulties if large numbers of candidates were involved. However, please contact your awarding body to discuss the issues if you think this may be an option. You would also need to confirm that the neighbouring school or college is agreeable and has the capacity.

If the school or college is closed after an examination takes place, how do I make arrangements for scripts to be collected? You must contact the Parcelforce helpdesk who will advise on collection, they will have contingencies in place.

------

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 March 2010 Item No: 12

Admission Arrangements for September 2011

Report by Director of Children's Services

Summary

This report summarises responses to the statutory annual admission consultation.

It proposes a revised co-ordination schemes to include the significant new duty to co-ordinate in-year admissions from 1 September 2010. It also reports on proposed local changes to arrangements for admissions to Community and Voluntary Controlled schools for September 2011.

There is a high level of support for the proposals and most concerns relate to the legal duty to co-ordinate in-year admissions rather than challenging the detailed proposals.

Subject to comments from Norfolk Admissions Forum the report recommends acceptance of the proposals.

Action Required

Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to consider and comment on the recommendations prior to this report being presented to Cabinet for approval.

1. Background

1.1 Each year the Local Authority is required to consult on the admissions co- ordination scheme for all Norfolk schools and admission arrangements for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools.

1.2 The consultation includes detailed proposals relating to the new duty to co- ordinate all in-year admission requests. A copy of the consultation questions is attached and an electronic link to the full document including detailed appendices is provided in the Background Documents section.

1.3 Through a School management Information sheet all Headteachers and Chairs of Governing bodies were invited to respond. Additionally schools were asked to promote the consultation with parents via newsletters or other local communication channels. Also, to promote wider consultation with the community the Local Authority followed latest DCSF requirement to publish a notice in the local press inviting participation in the consultation. The consultation was also placed on the County Council’s website and highlighted in the “Current

Admissions report – final (11/3/08) Page 1 Consultations” section. With regard to the proposed changes to Community and Voluntary Controlled schools an email was also sent to the headteacher at each of the schools affected to draw their attention to the proposal and seek their response.

1.4 To date, there have been 26 responses this year (consultation closed on 1 March 2010).

Headteachers Chair of Parents Other Governors All responses 15 2 6 3 (at 24/2/10)

1.5 The proposals were considered in detail by the Norfolk Admissions Forum on 5 March 2010 and their comments will be tabled at the meeting.

1.6 After consultation the Local Authority is required to determine its arrangements and to confirm the co-ordination scheme that will apply for the September 2011 admission rounds, by 15 April 2010.

2. Consultation Issues

2.1 Proposed co-ordination schemes for September 2011

The primary co-ordination scheme has been changed for September 2011 to reflect the new duty to co-ordinate all applications for school places by Norfolk residents. Historically, parents would have applied to Suffolk if they were seeking a place in a Suffolk Primary School but this has changed from 2011 to match secondary school arrangements. No changes are proposed to the Secondary Co-ordination scheme. The schemes follow the model described in the DCSF School Admissions Code and have been in operation for admissions to all maintained primary and secondary schools in Norfolk since September 2004.

82% of responses received support the proposal for Primary school co-ordination (Question 1.1) and 90% support the proposal for Secondary school co-ordination (Question 2.1).

Recommended that the proposed co-ordination schemes are confirmed for September 2011.

2.2 Proposed timetables for September 2011 admission rounds

Minor changes are proposed to the Primary or Secondary school timetables to incorporate new dates set by regulations.

91% of responses received support the proposal for the Primary school co- ordination timetables (Question 1.2 and 1.7) and 100% support the proposal for the Secondary school co-ordination timetable (Question 2.2).

Recommended that the proposed co-ordination timetables are confirmed for September 2011.

2.3 Changes to First Admission arrangements

From September 2011 all schools will be required to offer full time education to all Reception age pupils from September and to offer extended rights to defer admission.

Most respondents supported this statutory change.

2.4 In-Year Co-ordination

From 1 September 2010 all in-year admissions (excluding statemented pupils) must be co-ordinated by the Local Authority. Specifically the legislation requires that all decisions regarding applications for school places must be sent by the Local Authority. This new statutory duty is detailed in the new 2010 School Admissions Code.

76% of responses received support the proposal (Question 1.4 - Primary Schools and Question 2.3 – Secondary Schools). No comments challenged the proposed process, negative comments related to the duty to co-ordinate.

Recommended that the proposed co-ordination scheme is confirmed from 1 September 2010.

2.5 Stibbard Area – re-designation of Fulmodeston with Barney

Following a proposal by Stibbard All Saints CE VA Primary School governors to re-designate Fulmodeston with Barney as part of the catchment area for their school the Local Authority have also consulted on the proposal. Whilst the area could also continue to be served by Melton Constable, Astley primary school the change would ensure that the area is only served by one school. Stibbard All Saints CE VA Primary School is the nearest school and a recent analysis identified that most pupils already attend Stibbard.

66% of responses received support this proposal.

Recommended That Fulmodeston with Barney be designated solely in the catchment area of Stibbard All Saints CE VA Primary School.

2.6 Thorpe St. Andrew Area – re-designation of Postwick and Witton

Currently the small number of families living in Postwick and Witton are at risk of not being offered a place at a preferred Thorpe St. Andrew school as most families living in Thorpe St. Andrew live significantly nearer.

Proposal to change the catchment area so that Postwick is served by Brundall Primary rather than the 3 Thorpe St. Andrew primary schools. There is sufficient capacity at Brundall for these families and the change would ensure that families will be able to gain a place at a local school.

Proposal that Witton is solely designated within the catchment area of Lt. Plumstead primary school. It is currently in catchment for both Lt. Plumstead and the three Thorpe St. Andrew primary schools.

100% of responses received support this proposal.

Recommended That families living in Postwick (south of the A47) are designated to Brundall primary and those families living in Witton (north of the A47) are solely designated Lt. Plumstead.

2.7 Dereham area – proposed catchment area for Neatherd and Northgate

Currently the 2 Dereham High Schools, Neatherd and Northgate serve 2 distinct catchment areas but parents in this area have a higher priority for places at the alternative school than other families from outside the area. In the 2009/10 admission round a number of families complained that the admission rules needed revision to help sibling and feeder school connections in the area. It is proposed that the current 2 catchment areas are merged and the new area will be served by both schools. The admission rules will give priority to siblings, then pupils attending feeder schools who live in the revised catchment area to resolve the concerns experienced.

100% of responses received support this proposal.

Recommended That catchment areas for Neatherd and Northgate high schools are combined and admission rules are amended to give catchment priority to siblings, then feeder school pupils and then solely based on distance at each school.

3. Conclusion Whilst the level of response is again low the majority of responses support each of the proposals. A number of negative responses were focused on challenging the legal framework but no responses challenged the proposed co-ordination processes detailed in the consultation. The Norfolk Primary School Headteacher group SNAPP recently discussed the in-year co-ordination arrangements and supported the proposals. The Norfolk Admission Forum agreed the co-ordination schemes prior to consultation and at their meeting on 5 March will formally consider the consultation responses and their views will be verbally fed back to the Panel at the meeting.

Given that the consultation has been widely publicised the limited responses, mostly supporting the proposals indicates that there is general support for the admission arrangements as detailed in the consultation. 4. Resource Implications

4.1 The resource implications of managing in-year admissions, a statutory duty from 1 September 2010 has been included in the budget process for 2010/11. As required by admission legislation a public notice was placed in the local media to inform parents and the wider community of the consultation at a cost of £105. All other aspects of the consultation were undertaken electronically. There are no other resource implications from the attached report.

5. Other Implications

5.1 Legal Implications: The report recommends changes to admission arrangements following the statutory annual admission consultation. It includes the proposed in-year co-ordination scheme and changes to first admission arrangements following changes in the statutory School Admissions Code. Local changes to admission arrangements are set in accordance with the 2010 School Admissions Code.

5.2 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

The legal framework within which admissions is managed seeks to ensure that admissions are fair and do not discriminate against any applicant. Our arrangements have been checked against the new School Admissions Code which became operational from 10 February 2010 and School Admission Appeals Code which was last updated in February 2009 and our arrangements are judged to be fully compliant with the duties set out in these codes.

5.3 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

By ensuring limited changes, mostly relating to legislative changes for September 2011 families should continue to experience a familiar and predictable process minimising the potential difficulties for pupils associated with school transfer. The newly introduced in-year arrangements will ensure that all parents will be dealt with consistently and will be informed of their right of appeal if they are refused a place. The administration will be designed to minimise delays but where a school can meet a parent’s preference there will be a delay while the application is forwarded to the Local Authority to confirm the offer of a place. The County Council expressed concerns about this when DCSF consulted on this prior to setting this in the 2009 Admissions Code as a legal duty on Local Authorities.

5.4 Any Other implications

Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

6. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998

The Act requires Local Authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. Co-ordination of in-year admissions should ensure that the Local Authority has an overall knowledge of all movements of pupils between schools which will significantly reduce the chance of a pupil missing education.

Action Required

Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to consider and comment on the recommendations prior to this report being presented to Cabinet for approval.

Background documents 2011 consultation document including detailed appendices http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/article/ncc073668.pdf

DCSF School Admissions Code 2010 and Admission Appeals Code 2009, www.dcsf.gov.uk/sacode

Current Admission Arrangements: A parents’ guide to primary, infant and first schools in Norfolk 2010-2011 http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocNam e=NCC060475 A parents’ guide to junior and middle schools in Norfolk 2010-2011 http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocNam e=NCC062353 A parents’ guide to secondary schools in Norfolk 2010-2011 http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocNam e=NCC060751

Officer contact: Richard Snowden (01603) 223489 Email: [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800

8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help

APPENDIX – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

Norfolk Admissions September 2011 Consultation Document

School name:...... Chair of Governors 2 Headteacher 15 Other (please specify) 3 Parent 6

1. Admission arrangements for Primary schools

Key changes: Parents will have to apply to their home Local Authority (LA) rather than the LA where the school is for all applications from 1 September 2010

All in-year admission requests must be forwarded to the LA Admissions team who will send decisions re preference(s) to parents

Formalised half-termly closing date for all in-year applications except for those newly moved in to an area or who are otherwise not on a school roll who will continue to be dealt with by the existing Norfolk Fair Access Protocol

No schools will maintain waiting lists except as part of the co-ordinated annual admission rounds when lists are maintained until 31 December each year.

New requirement for all pupils to be offered a full time place from the September after their fourth birthday and additional rights regarding deferment and part time attendance.

Changed closing date, nationally set at 15 January for Primary annual admission rounds.

1.1) Primary school co-ordination scheme for September 2011 Parents will be required to apply to their home Local Authority rather than the Authority that manages the preferred school(s). This meets the latest statutory change to admission co-ordination. This is the only change proposed from the 2010 Co-ordination scheme. (See also 1.4 - In-year co-ordination below) (Detailed Primary co-ordination scheme at Appendix A) YES NO 1.1) Do you support the Norfolk primary school co- 19 4 ordination scheme for September 2011? Do you have any other comments on the scheme? Why change in-year process * 2 Timescales for in-year process Co-ordinating in-year admissions too bureaucratic

1.2) First admission co-ordination timetable for September 2011 Change from closing date of 31 December to 15 January to meet new nationally set closing date for primary school admissions. No other changes proposed to the timetable for admissions to Year R in September 2011 (Primary co-ordination timetable at Appendix B) YES NO 1.2) Do you support the proposed Norfolk primary school 21 2 co-ordination timetable? Do you have any other comments on the timetable? National deadline very helpful Offer day too late

1.3) First admissions

From September 2011 all Admission Authorities must offer full time provision for all pupils in the September following their fourth birthday. Parents can defer their admission until later in the school year or until the child reaches compulsory school age in that school year and parents can request that their child attends part-time until the child reaches compulsory school age. (New statutory duty detailed in 2010 School Admissions Code)

Detailed proposal at Appendix C. YES NO 1.3) N/a. Do you have any comments on this statutory proposal? Concern at pupils starting school to early * 2 Will there be additional support for young children * 2 Better offer for summer born children * 2 Flexibility for parents – looking at development rather than just age Better for consistent delivery of EYFS curriculum

1.4) Primary School – In-year co-ordination

From September 2010 all in-year applications from families living or moving to Norfolk must be co-ordinated by the Local Authority. (New statutory duty detailed in 2009 School Admissions Code). Parents must be given the opportunity to express up to 3 preferences and these must be forwarded to the Admissions Team. All schools are under a new legal duty to confirm their numbers on roll. Foundation and Voluntary Aided Governors will still be responsible for confirming the priority of applicants but the Admissions team must forward the decision to the parent, offering the right of appeal where a preference is refused.

Detailed proposal at Appendix D. YES NO 1.4) Do you support the proposed in-year co-ordination 16 6 scheme (Primary schools) Do you have any comments on this statutory proposal? Can’t see need/LA co-ordination over bureaucratic and unnecessary * 4

1.5) Catchment area change – Stibbard area The governors of All Saints school, Stibbard have proposed that the current parish of Fulmodeston and Barney be designated as in-catchment for Stibbard. The parish is currently served by Astley Primary school, Melton Constable but the parish is very close to the recently relocated Stibbard school. The Local Authority is consulting on the proposal that the area is re-designated so that it is only served by All Saints School, Stibbard Detailed proposal at Appendix E. YES NO 1.5) Do you support the proposed catchment area change 2 1 in the Stibbard area? Do you have any other comments on this proposal? Concern by Astley Primary school that a wider area review of catchment areas should be undertaken.

1.6) Catchment area change – Postwick and Witton Postwick and Witton are currently served by Thorpe St Andrew Primary schools (Dussindale, Hillside Avenue and St. Williams) but most residents live nearer to Brundall or Lt. Plumstead schools. Additionally pupils living in Witton are also served by Lt. Plumstead school. It is proposed that pupils living in Postwick, south of the A47 are re-designated to Brundall Primary and those in Witton, living north of the A47 are solely designated to Lt. Plumstead VA Primary School. Detailed proposal at Appendix F.

YES NO 1.6) Do you support the proposed catchment area 3 0 changes for Postwick and Witton? Do you have any other comments on this proposal? None

1.7) Transfer to Junior schools - co-ordination timetable for September 2011 Change from closing date of 31 January to 15 January to meet new nationally set closing date for all primary school admissions. The opening date will be changed to 15 November to reflect the earlier closing date. No other significant changes proposed.

(Junior co-ordination timetable at Appendix G) YES NO 1.7) Do you support the proposed Norfolk Junior school 20 0 co-ordination timetable? Do you have any other comments on the timetable? National deadline very helpful * 2 Same deadline for all phases required

1.8) Other Comments on proposed primary school admission arrangements for September 2011? YES NO 1.8) Do you have any other comments on proposed 1 17 admission arrangements for Community and VC schools for Sept. 2011? Comments? Need to ensure wide circulation of determined scheme

2 Admission arrangements for Secondary Schools

Key changes: All in-year admission requests must be forwarded to the LA Admissions team who will send decisions re preference(s) to parents

Formalised half-termly closing date for all in-year applications except for those newly moved in to an area or who are otherwise not on a school roll who will continue to be dealt with by the existing Norfolk Fair Access Protocol

No schools will maintain waiting lists except as part of the co-ordinated annual admission rounds when lists are maintained until 31 December each year.

Changed closing date, nationally set at 31 October 2010 for Secondary annual admission round requiring an earlier opening date of 14 September 2010.

2.1) Secondary school co-ordination scheme for September 2011 No changes are proposed for September 2011 (See also 2.4 In-year co-ordination below) (Detailed scheme at Appendix H) YES NO 2.1) Do you support the proposed Norfolk secondary 10 1 school co-ordination scheme for September 2011? Do you have any other comments on the scheme? National deadlines very helpful In-year admissions should be decided locally

2.2) Secondary school co-ordination timetable for September 2011 The current timetable needs to be changed from the current closing date of 13 November to 31 October 2010 to meet the new nationally set closing date for secondary school admissions. To ensure sufficient time for parents to engage in the transfer process (minimum 6 weeks) the opening date will be moved from 29 September to 14 September 2010. This will require schools to set earlier dates for open evenings. No further changes to the timetable are proposed. (Co-ordination timetable at Appendix I) YES NO 2.2) Do you support the proposed Norfolk secondary 12 0 school co-ordination timetable? Do you have any other comments on the timetable? Transfer process too early in Year 6

2.3) Secondary School – In-year co-ordination

From September 2010 all in-year applications from families living or moving to Norfolk must be co-ordinated by the Local Authority. (New statutory duty detailed in 2009 School Admissions Code). Parents must be given the opportunity to express up to 3 preferences and these must be forwarded to the Admissions Team. All schools are under a new legal duty to confirm their numbers on roll. Foundation and Voluntary Aided Governors will still be responsible for confirming the priority of applicants but the Admissions team must forward the decision to the parent, offering the right of appeal where a preference is refused.

Detailed proposal at Appendix D. YES NO 2.3) Do you support the proposed in-year co-ordination 10 2 scheme (Secondary schools) Do you have any comments on this statutory proposal? Too time consuming

2.4) Dereham area – catchment change

Currently the 2 Dereham High Schools, Neatherd and Northgate serve 2 distinct catchment areas but parents in this area have a higher priority for places at the alternative school than other families from outside the area. In the 2009/10 admission round a number of families complained that the admission rules needed revision to help sibling and feeder school connections in the area. It is proposed that the 2 catchment areas are merged and the new area will be served by both schools. The admission rules will give priority to siblings, then pupils attending feeder schools who live in the revised catchment area to resolve the concerns experienced.

Detailed proposal at Appendix J. YES NO 2.4) Do you support the proposed changes to catchment 8 0 areas for Dereham Neatherd and Northgate High schools Do you have any comments on this statutory proposal? None

2.5) Other Comments on proposed high school admission arrangements for September 2011? YES NO 2.5) Do you have any other comments on proposed 2 9 admission arrangements for Community and VC high schools for Sept. 2011? Comments? Concern that parental choices inconsistent across the County

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 March 2010 Item no. 13

Second Fair Funding Consultation

Report by Director of Children’s Services

Summary This paper highlights two issues that following consultation with the Schools Forum on 27 January 2010 schools are currently being consulted upon. It is proposed that both changes be implemented from April 2010.

The first proposed change is to revise the rules that apply to the carry forward of year end balances, following the producti on by the Department for Children’s Schools and Families of new draft guidance. The change will apply to year end balance from 31 March 2011 onwards. Norfolk’s arrangements closely match the new draft guidance however it is being proposed to include two categories of unspent budget that currently are out side the arrangements and to reduce the secondary school contingency limit from 5% to 3%. The proposed change to Norfolk’s arrangements will reduce the ab ility for schools to carry forward unspent year end balances.

The second proposed change relates to the new legislation which requires the local authority to co-ordinate all in year transfers. It is proposed to withdraw the funding for any pupil that is transferred in -year where a school fails to follow the statutory requirements.

This consultation run from 1 February to 1 March.

The results of the consultation will be reported to Cabinet meeting on the 6 April when a decision will be requested to change Norfolk Scheme for Financing Schools for 2010/11.

Action Required – Members are asked for their views on the two proposed changes which will then be reported to Cabinet when it considers the results of the consultation exercise.

1. Introduction

1.1 Members will recall a Fair Funding consultation exercise was carried out during the Autumn and the results were reported to Panel on the 14 January and Cabinet endorsed all the recommendations in the report on the 25 January.

1.2 On the 15 December the Department for Children, Schools and Families wrote to all local authorities issuing some initial draft guidance on the treatment of school year end balances. As a result of this draft guidance, Norfolk’s current arrangements for the treatment of year end balances were reviewed and a number of proposed changes highlighted to bring Norfolk’s arrangements into line with the draft initial guidance. To enable the changes to be implemented on year end balances at 31 March 2011 it is necessary to carry out a further consultation exercise prior to the start of the next financial year. A consultation exercise has thus been undertaken with schools. The consultation exercise ran fro 1 February to 1 March.

1.3 Whilst consulting schools on the school balance issue the opportunity was taken to consult on another change to Norfolk’s Scheme for Financing Schools. This second proposal relates to introducing a budget clawback in respect of schools that fail to follow the new statutory arrangements for in-year admissions which are being implemented in September 2010.

1.4 This report goes on to describe the content of the consultation papers and asks Members views on each of the proposals prior to Cabinet considering the proposals on 6 April. The Cabinet report will include consultation responses and the views of the Schools Forum, which will consider the proposal at its meeting on the 12 March.

School Balances

1.5 On the 7 January the DCSF published 31 March 2009 balances data for all local authorities. The DCSF indicated that the total level of surplus balances at 31 March 2009 for all schools was £1.92 billion, a decrease of 7% since 2008. At school level 91% of schools held surplus balances, with 33% holding excessive balances. The DCSF also indicated that “we expect schools and local authorities to work to reduce balances by the end of 2010/11. If we do not see a substantial reduction in balances and in particular excessive balances held be individual schools, the Government will consider further action from 2011/12 to bring the total down to ensure the funding is being spent on improving outcomes for children and young people. In the meantime we continue to work with partners to prepare further guidance for local authorities on the control of surplus balances”

2. Norfolk School Balances as at 31 March 2009

2.1 A paper was presented to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 15 July 2009 and subsequently to Schools Forum on 9 September 2009 setting out full details of Norfolk school balances.

2.2 At 31 March 2009 the level of schools balances held by Norfolk schools amounted to £21.8 million or 4.7% of budget shares. However, the positive balances, ie excluding those schools which had overdrawn balances at year end, amounted to £25.4 million or 5.5% of budget shares.

2.3 Table 1 compares the value of school balances at the 31 March 2009 with 31 March 2008.

Table 1 – School balances – Value of balances

School As at 31 March 2008 As at 31 March 2009 Change between years Type Balance Overspend Total Balance Overspend Total Balance Overspend £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Nursery 2 8 -6 64 0 64 62 -8 Primary 10,632 554 10,078 13,049 895 12,154 2,417 341 Secondary 6,462 1,100 5,362 8,720 2,686 6,034 2,258 1,586 Special 1,007 0 1,007 815 0 815 -192 0 Partnerships* 2,484 0 2,484 2,800 0 2,797 313 0

Totals 20,587 1,662 18,925 25,448 3,581 21,864 4,858 1,919

* The Partnerships are the Great Yarmouth Excellence Centre, the Norwich Education Partnership and the Thetford Education Partnership.

2.4 Table 2 shows the average level of positive and negative balances held by Norfolk schools analysed by school type.

Table 2 - School balances – Average value of balances at 31 March 2009

Balance Overspend Total £ £ £ Nursery 21,000 - 21,000 Primary 37,000 20,000 31,000 Secondary 194,000 384,000 116,000 Special 68,000 - 68,000 Partnerships 933,000 - 933,000 Total 62,000 69,000 47,000

2.5 Table 3 shows for each type of school the level of balances compared to the overall budget shares.

Table 3 - Comparison of level of balance with budget share

Type of School. Percentage of Budget Share at 31 March 2009 % Nursery 7.19 Primary 5.59 Secondary 2.75 Special 4.35 Partnerships 53.2 All Schools 4.73

2.6 Using the DCSF 5% and 8% maximum balance guidance figures, Norfolk is judged to have 103 or 23.4% of schools with excessive balances. Full details of this national analysis is to be found at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/strategy/financeandfunding/infor mationforlocalauthorities/section52/schoolbalances/s52sb/

2.7 Full details of individual Norfolk schools balances are available at http://www.eficts.norfolk.gov.uk/finance/schoolbalances/movement_of_bal ances_07-08_to_08-09_v3.xls

3. Norfolk Current Schools Balance Arrangements

3.1 Norfolk Scheme for Financing Schools includes details of Norfolk’s current arrangement for managing year end balances as follows:

“Restrictions on carrying forward surplus balances

With effect from 1 April 2007, surplus budget share balances held by schools as permitted under this scheme are subject to the following restrictions:

a) the Authority shall calculate by 30 September each year the surplus balance, if any, held by each school as at the preceding March;

b) the Authority shall deduct from the calculated balance any amounts for which the school already has a prior-year commitment to pay from the surplus balance;

c) the Authority shall then deduct from the resulting sum any amounts which the school declares to be assigned for specific purposes as permitted by the Authority and which the Authority is satisfied are properly assigned;

d) the legitimate purposes that balances may be held for are:-

- To provide the school with contingency funding, the amount not exceeding 5% of the final budget share or £20,000 whichever is the greater. - Unspent Standards Fund or Schools Standards Grant (Personalisation) monies in accordance with DCSF regulations. - Surpluses derived from sources other than the budget share eg LSC sixth form funding, contributions from parents for school trips where expenditure will not be incurred until the following year or surpluses arising from providing community facilities - In exceptional circumstances with authorisation of the Head of Children’s Services’ Finance, where an individual allocation amounting to more than 1% of the final budget share and was allocated after the 1st February. - Voluntary Aided schools are allowed to hold revenue monies to fund governors’ liabilities towards DCSF grant aided capital works. Evidence of the cost and timing of the project will be required to support this.

Any balances falling outside these categories will be returned to the Authority for redistribution to schools. The actual balances each school has at the end of 2006/07 and subsequent financial years will be analysed and any surplus over and above monies falling into one of the legitimate categories above will be redistributed in the following financial year.

e) schools not in the Building Maintenance Partnership Pool may lodge monies with the Local Authority up to a maximum of £250,000 or £450 per pupil whichever is the lower. This money will be released at any time on production of an appropriate invoice for maintenance or building work that would have been covered by the BMPP scheme. Interest will be payable on monies lodged in this way.”

4. Initial draft guidance on school balances from Department of Children, Schools and Families

4.1 The initial draft guidance received from the Department of Children, Schools and Families in December 2009 is set out below. Also included is a comparison to Norfolk’s current arrangements and proposals to make changes in those instances where Norfolk’s current guidance differs from this new national guidance.

DCSF Guidance General approach

1. We recognise that local authorities are under financial pressure and therefore may not have the capacity to devote significant resources to supporting the balance control mechanism, especially where there are large numbers of schools. To enable the most effective use of these limited resources, challenge should be targeted at those schools above the threshold with only a light touch approach for others.

2. The use of surplus school balances should not be seen as just an issue for finance teams. There should be close working with other school support services – particularly school improvement and asset management officers. They can then provide a linkage to, and validation of, proposed spending in School Development and Asset Management Plans.

3. Work on surplus balances should not be seen as just a year-end issue. Instead, it should be integrated with multi-year school budget planning and monitoring. To avoid the process of challenge and clawback going beyond the summer term, some local authorities now have a pre- authorisation process whereby schools wishing to retain balances above the threshold have to apply before the end of the financial year. School budget plan templates could be adapted to indicate whether the brought forward balance is above the threshold. If so, there could then be room for the school to explain the proposed use of the surplus at that stage. Schools should also be encouraged to update their future budget plans in the autumn term as pupil numbers become clearer.

4. Most local authorities have found that their Schools Forum is supportive of the need to reduce surplus balances. It is important as well that this “sign- up” extends beyond the Forum to the senior management of the Council and elected members. School funding is a significant part of local authorities’ total expenditure and the relevant Cabinet member/portfolio holder should be involved in agreeing the policy on surplus balances.

Thresholds

5. Although the guidance specifies 8% for primary and 5% for secondary schools, or £10,000 if greater, it is open to local authorities to amend these with the agreement of their Schools Forum. Many local authorities, for example, have set their own minimum cash threshold. This avoids the inclusion of too many small schools being drawn in for small cash amounts.

6. It is important to note that the 8% and 5% thresholds are not targets, but the maximum percentage which should reasonably be retained to deal with unforeseen circumstances. In practice, most primary schools should be able to manage with balances of, say, 4-5% and secondary schools with 2-3%.

(Norfolk – defines a minimum cash threshold and a 5% threshold to provide a level of contingency funding. Given the new guidance it is proposed that the percentage threshold be reviewed with the 5% threshold being retained for primary and special schools and a 3% threshold being introduced for secondary schools.)

Defining a “committed” balance

7. Balances should not all be automatically classed as committed, or as uncommitted. Local authorities should define what they consider to be valid reasons for classing a sum as committed, or should allow schools to decide this and then use their own judgement to agree or disagree with schools. Some local authorities define what can be counted as a committed balance very tightly and make this known to schools, so there is less argument from schools later on in the process as to what they can and can not include.

8. Monies should be classed as committed if the school can show they have been set aside for a specific purpose, and will be spent within a defined timescale. A good example of this is projects which are detailed in the School Development Plan.

9. Some specific examples of how a local authority can decide what is committed are shown below in paragraphs 10 to 22.

(Norfolk – defines committed expenditure within the standard closedown procedure which gives advice as to when expenditure is committed. In such cases a school raised a creditor and thus reduces the year end balance automatically. No further change to this definition is suggested.)

Capital in general

10. We would not normally expect schools to use their revenue balances for capital projects, but they are able to do so. Schools should be able to provide evidence (such as invoices, orders, quotes, contracts, Governing body minutes) for works that have already been approved and are due to start in the next financial year or are already underway.

11. The LA should be able to check with the relevant team that the work/project has been approved.

12. Evidence should include the time period over which the works are due to be completed and paid for. The local authority should check timescales are adhered to and ask schools to explain any slippage if funds are required to be carried forward beyond the initial timetable.

13. Revenue funding cannot be ‘converted’ to capital in school accounts until it is spent. Surplus revenue balances committed to a specific future capital scheme could, however, be transferred to a local authority reserve for capital schemes in the year end accounts. LAs could also set conditions on the use of a surplus for capital purposes and any subsequent proposed changes to the use.

14. It is legitimate for schools to set aside balances to contribute to BSF capital costs. However, if there are additional ongoing costs related to the unitary charge for PFI projects or other required lifecycle maintenance contributions, then schools need to demonstrate that these are affordable on a sustainable basis rather than relying on balances.

(Norfolk – does not allow revenue balances to be held for capital purposes except in the case of Voluntary Aided schools which are allowed to hold revenue monies to fund governors’ liabilities towards DCSF grant aided capital works. Evidence of the cost and timing of the project will be required to support this. Norfolk also allows schools to transfer capital to reserves for capital schemes, but only for known and agreed schemes and not for speculative purposes. No change is necessary to align with the guidance.)

Planning for uncertainty over future funding/staffing/rolls

15. Schools should provide calculations/plans/projections to show expected changes in rolls or staffing, preferably using a multi-year budget planning tool.

16. It is prudent to keep some money aside for contingencies, but this amount should be reasonable and based on proper planning, not guesswork.

(Norfolk – The Scheme enables schools to hold contingency funding, the amount not exceeding 5% of the final budget share or £20,000 whichever is the greater. It is proposed that this clause be changed to distinguish between primary school, special schools and secondary schools as set out in paragraph 6 above.)

Prior year payments/accruals/committed orders

17. Where schools are awaiting charges for services/goods, they should be able to produce evidence if required such as copies of orders, quotes, delivery notes, or invoices. Reported accruals or commitments should reconcile to what is recorded on the school’s financial system.

(Norfolk – This is Norfolk’s current practice. No change is necessary to align with the guidance.)

Single status

18. Where single status agreements have resulted, or are likely to result, in the backdating of new pay scales or one-off compensation payments, then it is legitimate for schools to hold balances for these purposes. However, schools need to demonstrate that they can fund the ongoing costs on a sustainable basis and not from balances.

(Norfolk – Norfolk’s approach to single status agreements, ie MRS, is to encourage schools to make appropriate creditor provision for the estimated costs thus no balance is required to cover this risk. No change is therefore necessary to align with the guidance.)

Monies held for other schools

19. Funding held on behalf of other schools, for example as part of extended services cluster provision or 14-19 partnerships, should be accounted for separately within the host school account and should be excluded from the calculation of the school’s balance. This should not be used as a means of storing up balances for other purposes.

20. We will be considering, prior to 2011, accounting and reporting issues relating to federations, clusters and other forms of school collaboration in the context of the “21st century Schools” White Paper.

(Norfolk – Funds held for these purposes is excluded from the year end balance calculation. No change is therefore necessary to align with the guidance.)

Standards Fund

21. Current arrangements allowing the expenditure of Standards Funds over 17 months have caused complications in calculating balances. The main allocations of School Development Grant (SDG) and School Standards Grant (SSG) are effectively now annual allocations known before the start of the financial year with some predictability, and are treated by most schools as part of their core budget.

22. Local authorities should move towards making allowances for unspent Standards Funds only where these are ring-fenced and/or allocated part way through the financial year.

(Norfolk – Funds held from these sources are currently excluded from the year end balance calculation ie Unspent Standards Fund or Schools Standards Grant (Personalisation) monies in accordance with DCSF regulations. Norfolk Scheme also excludes LSC funding from the calculation of year end balances. It is proposed that the Scheme be amended to align it with this initial draft guidance.)

5. Proposed Revised Norfolk Scheme

5.1 Set out below is how Norfolk’s arrangements for managing the carry forward of surplus balances would look if it is revised in line with the proposed changes set out above.

“Restrictions on carrying forward surplus balances

With effect from 1 April 2010, surplus budget share balances held by schools as permitted under this scheme are subject to the following restrictions:

a) the Authority shall calculate by 30 September each year the surplus balance, if any, held by each school as at the preceding March;

b) the Authority shall deduct from the calculated balance any amounts for which the school already has a prior-year commitment to pay from the surplus balance;

c) the Authority shall then deduct from the resulting sum any amounts which the school declares to be assigned for specific purposes as permitted by the Authority and which the Authority is satisfied are properly assigned;

d) the legitimate purposes that balances may be held for are:-

- To provide primary and special schools with contingency funding, the amount not exceeding 5% of the final budget share or £20,000 whichever is the greater . - To provide secondary schools with contingency funding, the amount not exceeding 3% of the final budget share. - Surpluses derived from sources other than the budget share eg, contributions from parents for school trips where expenditure will not be incurred until the following year or surpluses arising from providing community facilities - In exceptional circumstances with authorisation of the Head of Children’s Services’ Finance, where an individual allocation amounting to more than 1% of the final budget share and was allocated after the 1st February. - Voluntary Aided schools are allowed to hold revenue monies to fund governors’ liabilities towards DCSF grant aided capital works. Evidence of the cost and timing of the project will be required to support this.

Any balances falling outside these categories will be returned to the Authority for redistribution to schools. The actual balances each school has at the end of 2010/11 and subsequent financial years will be analysed and any surplus over and above monies falling into one of the legitimate categories above will be redistributed in the following financial year.

e) schools not in the Building Maintenance Partnership Pool may lodge monies with the Local Authority up to a maximum of £250,000 or £450 per pupil whichever is the lower. This money will be released at any time on production of an appropriate invoice for maintenance or building work that would have been covered by the BMPP scheme. Interest will be payable on monies lodged in this way.”

5.2 Consultation Proposals on Surplus Balances

In terms of actual changes to the current Scheme, the consultation paper identifies the following as the proposed changes to be made to Norfolk’s arrangements

 To decrease the level of contingency provisions treated as a legitimate balance for secondary schools from 5% to 3% (proposal 1).

 To remove unspent Standards Fund or Schools Standards Grant (Personalisation) monies from the list of funding that is treated as a legitimate balance and thus excluded from the year end balance reduction calculation (proposal 2).

 To remove LSC funding from the list of unspent funding that is treated as a legitimate balance and thus excluded it from the year end balance reduction calculation (proposal 3).

 To implement changes from 1 April 2010 (proposal 4).

6 In Year Admissions – Failure by schools to follow the statutory arrangements

6.1 This is the second issue on which schools are being consulted upon .

Context 6.2 During Autumn 2008 the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) undertook a consultation on proposals that local authorities should co-ordinate in-year admissions for all mainstream admissions (excluding pupils with statements of SEN which are subject to a separate legal process). The local authority notified schools of the consultation and following consideration by Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the process and workloads involved particularly in relation to primary school admissions.

6.3 Despite concerns expressed by a number of local authorities the government approved changes and a new statutory School Admissions Code came into force in February 2010.

6.4 The new code places a legal duty on local authorities to co-ordinate the in-year admissions process and specifically to inform parents of the outcome of all applications from 1 September 2010.

6.5 The local authority highlighted this new duty as part of the 2010/11 Admissions Consultation exercise in January 2009. Following discussions at Norfolk’s Admission Forum a detailed co-ordination scheme has been proposed and this is subject to consultation (4 January – 1 March 2010) as part of the annual admissions consultation. This was formally notified to schools in the e-Courier sent out on 8 January.

6.6 The scheme follows the policy that has been developed in recent years to deal with the increasing volumes of applications received by the local authority. However, the significant change relates to the majority of applications received direct by schools which must now be forwarded to the local authority. Own admission authority schools (Academies, Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools) will still have the legal duty to prioritise applications but in all cases the local authority will have to notify the parent of the decision and offer the right of appeal for any place refused. All schools are under a statutory duty to inform the local authority of numbers of pupils in each year group and the number of spaces available.

6.7 Based on the last 3 complete academic years around 8,000 applications are received each year, with around 75% of applications for Primary schools. The local authority currently deals with less than 1,000 per year.

6.8 If schools and other consultees cannot agree the details of a co- ordination scheme the DCSF will impose a model scheme so that the process is operational from 1 September.

6.9 It is clear that the Government are extremely concerned to ensure that all parents’ applications are dealt with in a consistent way and that all parents are offered the right of appeal for any refusal in accordance with primary legislation.

6.10 However from discussions with a number of headteachers it is also clear that a consistent process for all in-year transfers is also important for schools. It ensures that wherever possible transfers take place at the start of a school term and that schools do not lose children to other local schools unexpectedly.

6.11 Currently all in-year admission decisions can be made locally and schools are funded based on the census return data. From 1 September all in-year decisions will need to be referred to the local authority to deliver a single co-ordinated process across Norfolk.

6.12 To ensure consistency both for families and for all Norfolk schools the consultation paper proposes that those pupils admitted by schools unlawfully should not be funded.

6.13 In practice this would mean that where a school identified a pupil that had transferred to an alternative Norfolk school without referring the application to the local authority the unlawfully admitted pupil would be subject to claw back of the AWPA.

Proposals

6.14 In terms of actual changes to the current Scheme, the consultation paper identifies the following as the proposed changes to be made to Norfolk’s arrangements

 To introduce a new clawback arrangement within Norfolk’s Scheme for Financing Schools from schools which undertake unlawful in-year admissions (proposal 5).

 To introduce the new arrangement from September 2010 (proposal 6).

 To base the clawback on the full year AWPA for the pupil concerned based on the AWPA allocated on the previous Census return for the pupil (proposal 7).

7 Other Implications

7.1 Equality Impact Assessment

Whilst this report is not directly relevant to equality in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct negative impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups, it is making changes to funding arrangements to encourage schools to more effectively in the use of resources and ensure equality of access to school places..

7.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

The proposed changes to the management of surplus balances will ensure the maximum amount of funding is used to support teaching and leaning in year. The clawback arrangements related to in-year admissions will help to ensure that all pupils have equal access to provision by ensuring that all parents’ applications are dealt with in a consistent way and that all parents are offered the right of appeal for any refusal in accordance with primary legislation

7.3 Any Other implications

Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account."

8 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implication has been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.

Action Required

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked for their views on the proposed changes outlined in this report. These views will be reported to Cabinet meeting on 6 April when it considers the result of the consultation exercise.

Officer Contact: Paul Fisher 01603 223464 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact the Customer Service Centre on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 March 2010 Item No 14

School Organisation Issues: Consultation on the Closure of The Park High School, King’s Lynn and Academy update

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

This report presents the outcomes of statutory consultation on the proposal to close The Park High School, King’s Lynn to enable an academy to be established, together with updates on the progress with proposals for academies in Thetford, Costessey, and Gorleston.

There is a high level of support within the King’s Lynn community for the establishment of an academy to replace The Park. A total of 130 respondents (92.2%) were in favour of the proposal with 11 against (7.8%) and 2 who gave no view. The main reasons for supporting the proposal were that it would mean:

- Raised educational achievement - A fresh start in a new location away from the existing schools - A school accessible to residents in south King’s Lynn - Higher expectations, increased motivation and raised self-esteem for students - Improved new buildings, facilities and an inspirational learning environment - New approaches to learning for the needs of students in the 21st century - Improved quality of education for King’s Lynn as a whole - Good staff attracted to working in an academy

Reasons for opposing the proposal included:

-A new name and better facilities would make no difference to the learning, behaviour and attitudes of pupils and would not justify the expense -Academies do not improve poor schools. Motivating and inspiring teachers will help pupils realise their potential. -The nature of the students attending the school means that an academy would have little impact.

The consultations for the closure of Costessey, Oriel and the Thetford schools do not close until 24 March. At this stage, therefore, the outcomes cannot be reported to the Panel, although a verbal update will be provided at the meeting.

Members are recommended to consider the issues raised in the consultations and advise Cabinet on whether to issue public notices for the proposals.

1 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final

1. The Park High School: Outcomes of consultation on closure to replace with an Academy

1.1 Following a report to Scrutiny Panel in September last year which set out the case for proposing the establishment of an Academy in King’s Lynn to replace the Park High School, Cabinet agreed to the submission of an Expression of Interest to DCSF. At the same time it agreed that the County Council should commence the statutory closure consultation process.

1.2 Exam results for young people at The Park have been low for some years and in November 2009 the school was judged by Ofsted inspectors to need special measures. The sponsors believe that an Academy would provide new opportunities for young people and the wider community that would enable them to achieve in their learning and prepare them for the next steps into further and higher education

1.3 An Expression of Interest (EoI) was submitted to DCSF on 7 December. The proposal is to create a six-form entry Academy catering for 900 11-16 year old students and 200 16-19 year old students. The College of West Anglia, as Lead Sponsor, would lead the development of the Academy with Norfolk County Council as co- sponsor. The sponsors will identify a number of other partners to support the Academy during 2010. The school would be rebuilt on a site in the NORA regeneration area to provide high quality modern facilities.

1.4 The date for the proposed opening of the Academy in existing buildings is September 2010 and the final date for build completion is planned to be 2014. The drive to raise standards at the Academy will be underpinned by a core focus on learning excellence in Mathematics with a secondary specialism of Business and Enterprise and a theme of innovation. The Academy will have a strong focus on developing functional and transferable skills and seek to equip young people with improved employability and social skills.

1.5 In early January 2010 Ministers agreed that the proposal should proceed to the feasibility stage, during which the details of the proposal are prepared to form the basis of the funding agreement from the DCSF. This stage includes the development of the educational and curriculum vision, together with the governance, land and legal arrangements. There will be further consultation and discussions with the local community and a wide range of stakeholders on a range of these issues, led by the sponsors and supported by the project management company funded by DCSF.

2 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final The consultation process

2. This was the statutory consultation process about the closure of the school in order to replace it with an Academy. The consultation asked respondents if they supported the proposal or not, and to give the reasons for their views. The consultation document is attached as appendix A.

2.1 The consultation ran from 6 January to 24 February 2010. In all, around 3300 documents were distributed. These were made available to all parents of pupil attending the school, and all schools in Locality 1. Other parties consulted included:

. The Park High School itself . The governing bodies, teachers and other staff of other schools that may be affected . Trade unions . The Diocesan Boards of Education . The Learning and Skills Council . Local MPs and Councillors . West Norfolk and King’s Lynn Borough Council . Parish Councils

A public drop-in session was held on the afternoon of Tuesday 9 February at the Park High School, attended by 11 people, followed by a meeting in the evening to explain the proposal and answer questions. 12 people were present at the meeting, but there were a range of questions on topics including  How an academy be different  Behaviour and how it could improve  How quickly improvements will be apparent.  Funding and certainty about the new buildings  Future admission arrangements and catchment areas.  Communication between the academy and parents

2.2 143 responses were made to the questionnaire as follows:

 130 (92.2%) in favour of closing the school and replacing it with an Academy  11 (7.8%) not in favour  2 gave no view

The main reasons given by those in favour of closing the school were that an academy would provide:

 Raised levels of educational achievement  A fresh start in a new location away from the existing schools  A school accessible to residents in south King’s Lynn

3 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final  Higher expectations, increased motivation and raised self- esteem for students  A break from past negative perceptions of The Park  Equality of reputation between all the schools in King’s Lynn  Improved new buildings, facilities and an inspirational learning environment  New approaches to learning for the needs of students in the 21st century  Will enhance the quality of education available in King’s Lynn as a whole  A consistent and rigorous approach to homework  Good staff attracted to working in an academy  Motivating for pupils and staff at The Park who have worked hard over the years to improve.

2.3 The main reasons given by those against closing the school were:

 A new name and better facilities would make no difference to the learning, behaviour and attitudes of pupils and would not justify the expense  Academies do not improve poor schools. Motivating and inspiring teachers will help pupils realise their potential.  The nature of the students attending the school mean that an academy would have little impact.

2.4 Other comments:

 Concerns about the possible cost of uniform (to be provided free for existing pupils of The Park) and transport to the new site from North Lynn.  The process has already taken four years to reach this stage.  There would be positive benefits for the town as a whole.  Behaviour and attitudes need to be addressed first.  Pupils from areas of deprivation need support to see the value in learning and education.

2.5 Members are asked to note:

 The governing body has voted to support the expression of interest and the closure of the current school.  The proposal is supported by the Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, the local Member of Parliament, North Runcton Parish Council,  The Principal Designate is still to be appointed

Next steps

3. The closure of a school has to go through five stages:

i. Consultation.

4 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final ii. Decision to publish the closure notice (it is proposed to take this decision to Cabinet on the 6th April 2010) and the publication of the closure notice. The notice will be published in the local press (it is proposed that this should be on 16th April 2010) and sent to the school’s governing body, the Norwich Church of England Diocese, the Roman Catholic Bishop, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and to any person requesting the information. iii. Representation – a six-week period when representations can be made to the Local Authority. iv. Final Decision: this will be made by Cabinet on 14th June 2010 after the representation period ends and would need to be conditional on the Ministerial decision to establish an Academy. The statutory guidelines make it clear to decision makers that there is a “presumption of closure” for schools which are proposed to be replaced by academies. v. Implementation: From September 2010 with new buildings complete by 2014.

3.1 Taking all of the available views into account, the Director of Children’s Services strongly recommends the publishing of notices to close The Park High School to enable it to be replaced by an academy.

4. Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools, Thetford

4.1 An Expression of Interest for a single academy to replace Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools in Thetford was submitted to the DCSF on 26th January and ministers gave their formal agreement to go on to the feasibility stage on 3rd February.

The Thetford Academy would have:

 Room for 1,650 11-16 year olds (annual admission limit 330)  Room for 400 16 -19 year olds  Inspiring new facilities by 2013 on three sites that local people can also use:

o A new building where Charles Burrell is now o Improved buildings where Rosemary Musker is now o A new 14-19, sixth form and lifelong learning centre, the Thetford Forum, on the bus station and Anchor Hotel site in the town centre o Improved sports and technical facilities

 Wymondham College as lead sponsor and Easton College, West Suffolk College and Norfolk County Council as its co-Sponsors.  Breckland District Council, Thetford Town Council and other local schools as partners.

5 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final 4.2 Members are asked to note that

 The proposals have the support of both governing bodies  The Academy’s specialisms would be in English and maths  The Academy proposal has the full support of Moving Thetford Forward, a partnership between Breckland District Council, Norfolk County Council, Thetford Town Council and a wide range of other local organisations.  The complex land assembly process is moving forward steadily. See section 8.4

4.3 The consultation process on the closure of the two high schools to enable them to be replaced by an academy is now under way and closes on 24th March. The consultation document is attached as appendix B.

5 Costessey High School

5.1 An Expression of Interest for a single academy to replace Costessey High School was submitted to the DCSF on 28th January and ministers gave their formal agreement to go on to the feasibility stage on 3rd February.

The Costessey Academy would have:

 Places for 1,050 11 – 16 year olds and a sixth form of 200

 A sponsor, The Ormiston Trust, a charity that works to support children, young people and families in their communities.

 The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, Norfolk County Council and Hobart High School as strategic partners

 Inspirational new and improved buildings with high quality facilities and computer technology, this is one of the priority projects within BSF.

5.2 Members are asked to note that

 The proposals have the support of the Costessey governing body  The Academy’s specialisms would be in Science, especially health education, and Applied Learning  The Ormiston Trust has established itself as a leading national sponsor within the academies movement and has grown to become one of the major multiple sponsors in the academy programme. This growth has been matched by its positive impact on the improvement of its academies of which there are now seven fully operational. The Ormiston Trust’s approach to developing academies is based on a philosophy of building close and strong relationships with the local community.

6 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final  Rachel de Souza, currently principal of Barnfield West Academy in Luton, has been appointed Principal Designate.

5.3 The consultation process on the closure of the existing schools to enable it to be replaced by an academy is now under way and closes on 24th March. The consultation document is attached as appendix C.

6 Oriel Specialist Mathematics and Computing College, Gorleston

6.1 An Expression of Interest for a single academy to replace Oriel Specialist Mathematics and Computing College in Gorleston has been approved by the DCSF Academies Operational Group for submission to Ministers, subject to clarification of some points relating to budget and staffing issues.

The Gorleston Academy would have:

 Places for 900 11 – 16 year olds

 A sponsor, The Ormiston Trust, a national charity that works to support children, young people and families in their communities.

 Norfolk County Council and Gresham’s School as partners

6.2 Members are asked to note that

 The proposals have the support of the Oriel governing body  The Academy’s specialisms would be in mathematics and digital media  The Ormiston Trust has established itself as a leading national sponsor within the academies movement and has grown to become one of the major multiple sponsors in the academy programme. This growth has been matched by its positive impact on the improvement of its academies of which there are now seven fully operational. The Ormiston Trust’s approach to developing academies is based on a philosophy of building close and strong relationships with the local community.  Nicole McCartney, currently deputy principal of Barnfield West Academy in Luton, has been appointed Principal Designate.

6.3 The consultation process on the closure of the existing school to enable it to be replaced by an academy is now under way and closes on 24th March. The consultation document is attached as appendix D

7 Next Steps

7.1 Members will be aware that the timescales for the completion of the closure process are extremely tight, although achievable, for completion before the proposed academy opening dates.

7 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final

7.2 The outcomes of all the consultations will be reported to Cabinet on 6th April to enable a decision to be made whether to issue public notices for closure. If agreed, the public notice period would be between 16th April and 28th May. Cabinet would then consider all the prescribed information and make a final decision on closure. This would in turn be subject to the Ministerial decision to establish each academy.

8. Resource Implications

8.1 Finance: Revenue funding for academies goes directly to them as a grant from DCSF. The capital costs of the Academies in King’s Lynn and Costessey would both come from Norfolk’s initial BSF project. The funding for the Thetford and Gorleston academies, if agreed by DCSF and Partnerships for Schools (PfS), would be a direct grant with procurement through the PfS national academies framework (as for the existing Open Academy and City Academy, Norwich).

8.2 Property: Work on the feasibility of the site for an Academy in King’s Lynn is progressing well with the assistance of officers of the Borough Council. The use of the site for an Academy has meant a review of the feasibility studies carried out by the College of West Anglia. In particular the utilities diversion scheme is being reviewed to see if any alterations to that scheme are needed in relation to an Academy.

8.3 This feasibility work will influence the final site boundary required to build out the Academy. For this reason legal searches have been commenced but registration of the land into one title, currently owned by the Borough Council and Morston Assets, is yet to be finalised. Heads of Terms are agreed in principle pending the outcome of the feasibility study review.

8.4 Thetford: The key land issue is the “third” site – the new town centre “Forum” site. The majority is in the ownership of Breckland Council. It is envisaged that completion of acquisition will be achieved by September 2010. The Children’s Services capital budget will need to underwrite costs of acquisition where not otherwise met and a report was made to Children’s Services Capital Priorities Group on 27 January 2010 to make budget provision for the acquisition.

8.5 The academies proposed for Costessey and Gorleston would both be located on the present sites with some new build and refurbishment of other parts of the existing buildings

9. Other Implications

9.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

Consideration of equal opportunities issues is an integral part of the decision-making process for school organisation. An assessment of the

8 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final equalities issues in these proposals indicates that they the potential to make a significant contribution to equalities issues, and choice and diversity of provision.

9.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

These proposals, in their different ways, are fundamentally based on the premise that the creation of a new arrangements will offer young people a better quality of educational provision than exists at present and arrangements that are sustainable in the long term. The Academy proposals are exciting opportunities that will offer greater choice and diversity for children and young people in the area and greater opportunities for better outcomes for children across several strands of the Every Child Matters agenda. Significant capital investment into imaginative campuses would be make significant contributions to re- generation in these areas. All these proposals focus in particular on raising standards of achievement, better attendance and in promoting economic well-being. The secondary proposals sit within plans for new, imaginative provision for 14-19 learners which should lead to improvement in staying on rates, attendance and higher aspirations.

9.3 Any Other implications

Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

10. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

10.1 It is not anticipated that the recommendations of this report will have any direct or immediate impact on the reduction of crime and disorder. However, the quality of education, of wider services for children and families and the location and design of school buildings are known to influence some aspects of behaviour. The development of new academies in King’s Lynn, Thetford, Costessey and Gorleston should be significant contribution to the safer communities agenda and it is intended that the new academies will continue with and further develop the current safer schools partnership with the police.

11. Action Required

Members are asked to:

1. Consider and comment on the outcomes of the consultation process for the closure of The Park High School, King’s Lynn and advise Cabinet on whether to issue public notices.

9 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final 2. Consider and comment on the proposals currently being consulted on for Academies in Thetford, Costessey and Gorleston and note that Cabinet will decide whether to issue public notices at its April meeting.

12. Background Papers

DCSF Statutory Guidance on School Organisation Proposals Folder of consultation responses – The Park High School Consultation documents and reports to CSOSP on 16 September and 11 November 2009 Reports to Cabinet on 7 December 2009 and 4 January 2010 DCSF – Guidance on Academies Expression of Interest Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Tim Newton Tel: 01603 222572 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

10 Originated by: School Performance, Organisation & Review Created: 03/02/10 Version: Final APPENDIX A

Statutory consultation on the future of The Park High School, King’s Lynn

This leaflet describes the proposal to replace The Park High School with a new Academy and the steps that we have to take over the coming months. The new Academy cannot open until The Park High School has been formally closed. To do this the County Council has to follow a legal process, so that people can make comments or register objections APPENDIX A before the final decision is made. We would like you to read it and then tell us what you think.

Replacing The Park High School With A New Academy

The Proposal

The County Council proposes to close The Park High School, King’s Lynn from 31 August 2010 and establish in its place an Academy for 1100 pupils aged 11 - 19 from 1 September 2010. The Academy will be supported by a strong local partnership led by the College of West Anglia to inspire success for young people in King’s Lynn. The school will be completely rebuilt on a site in the NORA regeneration area to provide high quality modern facilities and the plan is for new buildings to be completed by 2014.

Why replace The Park? Why not leave it as it is?

Exam results for young people at The Park have been low for some years and in November 2009 the school was judged by Ofsted inspectors as needing Special Measures. Pupils, staff and governors have been working hard to improve, but we think there is more we can do to help its pupils achieve better. We believe that an Academy will provide exciting new opportunities for young people and the wider community in the South Lynn area. This is why Norfolk County Council is proud to join with The College of West Anglia, the lead sponsor, in supporting this project.

How will an Academy be better?

Academies are a new way of providing secondary education led by sponsors who bring with them skills, knowledge and resources to transform how and what our children learn. They have modern well-designed buildings, equipped with state-of-the-art teaching materials, technology and resources. The sponsors and partners at The Park want to create an Academy that will inspire success for the young people of the area. The Academy will provide outstanding education and skills opportunities to prepare young people for the next steps into further and higher education, adult life and the world of work through:  Learning designed for the needs of each student  teaching excellence  high expectations and personal support for every student  specialisms in Mathematics and Business and Enterprise with a theme of innovation.  a strong focus on improving literacy and numeracy  building on The Park’s existing focus upon technology  students having a say in how the Academy operates

The Academy and its facilities will be open to the local community beyond the school day so that everyone will be able to use what it has to offer.

If The Park closes, will its pupils be guaranteed a place at the Academy that replaces it?

Yes – there will be enough places at the new Academy for all existing The Park High School pupils. Because we want the Academy to be at the heart of the local community, the rules for admission to the Academy will be the same as they are now for The Park. APPENDIX A The Academy will not select pupils by academic ability or religious faith. Parents and carers do not have to send their child to the new Academy unless they wish to and they can ask that their child attends any other local high school or Academy. If there are places, their child will be given a place. If there are no places, their child’s name can either go on the waiting list for this school or their parents and carers can appeal for a place. Because we will be building the Academy on a new site we will need to review the admission arrangements for all the secondary schools in King’s Lynn so that we can make sure that there is a fair system for all the families in the town, wherever they live. There will be another public consultation so that everyone can give their views on the best way of doing this.

Will parents and carers have to pay for their child to go to the Academy?

No – all Academies provide free secondary education for all pupils.

If The Park closes, what will happen to the pupils with special educational needs?

The Academy will be fully inclusive and provide education for children of all abilities in line with all other schools in the town.

If The Park closes, what will happen to the staff?

The governing body of the new Academy will be responsible for appointing staff. Existing The Park High School staff whose roles match those in the new Academy will transfer to the new Academy as set out in the legal arrangements.

If an Academy replaces The Park, will children still be entitled to free travel passes and free school meals?

Pupils attending Academies will be entitled to free travel passes and free school meals in exactly the same way as those attending other local high schools.

What will the Academy be called?

The Academy’s name will be decided over the coming months and we would be interested in any suggestions that the local community might have.

What happens next?

Your view will help County Council Cabinet to make a decision about the future of The Park High School. There are a number of legal stages we have to go through and this first stage of the process will end on 24 February 2010. The result of this consultation will be discussed by the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 11 March and the proposal reported to County Council Cabinet on 6 April. They will decide whether to go to the next stage when people will again be able to say what they think over a further six week period before a final decision is made on 14 June 2010.

There will also be opportunities to hear more about the detailed proposals for the Academy over the coming months. We will send you more information as soon as it is available and let you know how your ideas can influence preparations for the Academy.

Why is this happening so quickly?

APPENDIX A We believe that it is important to begin the process of transforming secondary education in the area as soon as possible so that young people can benefit from the new opportunities. This consultation is just the first stage of the process and there will be more information about what is being proposed and further opportunities to give your views about how the Academy could develop.

Further information

If you need any more information about any aspect of the proposals, please contact us on 01603 223905.

Have your say

We’d like to hear what you think about our proposal to close The Park High School and replace it with an Academy. You can send your views in writing via the internet or by email, telephone or fax, or use the form at the back of this leaflet.

Write to us at:

Director of Children’s Services School Organisation and Review Freepost IH 2076 Room 20, County Hall Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR

Email us at: [email protected] Call us at: 01603 223905 Fax us at: 01603 223838 www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation

Written comments can be made between 6 January and 24 February 2010.

We are also having a ‘drop in’ event at The Park High School when you discuss the proposals and tell us in person what you think. You can come and talk to us on Tuesday 9 February at any time between 3pm and 7pm: please drop in any time. There will be a presentation by representatives of the sponsors at 7pm on that day to let you know about their vision for the new Academy, when you will also be able to let them know your ideas.

Thank you for taking the time to read this leaflet

If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 01603 223905 Fax: 01603 222119 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help. APPENDIX A

Consultation on the proposal to close The Park High School and replace it with an Academy

There is an electronic version of this reply form on the website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.

What do you think about our proposal to close The Park High School and replace it with an Academy? – please tick one box only.

I support the proposal

I do not support the proposal

Please give your main reasons for your answer to this proposal.

Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make to help us with this decision and in planning for the future of secondary education in The Park?

APPENDIX A

Please tell us who you are:

Tick box:

I am a pupil at The Park High I am a pupil at another school School

I am the parent/guardian of a pupil I am the parent/guardian of a pupil at The Park High School at at another school

I am a member of staff at I am a member of staff at another The Park High School school

I am a governor at The Park I am a governor at another school High School

None of the above

Please state other connections/interest (e.g. Local resident, member of Parent Teacher Association, local sports group or business).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

First name:…………………………………….Last name:……………………………………….. (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)

Your address:………………………………………………………………………………………..

Postcode:………………………………………….

Your view will help County Council Cabinet Members to make a decision about the future of The Park High School. This first consultation stage will end on 24 February 2010. The result will be reported to Cabinet on 6 April 2009 who will decide whether to issue a formal public notice to close the school.

An electronic version of this reply form can be found on the website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.

Your comments will be anonymous and will not contain your name or anything that could identify you. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Please return by 24 February 2010 via your local school or post to: The Park High School Consultation, FREEPOST IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR.

You don’t need a stamp.

APPENDIX B

Formal consultation on the future of Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools in Thetford

An Academy for Thetford

Academies are a new kind of high school. They are state schools run by sponsors with skills, knowledge and resources to transform how and what our children learn.

They have well-designed new and improved buildings and excellent ICT facilities.

We want to open a new Academy school in Thetford in September 2010 that will inspire young people in the area to achieve success. To do this we would first need to close Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker high schools at the end of August and open the new Academy on the two existing sites on 1 September.

This consultation is part of the closure process. Before we decide anything, we want to know what you think. You have until 24 March to reply.

The Thetford Academy would have:

 Room for 1,650 11-16 year olds (annual admission limit 330)  Room for 400 16 -19 year olds  Inspiring new facilities by 2013 on three sites that local people can also use:

- A new building where Charles Burrell is now - Improved buildings where Rosemary Musker is now - A new 14-19, sixth form and lifelong learning centre, the Thetford Forum, on the bus station and Anchor Hotel site in the town centre - Improved sports and technical facilities

 Wymondham College, Easton College, West Suffolk College and Norfolk County Council as its Sponsors.  Breckland District Council, Thetford Town Council and other local schools as partners.

APPENDIX B Pupils would start off by going to the Academy building nearest to where they live. Some of the older pupils may then spend some of their time at the other sites, depending on what courses they study, so that they can use the best possible facilities.

What do we have now?

Two 11-18 comprehensive schools, Charles Burrell (542 pupils 11-16) and Rosemary Musker (697 pupils 11-16), with the shared Thomas Paine Sixth Form (200 students).

Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker have been getting help from National Challenge, a government programme to make sure that over 30% of young people get at least five GCSEs, including English and maths, by 2011.

Young people have been getting better results recently, thanks to the work of the school staff but an Academy could help them do even better faster – and bring good things for the whole local community too. The Academy proposal has the full support of Moving Thetford Forward, a partnership between Breckland District Council, Norfolk County Council, Thetford Town Council and a wide range of other local organisations.

How would an Academy be better?

The sponsors’ vision is for the Academy to transform education in Thetford by making learning and success irresistible and accessible for all within the community and beyond. It would do this through:

 A carefully planned move from primary to secondary education to give children an excellent start, especially in English and maths, the Academy’s specialisms  Inspiring students to become successful learners, confident individuals and responsive citizens  More choice in their learning with a wide range of practical and vocational subjects  High quality teaching that meets the needs and aspirations of every pupil  More interactive learning, based on what young people want and how they learn best  Careful tracking of each student’s progress  An adult mentor for every pupil and one to one coaching in English and maths.  Staying open longer for study support and a wide range of activities  Students using new technology to be more independent learners  Greater attraction for good teachers to work in the Academy and have better career prospects  Support for pupils from local business and education partners, including universities  Links with schools abroad.

The Academy would be open to local people beyond the school day so everyone could use its excellent facilities. We want the Forum in the town centre to be an inspirational place for learning and community activities for people of all ages.

If Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools close, will children at the schools get into the new Academy?

Yes. There would be enough room at the new Academy for everyone and how you get into it would be the same as getting into any other state school. It wouldn’t depend on whether you can pass exams or what your religion is. APPENDIX B You do not have to send your children there unless you want to. You could apply to a different school instead. The rules for getting a place in the Academy would be the same as in other Norfolk schools.

Would people have to pay for their children to go to the Academy?

No. Academies are free.

If Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools close, what would happen to young people with special educational needs?

Like other state schools in the town, the Academy would be for all children. There would be a full programme of support for children with special educational needs, and their progress will be carefully tracked. There would be no changes to the existing specialist resource bases for learning and autism.

If Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools close, what would happen to the people who work there now?

The Academy would be responsible for appointing all the staff to the new school, but people who work at the Thetford high schools now would transfer to the Academy. Their jobs may not always be exactly the same as the staff structure would be different.

Will some children still get free travel and school meals?

Yes. The rules for free travel and free school meals are the same for children at Academies as for other state schools.

What would the Academy be called?

We don’t have a name yet and if you have any ideas for it, we would like to hear them!

What happens next?

We have to go through a number of stages to establish an Academy and this consultation is the first of those. There will be other chances to hear more about the Academy in the coming weeks.

We will keep parents informed by newsletters and on our website and give you the chance to tell us what the Academy should be like. What you tell us will help us decide about the future of Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools.

On 6 April Norfolk County Council Cabinet will consider the responses to this consultation and decide whether to issue a public notice to close the schools. People would then have from 16 April to 28 May to give further views and make objections. Having heard those views and considered all the factors, Cabinet would make the decision on 14 June about closing the existing school but closure would finally happen only if government ministers then agreed to set up the Academy.

Why is this happening so quickly?

We want to get started as soon as possible so that we can make learning better for young people in Thetford from this September.

APPENDIX B

More information

For more information, go to our website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation, call us on 0344 800 8020 or email [email protected]

What do you think? Have your say

Tell us what you think about the idea of a new Academy.

There will be meetings to hear a presentation about our proposal and have an opportunity to ask questions at

 Charles Burrell High School on 2 March from 5 to 6.30pm  Rosemary Musker High School on 2 March from 7 to 8.30pm

We are also having two ‘drop in’ events at

 Rosemary Musker High School on 9 March  Charles Burrell High School on 10 March where you can come and talk to us at any time between 3pm and 6pm.

Tell us your views By email: [email protected] Phone: 0344 800 8020 Letter: Thetford School Consultation, FREEPOST IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR.

Tell us what you think about this proposal by 24 March 2010

Thank you for reading this

If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 0344 800 8020 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help.

APPENDIX B

An Academy for Thetford: formal consultation on the future of Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools

Go to www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation to fill this form out online

We will put the main points people make about this on our website as soon as we can after this consultation ends on 24 March 2010

Do you think we should close Charles Burrell and Rosemary Musker High Schools and replace them with an Academy?

Please tick one box only.

Yes

No

If you want to say why, please write down your reasons below.

Is there anything else you would like to say or suggest?

APPENDIX B

Please tell us who you are:

Tick box:

I am a pupil at I am a pupil at I am a pupil at Charles Burrell High Rosemary Musker another school School High School I am the I am the I am the parent/guardian of a parent/guardian of a parent/guardian of a pupil at Charles pupil at Rosemary pupil another school Burrell High School Musker School I am a member of I am a member of I am a member of staff at Charles staff at Rosemary staff at another Burrell High School Musker High School school I am a governor at I am a governor at Charles Burrell High Rosemary Musker I am a governor at School High School another school

None of the above None of the above None of the above

Please tell us about any other connections/interest (for example, local resident, member of Parent Teacher Association, local sports group or business).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

First name:…………………………………….Last name:……………………………………….. (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)

Your address:………………………………………………………………………………………..

Postcode:………………………………………….

Your views will help County Council Cabinet Members decide about the future of Charles Burrell/Rosemary Musker High School. This first consultation stage will end on 24 March 2010. The result will be reported to Cabinet on 6 April 2010 who will decide whether to issue a formal public notice to close the schools.

Your comments will be anonymous and will not contain your name or anything that could identify you. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Please return by 24 March 2010 via your local school or post to: Thetford Schools Consultation, FREEPOST IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR.

You don’t need a stamp. APPENDIX C

Formal consultation on the future of

Costessey High School

An Academy for Costessey

What we want to do

Academies are a new kind of high school. They are state schools run by sponsors with skills, knowledge and resources to transform how and what our children learn. They have well-designed new and improved buildings and facilities with excellent ICT.

The sponsors and partners want Costessey to have an Academy that will inspire success for young people in the area from September 2010. We can’t do this without first closing the existing High School. So, we would need to close Costessey High School at the end of August and open the new Academy on the same site and buildings on 1 September.

Before we decide anything, we want to know what you think.

The Costessey Academy

Would have:

 Room for 1,250 11 - 19 year olds

 A sponsor, The Ormiston Trust, a charity that works to support children, young people and families in their communities

 The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, Norfolk County Council and Hobart High School as partners

 Inspirational new and improved buildings with high quality facilities and computer technology

APPENDIX C

Why replace Costessey High School? Why not leave it as it is?

Exam results for young people at Costessey High School had been low for some years and in October 2007 the school was judged by Ofsted inspectors as needing special measures. Young people have been getting better results recently thanks to the work of school staff but an Academy could help them do even better sooner, and bring good things for the whole community too. This is why Norfolk County Council is proud to join with The Ormiston Trust, the lead sponsor, in supporting this project.

How would an Academy be better?

The Academy would be an inspirational place where every student feels they can succeed. It would transform learning for all and raise aspirations and standards through:

 Outstanding teaching and learning designed for the needs of each student  High expectations and personal support for every student  Improved behaviour and attendance  A focus on improving English and maths  Specialisms in Science, especially health education, and Applied Learning with practical courses such as Enterprise Capability, Engineering and Creative Arts and Media  Working closely with local primary schools  Innovative use of new technology  Students having a say in how the Academy runs  Working with families and the community to develop opportunities for learning and activities for people of all ages

The Academy would be open beyond the school day so everyone could use what it has to offer.

If Costessey High School closes, would children at the school now get into the new Academy?

Yes – there would be enough room at the new Academy for everyone and how you get into it will be the same as getting into any other state school. It won’t depend on whether you can pass exams or what your religion is. You don’t have to send your children there unless you want to. You could apply to a different school instead. If there are places, your child would be given a place. If there were no places your child’s name can go on the waiting list or you could appeal for a place

Will people have to pay for their children to go to the Academy?

No. Academies are free.

If Costessey High School closes, what will happen to young people with special educational needs?

Like other state schools in the area, the Academy would be for all children and there will be full support for children with special needs. There would be no changes to the new specialist resource base for behaviour. The needs of low attaining pupils and the gifted and talented would all be met. There would be good support for pupils’ social and emotional development. APPENDIX C

If Costessey High School closes, what will happen to the staff?

The Academy would be responsible for appointing all the staff to the new school, but people who work at Costessey High School now, would transfer to the Academy. Their jobs may not always be exactly the same as the staff structure will be different.

Will some children still get free travel and school meals?

Yes. The rules for free travel and free school meals would be the same for children at Academies as for other state schools.

What will the Academy be called?

We don’t have a name yet and if you have any ideas for it we would like to hear them!

What happens next?

We have to go through a number of stages to establish an Academy and this consultation is the first of those. There will be other chances to hear more about the Academy in the coming weeks.

We will keep parents informed by newsletters and on our website and give you the chance to tell us what the Academy should be like. What you tell us will help us decide about the future of Costessey High School.

On 6 April County Council Cabinet will consider the responses to this consultation and decide whether to issue a public notice to close the schools. People would then have from 16 April to 28 May to give further views. Having heard those views and considered all the factors, Cabinet would make the decision on 14 June about closing the existing school but closure would happen only if government ministers then agreed to set up the Academy.

Why is this happening so quickly?

We want to get started as soon as possible so that we can make things better for young people in the Costessey area.

For more information

 Go to our website - www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation, or

Come and talk to us any time between 3pm and 7pm on 12 March at Costessey High School. At 7pm on that day there will then be meetings to hear a presentation about our proposal and have an opportunity to ask questions.

APPENDIX C

Have your say

Tell us what you think about the idea of a new Academy. You can use the form at the back of this leaflet or send your views in writing, by email, or telephone:

 Write to us at: Costessey High School Consultation Freepost IH 2076 Room 20, County Hall Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR  You can email us at: [email protected]  You can call us at: 0344 800 8020

You can comment until 24 March 2010.

Thank you for reading this

If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 0344 800 8020 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help. APPENDIX C

Consultation on the proposal to close Costessey High School and replace it with an Academy

Go to www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation to fill this form out online

We will put the main points people make about this on our website as soon as we can after this consultation ends on 24 March 2010

Do you think we should close Costessey High School and replace it with an Academy?

Please tick one box only.

Yes

No

If you want to say why, please write down your reasons below.

Is there anything else you would like to say or suggest?

APPENDIX C

Please tell us who you are:

Tick box:

I am a pupil at Costessey High I am a pupil at another school School

I am the parent/carer of a pupil at I am the parent/carer of a pupil at Costessey High School at another school

I am a member of staff at I am a member of staff at another Costessey High School school

I am a governor at Costessey I am a governor at another school High School

None of the above

Tell us about other connections/interest (eg local resident, member of parent teacher association, local sports group or business).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

First name:…………………………………….Last name:……………………………………….. (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)

Your address:………………………………………………………………………………………..

Postcode:………………………………………….

Your views will help County Council Cabinet Members decide about the future of Costessey High School. This first consultation stage will end on 24 March 2010. The result will be reported to Cabinet on 6 April 2010 who will decide whether to issue a formal public notice to close the school.

There is an electronic version of this reply form on our website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.

Your comments will be anonymous and will not contain your name or anything that could identify you. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Please return by 24 March 2010 via your local school or post to: Costessey High School Consultation, FREEPOST IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR.

You don’t need a stamp.

APPENDIX D

Formal consultation on the future of Oriel Mathematics and Computing College

An Academy for Gorleston

What we want to do

Academies are a new kind of high school. They are state schools run by sponsors with skills, knowledge and resources to transform how and what our children learn. They have well-designed new and improved buildings and facilities with excellent ICT.

The sponsors and partners want Gorleston to have an Academy that will inspire success for young people in the area from September 2010. We can’t do this without first closing the existing High School. So, we would need to close Oriel Mathematics and Computing College at the end of August and open the new Academy on the same site and buildings on 1 September.

Before we decide anything, we want to know what you think.

The Gorleston Academy

Would have:

 Room for 900 pupils aged 11-16

 A sponsor, The Ormiston Trust, a charity that works to support children, young people and families in their communities.

 Norfolk County Council and Gresham’s School as partners

 Close working relationships with the other local colleges and schools to develop innovative new courses

APPENDIX D Why replace Oriel Mathematics and Computing College? Why not leave it as it is?

Exam results for young people at Oriel have been low for some years and the school has been getting help from National Challenge, a government programme to make sure that at least 30% of young people get 5 GCSEs, including English and Maths, by 2011. Young people have been getting better results recently thanks to the work of school staff but an Academy could help them do even better more quickly and have benefits for the whole community too. This is why Norfolk County Council is proud to join with The Ormiston Trust, the lead sponsor, in supporting this project

How would an Academy be better?

The Academy would be an inspirational place where every student feels they could succeed. It would transform learning for all and raise aspirations and standards through:

 Outstanding teaching and learning designed for the needs of each student  High expectations and personal support for every student  New ways of learning and support for students that will help improve behaviour and attendance  Specialisms in Maths and Digital Media  A focus on improving literacy and numeracy  Working closely with local primary schools  Innovative use of new technology  Students having a say in how the Academy runs  Working with families and the community to develop opportunities for learning and activities for people of all ages.

The Academy will be open to local people beyond the school day so everyone could use its excellent facilities.

If Oriel Mathematics and Computing College closes, will children at the school get into the new Academy?

Yes. There would be enough room at the new Academy for everyone and how you get into it would be the same as getting into any other state school. It wouldn’t depend on whether you can pass exams or what your religion is. You do not have to send your children there unless you want to. You could apply to a different school instead. The rules for getting a place in future would be the same as in other Norfolk schools.

Will people have to pay for their children to go to the Academy?

No. Academies are free.

If Oriel Mathematics and Computing College closes, what will happen to young people with special educational needs?

Like other state schools in the area, the Academy is for all children. There would be full support for children with special educational needs. The needs of low attaining pupils and the gifted and talented will all be met. There will be good support for pupils’ social and emotional development. APPENDIX D

If Oriel Mathematics and Computing College closes, what will happen to the staff?

The Academy will be responsible for appointing all the staff to the new school, but people who work at Oriel now will transfer to the Academy. Their jobs may be not always be exactly the same as the new staff structure will be different.

Will some children still get free travel and school meals?

Yes. The rules for free travel and free school meals are the same for children at Academies as for other state schools.

What will the Academy be called?

We don’t have a name yet and if you have any ideas for it we would like to hear them!

What happens next?

We have to go through a number of stages to establish an Academy and this consultation is the first of those. There will be other chances to hear more about the Academy in the coming weeks.

We will keep parents informed by newsletters and on our website and give you the chance to tell us what the Academy should be like. What you tell us will help us decide about the future of Oriel Mathematics and Computing College.

On 6 April County Council Cabinet will consider the responses to this consultation and decide whether to issue a public notice to close the schools. People would then have from 16 April to 28 May to give further views. Having heard those views and considered all the factors, Cabinet would make the decision on 14 June about closing the existing school but closure would happen only if government ministers then agree to set up the Academy.

Why is this happening so quickly?

We want to get started as soon as possible so that we can make things better for young people in the Gorleston area.

For more information

 Go to our website - www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation, or come and talk to us any time between 3pm and 7pm on 8 March 2010 at Oriel Mathematics and Computing College. At 7pm there will be a meeting when you can hear a presentation from the sponsor about our proposal and have an opportunity to ask questions.

Have your say

Tell us what you think about the idea of a new Academy. You can use the form at the back of this leaflet or send your views in writing, by email, or telephone: APPENDIX D

 Write to us at: Oriel Mathematics and Computing College Consultation Freepost IH 2076 Room 20, County Hall Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR  You can email us at: [email protected]  You can call us at: 0344 800 8020

You can comment up to 24 March 2010.

Thank you for reading this leaflet

If you need this leaflet in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Tel: 0344 800 8020 Textphone: 0344 800 8011 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help. APPENDIX D

Consultation on the proposal to close Oriel Mathematics and Computing College and replace it with an Academy

Go to www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation to fill this form out online

We will summarise the responses and place them on this website as soon as we can after this consultation ends on 24 March 2010

Do you think we should close Oriel Mathematics and Computing College and replace it with an Academy?

Please tick one box only.

Yes

No

If you want to say why, please write down your reasons below.

Is there anything else you would like to say or suggest?

APPENDIX D

Please tell us who you are:

Tick box:

I am a pupil at Oriel Mathematics I am a pupil at another school and Computing College

I am the parent/carer of a pupil at I am the parent/carer of a pupil at Oriel Mathematics and Computing at another school College

I am a member of staff at Oriel I am a member of staff at another Mathematics and Computing College school

I am a governor at Oriel Mathematics I am a governor at another school and Computing College

None of the above

Please give other connections/interest (e.g. local resident, member of parent teacher association, local sports group or business).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

First name:…………………………………….Last name:……………………………………….. (You don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to)

Your address:………………………………………………………………………………………..

Postcode:………………………………………….

Your views will help County Council Cabinet Members to decide about the future of Oriel Mathematics and Computing College. This first consultation stage will end on 24 March 2010. The result will be reported to Cabinet on 6 April 2009 who will decide whether to issue a formal public notice to close the school.

There is an electronic version of this reply form on the website www.norfolk.gov.uk/schoolorganisation We will summarise the responses and place them on this website at the end of the consultation period.

Your comments will be anonymous and will not contain your name or anything that could identify you. However, we cannot guarantee that this information will be withheld if it is requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Please return by 24 March 2010 via your local school or post to: Oriel Mathematics and Computing College Consultation, FREEPOST IH 2076, Room 20, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2BR.

You don’t need a stamp. Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 11 March 2010 Item no 15

Children’s Services Service Plan 2010-13

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary This paper follows on the Service and Budget Planning reports in November and January and sets out the main proposals within the Children’s Services Service Plan 2010-13. The panel is asked to review and comment upon the approach and agree the process for the completion and monitoring of the service plan.

1 Background 1.1 The Service and Budget Planning reports in November and January set out the context to the development of the Children’s Services Service Plan 2010-13. This plan is only one of a number of plans we produce and it does not stand alone. The Council’s integrated planning framework, shown below, demonstrates the many links and interdependencies of our plans, in particular the connection between the Norfolk Strategic Partnership vision and priorities and the work of our staff. The Service Plan pulls these key threads together giving us a clear focus and practical communication tool.

2. Children’s Services Service Plan

2.1 Our Service Plan sets out the direction and vision and details how we make our contribution to achieving the outcomes detailed in the community strategy.

It also reflects our contribution to Norfolk County Council’s Plan, the Local Area Agreement for Norfolk with our partners as well as the Children and Young People’s Plan, the priorities for which remain unchanged for the forthcoming year.

The Service Plan focuses on the priority actions and is used to help inform planning by teams. It sets out clear actions for delivering their contribution to each objective and the measures to assess progress and success. Norfolk County Council’s values underpin all our work.

2.2 In developing the plan we have not changed the service objectives agreed by Overview and Scrutiny Panel last year. We are, however, proposing two additional objectives to reflect the actions undertaken to improve behaviour in schools and those actions that build vibrant, confident and cohesive communities.

The Service Plan will continue to be developed in detail ready for publication by the 1st April and the draft plan will be made available in the Members Room.

3. Next Steps

3.1 The impact of organisational review

There will be some changes needed to the plan during the year to reflect any changes in how Children’s Services is organised to deliver services arising from Organisational Review. At this stage it would be difficult to reflect these as there is still a lot of ongoing work. The Service Plan will enable Children’s Services Management Team to ensure priorities continue to be delivered against as delivery structures are revised.

3.2 Norwich Unitary

In the event that a city unitary comes into being there will need to be changes to the Children’s Services Service Plan to reflect how services are to be delivered for the children and young people of Norwich and Norfolk.

3.3 Monitoring the plan

As with the current plan we will monitor progress against the budget (financial monitoring), performance indicators, risks and actions in the quarterly Integrated Finance and Performance monitoring report.

Children’s Services Management Team will also review progress against the proposed actions regularly, to assess whether new actions or pieces of work should be included in the plan.

4. Resource Implications

4.1 The resource implications of the Service Plan were covered in part in the November and January Budget and Service Planning Overview and Scrutiny Panel reports.

5. Other Implications

5.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

In developing the Service Plan, a Single Impact Assessment and, where needed, a full Equalities Impact Assessment, is completed in line with corporate guidance.

5.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

The Service Plan aims to ensure resources are focussed on the highest priority needs of children and young people in Norfolk thus ensuring services are as efficient and effective as possible.

6. Any Other Implications

6.1 Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

7. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

7.1 The Children’s Services Service Plan outlines our contribution to the County Council Objective 3 ‘Help make Norfolk a safe place to live and work’.

8. Risk Implications/Assessment

8.1 The Children’s Services risk register contains the key risks to delivering the objectives in the Service Plan.

9. Action required

9.1 Panel members are asked to:

 Review and comment upon the approach

 Agree the proposed process for completing and monitoring the plan.

10. Background Papers

10.1 Children’s Services Service Plan 2009-12.

Officer Contact

Name Telephone Number Email Address

Katherine Attwell 01603 638002 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers, 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.

Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 11 March 2010 Item No 16

Norfolk Youth Offending Team Service Plan 2010/13

Summary

This report provides an account of Norfolk Youth Offending Team’s (NYOT’s) performance and achievements during 2009/10 (figures April 2009 - September 2009) and summarises the planning proposals for 2010/13. Overall NYOT has achieved many of its targets and continues to provide value for money. The Service Plan 2010/13 (Draft 2) will outline the actions, risks and opportunities identified to ensure that outcomes for young people and the victims of their crime are achieved, namely:

Children and young people are law abiding, engaged in positive behaviour and show respect for others and that parents take responsibility for their children’s behaviour.

Communities believe they get on well together and have confidence in the way that crime and anti-social behaviour is deal with by local authorities and the police.

Action Required: (1) This Service Plan forms part of the Council’s Policy Framework. The Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to consider and comment on this plan to support Cabinet Member’s recommendations to Cabinet and Council.

The report will also go to the Fire and Community Protection Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

1. Background

1.1 Section 40 of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act requires Local Authorities, in consultation with their statutory partner agencies, to put in place an annual Youth Justice Plan. The detail of the plan primarily flows from the strategic direction set by Norfolk’s Local Area Agreement and nationally by the Youth Justice Board’s corporate aims and targets for the youth justice system. Norfolk County Council’s Service Planning process provides an excellent framework for the shaping of Norfolk’s Youth Justice Plan. 1.2 The Youth Justice Board also requires all YOTs to undertake the completion of an annual Youth Justice Planning Improvement Framework (YJPIF) and this service plan forms a critical part of that submission. The YJPIF will take place in April 2010. A second inspection of NYOT’s practice by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation is also due to take place towards the end of 2010.

2. Contents of Report

2.1 Position – NYOT has made good progress in a number of key areas particularly National Indicator (NI) targets contained in Norfolk’s Local Area Agreement.

1 2.1.1 The reduction in the number of young people in Norfolk entering the youth justice system for the first time (NI111) has been excellent with 539 fewer young people to date which is a reduction of 32.7% (this is based on 2008/09 Police National Computer data). NYOT data shows a similar picture with a 23.8% reduction for 08/09 and provisional data for Q1 + Q2 of 09/10 showing an additional 23.3% reduction. This compares very well both nationally and regionally.

2.1.2 Those re-offending have also shown an improvement of 16% based on the first quarter 09/10, (using a cohort of young offenders receiving a disposal during January to March 2005 compared to the same period in 2009). This represents a reduction from 0.35 offences to 0.28 offences per young offender. This has been harder to achieve as we are now working with more difficult to engage young people. The number of Black and minority ethnic young people in the system has remained at a proportionate level and victim satisfaction remains good. Communities are now having a much greater say in the reparation work carried out by young people and also remain very much a part of our volunteer workforce.

2.1.3 The target that remains a real challenge is the number of young people who offend who are attending full time (25 hours a week) education, training or employment. This remains at 55% and is lower than the national picture. All NYOT’s targets are contained in the Service Plan.

2.2 Problem – Each young person we come into contact with has a unique set of emotional, developmental and behavioural issues that can cause them to offend or disengage from learning, enjoying and achieving. In Norfolk the latest breakdown is as follows.

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

% 40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% Accomoda Employme Neighbour Substance Physical Mental Perception Thinking & Attitude to Motivation Family Education Lifestyle tion nt hood use health health self/others behaviour offending to change 2008 data 32.6% 58.1% 51.8% 40.8% 20.0% 53.9% 31.5% 4.9% 27.2% 29.9% 74.6% 40.0% 30.2% 2009 data 35.2% 63.8% 53.4% 51.0% 19.2% 58.6% 32.3% 5.3% 28.7% 33.1% 81.5% 46.8% 36.5%

2.2.1 Victims of their crimes also need to have justice restored and communities need to feel safe.

2 2.3 Possibilities – NYOT will continue to develop individually tailored programmes that get to the heart of why young people offend and make a difference to their life chances. We will ensure that victims are consulted about what helps them to have some of the damaged restored and how they want young people to make amends. Full details will be in the Service Plan 2010/13. We will also be developing our consultation and involvement strategies with young people and their families about what made a difference and what we could be doing better.

2.4 Proposal – To continue to develop the work and focus of Norfolk Youth Offending Team in line with national and local priorities.

3. Resource Implications

3.1 Finance: NYOT does not have a base budget. Each year it seeks a contribution from its statutory partners to meet the planned pooled budget expenditure. A number of grants are received for specific purposes. The ‘Approved Budget 2010/11’ assumes grants will be received at the same level as 2009/10. In one case NYOT has been informed that the grant will be cut by 20% and this has been taken into account (see pages 28 and 29 of the service plan). Wherever possible management time and overheads are charged to grant aided budgets and every opportunity is taken to attract funding from outside NYOT. Many budget items in 2010/11 have been contained at the 2009/10 levels without inflation. During 2010/11 some elements of early intervention funding will end and the remainder will cease during 2011/2012. The implications for NYOT’s budgets will be significant and this is a major risk for 2011 and beyond. Planning meetings with statutory partners will take place during early 2010 to try and mitigate the risk.

3.2 Staff: NYOT has a strong and motivated workforce of both paid and voluntary staff. To balance all the 2010/11 budgets, approximately £229,000 of savings have been identified and it has been necessary to make some administration and management staff reductions by not recruiting to some vacant posts.

3.3 Property: Current property is adequate but needs some updating to ensure it is fully compliant with Disability and Discrimination legislation. One small sub-office of the prevention and early intervention unit in North Walsham has been closed during 2009/10 as part of the contribution to efficiency savings.

3.4 Information Technology: There are no identified issues. NYOT is fully connected or has access to both the criminal justice and child care electronic case management and information systems and is currently a national pilot YOT access to Her Majesty’s Court Service System – Libra. The risks associated with information exchange are under constant scrutiny.

4. Other Implications

4.1 Legal Implications: NYOT works within a range of legislation connected with both criminal justice and child care.

4.2 Human Rights: All our activity takes into account human rights legislation and principles.

3 4.3 Equality Impact Assessment: All internal and partnership polices and procedures undergo structured equality impact assessments before being issued. We monitor the ethnicity, age and gender of all our young people on a quarterly basis and carry out a full annual audit to ensure there is no disproportionate activity in what we or the youth justice system does. Before the Service Plan goes to Cabinet a full Equality Impact Assessment will be carried out and any remedial action included.

4.4 Communications: NYOT takes every opportunity to promote its work to local communities as part of Norfolk County Council and the wider criminal justice system. There have been a number of successful events this year including a week long programme ‘Your Justice, Your World’ at The Forum in Norwich.

4.5 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk: Most young people (80%) and their parents/carers tell us that they have learnt from their time with us and outcomes have been improved. Over 85% also said the work completed with us made them think about the effect their behaviour and actions have on victims and communities.

4.6 Health and Safety Implications: All our activity is assessed for levels of risk both to staff and service users.

5. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

5.1. All NYOT’s activity relates to crime and disorder and making Norfolk an even safer place to live and work is a major priority.

6. Risk Implications/Assessment

6.1 Risk implications relating to the work of NYOT are reviewed quarterly with action points included, if required. The Service Plan 2010/13 will contain a full account of the risk implications associated with the achievement of actions, key performance indicators and objectives.

6.2 In the event that the Norwich Unitary proposal goes ahead it will have significant implications for the delivery of this service plan.

7. Action Required

7.1 This Service Plan forms part of the Council’s Policy Framework. The Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to consider and comment on this plan to support Cabinet Member’s recommendations to Cabinet and Council.

7.2 The report will also go to the Fire and Community Protection Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

4 Background Papers

NYOT’s Service Plan 2010/13 (Draft 2)

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Officer Name: Sue Massey Tel No: 01603 223615 Email address: [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

5 Norfolk Youth Offending Team Chief Executives

Service Plan 2010-13 DRAFT 2

Sue Massey

Published March 2010 1

Contents Service profile for Norfolk Youth Offending Team...... 1 The changing context for service delivery ...... 4 External drivers ...... 4 Internal drivers ...... 4 Reviewing performance...... 5 Last year’s performance...... 5 Strategic overview ...... 5 Delivering outcomes...... 6 Contribution to Strategic Ambitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Reducing First Time Entrants...... 8 Reducing Re-offending ...... 12 Contribution to other corporate objectives...... 16 Impact of service...... 17 Business Continuity Management...... 19 Value for Money ...... 20 Service Value for Money Assessment...... 20 Analysis of VFM ...... 21 Customer Focus...... 21 Customer focus improvement actions...... 22 Key performance targets for customer focus ...... 23 Delivering the plan – people management & workforce development...... 24 Workforce development ...... 24 Key performance targets for people management ...... 27 Delivering the plan – financial resources and asset management...... 28 Financial Management...... 28 Asset Management ...... 30 Key performance targets for resources...... 30 Service & Resource Planning Checklist ...... 31 Appendix1 – Staff in Norfolk Youth Offending Team..………………………………………………………………………………………………34 Glossary of Terms …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………35

[Part of montage supplied by careimages.com]

Service profile for Norfolk Youth Offending Team

Service description Norfolk Youth Offending Team (NYOT) is a multi agency partnership. Our purpose is to prevent children and young people from offending and help restore the damage caused to the victims of their crimes. Our aim is to make Norfolk an even safer place to live and help young people achieve their full potential in life. This plan will focus on our two main targets which are:  Reducing the number of children and young people coming into the youth justice system (first time entrants)  Reducing re-offending by children and young people

A restorative approach to our work with young people and victims of their crimes is a key theme running through both main targets.

Service activities and NYOT delivers services aimed at providing interventions to prevent offending and reducing re-offending. volumes Practitioners are seconded from police, health, children services and probation and we also directly employ practitioners with skills in achieving positive change, reducing substance misuse, delivering restorative justice and increasing educational and employment achievements. Service level agreements with various partner agencies and other providers are in place where necessary to support this approach. There is a strong emphasis on creative arts interventions and we plan to continue this in partnership with local arts providers and Cultural Services. Offending behaviour programmes are designed to address the risks presented by young people whilst meeting their individual needs. Restorative practices and making amends to the victims of youth crime is at the heart of what we do. The Sexually Appropriate Young People’s Project continues to provide high quality, intensive interventions for those young people who have behaved in a sexually harmful way. Following the intensive external inspection during 2008 (we came out as a ‘Good’ YOT with sound potential for improvement) we have now implemented the improvement plan. The Inspectorate found that we treated all young people and victims as individuals with equality concerns being central in our interventions and this has not changed.

In relation to external substance misuse services, agreements exist with the countywide provider of services to young people to supplement those directly delivered and also with the local enhanced arrest referral scheme and Warren Hill Young Offenders Institution. NYOT is a substantial contributor to the development of integrated services to children and young people including representation on the Children and Young People’s Page 1 of 36

Partnership Trust Board.

Throughput data for April to September 2009

Number of Young People with Substantive Outcomes* 847 Number of First Time Entrants 414 (based on provisional NI 111 data) Number of YOT Interventions Starting 671 Number of Pre-Sentence reports completed 92 Number of Referral Order Panel Reports Completed 121

* a substantive outcome is any sort of criminal justice response to an offence e.g. fine, final warning, court order.

Customer profile NYOT produces a Race and Diversity audit annually based on current, verified data. The data cited below refers to the period 1st October 2008 to 30th September 2009.

The number of young people in the youth justice system in the period 1st October 2008 to 30th September 2009 in Norfolk was 1622, of which 93.6% were White and 3.1% from the Black & minority ethnic population (3.2% were of unknown ethnicity). 76% were male and 24% female.

3% which is 22 young people out of a total of 742 of Norfolk’s Looked After Children population received substantive outcomes in the criminal justice system during the period April to September 2009 for offences committed whist they were Looked After during the same period. This is lower than the national average of 4%.

Page 2 of 36

Strategic partners Strategic partners include many agencies who deliver services to children, young people and their families in the statutory, community, voluntary and commercial sectors; most significantly schools, the police, all seven local authorities in Norfolk and Norfolk County Council services, especially Children’s Services.

Funding for Youth Inclusion and Support Panels is provided by the Youth Justice Board and Norfolk’s Local Area Agreement through the Area Based Grant.

In respect of the criminal justice system, NYOT works across all relevant agencies both operationally and strategically and most critically through the Norfolk Criminal Justice Board. Our governance arrangements are through NYOT’s Partnership Board, chaired by the Director of Children’s Services. NYOT’s performance is reported through these key structures.

Area context NYOT is based in three, main, operational locations across the county, Kings Lynn, Norwich and Great Yarmouth, with a smaller unit in Thetford for Youth Inclusion and Support Panels. The location and volume of NYOT’s work is primarily driven by statutory activity within the youth justice system. Early intervention is based on areas of most need, such as higher incidents of anti social behaviour.

Page 3 of 36

The changing context for service delivery

External drivers NYOT’s primary drivers are the public’s perception of youth crime and anti social behaviour plus the need for communities to get on well together and how well parents bring up their children. 2010/11 will see a major change in youth justice legislation with the introduction of the Youth Rehabilitation Order and consequent significant differences in the way we work with young people known as the Scaled Approach. Critically, this approach matches the level of risk, vulnerability and need a young person has to the intensity of interventions. The interventions are designed to make positive changes in their behaviour and achievements.

Our ‘wiring up’ interface with other criminal justice and child care agencies will be expanded together with increase capacity for home/remote working.

Other external drivers are:

 Funding streams are not predictable, particularly for early intervention, which is prioritised through the Local Area Agreement, and much will depend on our capacity to continue to gain funding to invest in this area and continue to make efficiency savings.  The Youth Task Force and Youth Crime Action Plan; will bring greater co-ordination between the Ministry of Justice and Department of Children Schools and Families and this will need to be mirrored at a local level. This is achieved through the Criminal Justice Board and the Children and Young people Partnership Trust Board with activity coordinated by NYOT’s Head of Service.  The development of Think Family which is an integrated approach to work with all family members not just the child.  The development of Norfolk’s Integrated Youth Support Strategy will offer further opportunities to improve provision for young people.  Preparation for another National Inspection in the autumn of 2010  The roll out of Criminal Justice; Simple, Speedy and Summary into the Youth Courts whereby cases progress through the courts in a more timely and effective way.

Internal drivers NYOT has performed well in a number of key areas against key indicators of performance and detailed quality audits. Reducing the numbers of low risk young people coming into the youth justice system has meant that we are now working with a greater concentration of medium to high risk and vulnerable young people. We will keep under review and adjust staff skills accordingly. Main internal drivers also include:  the need to ensure that we are fully ready for another national inspection in 2010 Page 4 of 36

 significant changes in management and the need to ensure staff are fully supported to do their jobs well  planning for budget reductions in 2011/12  ensuring we fully implement revised National Standards and new legislation introduced in 2009 Reviewing performance

Last year’s NYOT has made good progress in a number of key areas particularly National Indicator (NI) targets contained performance in Norfolk’s Local Area Agreement. The reduction in the number of young people in Norfolk entering the youth justice system for the first time (NI 111) has been excellent with 539 fewer young people to date which is a reduction of 32.7% (this is based on 2008/09 Police National Computer data). Local data shows a similar picture with a 23.8% reduction for 08/09 and provisional data for Q1 + Q2 of 09/10 showing an additional 23.3% reduction. This compares very well both nationally and regionally.

Those re-offending have also shown an improvement of 16% based on the first quarter 09/10, compared to the same quarter in 05/06 (using a cohort of young offenders receiving a disposal during January to March 2005 compared to the same period in 2009). This relates to a rate of 0.35 offences per young offender, reducing to 0.28 offences per young offender. This has been harder to achieve with the reduction in first time entrants into the criminal justice system, because the proportion of more difficult to engage young people with persistent and entrenched behaviours has increased. The number of Black and minority ethnic young people in the system has remained at a proportionate level and victim satisfaction remains good. Communities are now having a much greater say in the reparation work carried out by young people and also remain very much a part of our volunteer workforce. The one target that has remained a real challenge has been the numbers of young people who offend who are attending full time (25 hours a week) education, training or employment. This remains at 55% and is lower than the national picture.

Strategic overview NYOT is a good performing YOT with high levels of commitment from Partners and staff with good and sustained levels of satisfaction amongst our various service users. Business critical services are preventing offending and re-offending in young people, helping their parents to manage behaviour and restore some of the damage caused to their victims. We have made excellent progress with reducing the numbers of young people coming into the system for the first time and this will be maintained. 2010/11 will see us focus on those who reoffend and by further developing what we do to make a greater difference to their lives and those of potential victims.

Page 5 of 36

Delivering outcomes

The following causal maps demonstrate how NYOT helps young people and victims of crime to experience better outcomes. These outcomes are expressed through Norfolk Ambition, through County Council Plan objectives, and through objectives within key thematic plans. The service objectives identify how the service delivers these outcomes.

Service plan map for NYOT

Page 6 of 36

Contribution to Strategic Ambitions NYOT will contribute to Norfolk’s strategic aims by making it a safer place to live and work and to enable young people to make a positive contribution to their communities and prevent negative impacts on others.

Page 7 of 36

Corporate Objective 3 Safety Service Objective 1 Reducing the numbers of young people who offend in the first place (first time entrants) Responsible officer Chris Small: Deputy Head of Service What success would  Children and young people would be law abiding, engaged in positive behaviour and show respect for look like others and that parents take responsibility for their children’s behaviour.

 Communities believe they get on well together and have confidence in the way that crime and anti-social behaviour is deal with by local authorities and the police. Performance measures.All data reported below relates to the period Apr to Sep 09 , unless otherwise stated updates will be provided as soon as the data is available. Indicator – should be LAA no. Result 09/10 Target Target Target Target relevant across the 3 years 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 of the plan Reduce first time entrants NI 111 Performance figures are not available until November 2010 at earliest.

Baseline set using 07/08 2008/09 performance showed a 1980 – 2000 1920 – 1940 To be To be data from PNC and reduction of 32.7% on baseline per 100, 000 per 100, 000 agreed agreed expressed as a rate per with 539 fewer young people 100,000 of 2,060 of the 10- entering the criminal justice 17year old population system for the first time. The performance was 1398 per 100,000.

Proxy data based on local measures for the first half of 2009/10 (which tend to under- estimate actual performance) show a further 23.3% reduction over the previous year proxy

Page 8 of 36

measure.

Ensure 90% of young people N/A 72.9% of young people 90% 90% 90% 90% subject to YISP interventions completing a YISP programme in are engaged in education, April - September 2009 were in training and employment receipt of 16+ hours of (ETE) education.

Ensure that 60% of the N/A 61.0% [36/59] of the parents of 35% 60% 60% 60% parent/carer(s) of young young people completing a YISP people on prevention programme in April - September programmes receive a 2009 received a parenting parenting intervention intervention

Service actions

Action Milestones – 6 months Milestones – 12 months Owner Ensure NYOT delivers accurate assessments that Evidence of further Evidence of further Chris Small-Deputy Head of link to effective intervention plans for young people reductions in those reductions in those Service subject to YISP interventions designed to reduce coming into the system coming into the system risks and strengthen protective factors for the first time for the first time

To further improve risk and vulnerability assessment, All YISP staff have All appropriate cases YISP Practice Managers management and planning including clear received and understand are discussed in management oversight risk, vulnerability and supervision and actions safeguarding training completed

Provide actions to ensure positive outcomes for Feedback from the user Feedback from the user YISP Practice Managers young people survey received. survey actioned.

‘Over to You’ completed ‘Over to You’ completed and translated into the and translated into the Page 9 of 36

ONSET assessment in ONSET assessment in 75% of cases. 100% of cases.

Ensure 90% of young people subject to YISP 80% in ETE 90% in ETE Chris Small-Deputy Head of interventions are engaged in education, training and Service employment Ensure that all young people in receipt of prevention Individual need are met Individual need are met Chris Small –Deputy Head programmes through NYOT are treated as individuals of Service and that there is no disproportionate activity

Ensure that 35% of the parent/carer(s) of young 50% receiving parenting 60% receiving parenting Chris Small-Deputy Head of people on prevention programmes receive a Service parenting intervention

Risks and opportunities Risks  Performance failures by partner agencies  Partner agencies reduce funding or are unable to provide services  Failure to secure continued core funding  Lack of public confidence Opportunity  The countywide implementation of the Common Assessment Framework provides an additional opportunity for the accurate and efficient early identification of children’s additional needs that are not being met. The role of the Lead Professional to act as a single point of contact, supporting children and families in navigating their way though the system and ensuring they get appropriate interventions when needed. Contact Point is a basic on-line directory providing a quick way to find out who else is working with the same child making it easier to better share information and deliver more coordinated support  The continued development, through the local Children and Young People’s Partnership Trust Boards, of Integrated and Targeted Youth Support services and the provision of early, targeted, intervention, should provide enhanced services to children and young people including those at risk of offending or anti-social behaviour.  We will continue to work through the Children and Young Peoples Partnership Trust and its developing Prevention & Early Page 10 of 36

Intervention Strategy and the associated action plan which is aimed at improving outcomes for all children, young people and families in Norfolk.  The continued development of the widest use of restorative approaches across the authority and partners  We are committed to delivering efficiencies by reducing our carbon footprint. To do this we will ensure offices are run efficiently and our transport needs are managed as effectively as possible. A full action plan will be worked on in early 2010.

The above opportunities contribute to the chance to work in a more integrated manner with a full range of statutory, community, voluntary and commercial sector agencies delivering services to children, young people and their families in the prevention field leading to more effective and wide reaching service provision and targeting.

Resource Implications The youth crime prevention programme managed by NYOT has a strong potential to continue to deliver to this National Indicator NI 111, but the project does need continued partnership buy in if it is to succeed. In particular the current funding streams expire in March 2011 and whilst the current level of support is sufficient, it is subject to short-term agreement. To make best use of all Norfolk’s activity with early intervention we will continue to work through the Children and Young Peoples Partnership Trust and its developing Prevention & Early Intervention Strategy and the associated action plan which is aimed at improving outcomes for all children, young people and families in Norfolk Dependency on Strategic Projects All of NYOT’s activity is aligned with LAA projects connected with Children and Young People and Community Safety, more explicitly:  Development of Norfolk’s Integrated Youth Support Service including Targeted Youth Support  Progress and action under the Youth Crime Action Plan  Commissioning services under the Children and Young Peoples Partnership Trust commissioning framework  The Children and Young Peoples Partnership Trust Prevention & Early Intervention Strategy and the associated action plan  Listening to what our customers say about the service they receive and making changes in services to meet need

Page 11 of 36

Corporate Objective 3 Safety Service Objective 2 Reduce the numbers of young people who re offend Responsible officer Sue Massey - Head of Service What success would  Children and young people would be law abiding, engaged in positive behaviour and show respect for look like others

 Victims of crime would feel some of the damage caused had been restored and the public would have confidence and feel protected Performance measures. All data reported below relates to the period Apr to Sep 09 , unless otherwise stated updates will be provided as soon as the data is available. Indicator – should be relevant LAA Result 09/10 Target 09/10 Target 10/11 Target 11/12 Target 12/13 across the 3 years of the plan no. Reduction in re-offending (Baseline 19 Data for this indicator runs 6 1.08 1.07 To be agreed To be set using January to Mach 2005 months behind reporting, agreed cohort – re-offending rate 1.09 ) resulting in the 2008/09 outturn being the only full Note for Members: This measure year data available, which looks at the number of offences had a rate of re-offending of committed by young people (a 1.09, exactly the same as cohort) over a 12 month period, with the baseline, which in itself a target to decrease or stop further is an improvement of the offending. The result is a ratio of the predecessor to the current number of offences per young indicator. The first quarter of person in the cohort. 2009/10 has seen a The data is reported on quarterly to reduction of 16% when produce an annualised cumulative compared to the baseline (A figure. quarterly rate of 0.35 has reduced to 0.28).

Page 12 of 36

Ensure 75 % of young offenders are 45 54.6% (189/346) 75% 75% TBC TBC engaged in education training and employment Ensure 95 % young offenders have 46 94.9% (355/374) 95% 95% 95% 95% suitable accommodation Ensure that all young offenders are 44 All groups are within 1.3% No No No No treated as individuals and that there of the proportions found in disproportion disproportion disproportiona disproportion is no disproportionate activity the 10-17 yr old Norfolk ate activity ate activity te activity ate activity population. . A recent audit of 36 cases also noted that arrangements were made to minimise the impact of all identified discriminatory or disadvantaging factors and full attention paid to the intervention methods most likely to be effective with the individual in all cases Maximise the use of community 43 5.2% (28/543) 5% 5% 5% 5% orders and minimise the use of custody. Proportion for custody no One case less would have higher than 5 % led to the target being achieved. Service actions

Action Milestones – 6 months Milestones – 12 months Owner Ensure 100% assessments link to effective Completion of 2 day Increased number of Area Managers intervention plans for young people subject to NYOT Assessment training “Successfully interventions across NYOT. Completed” Evidence of clear links Interventions and

Page 13 of 36

between assessments subsequent lowered and interventions in ASSET scores. 75% of cases. Evidence of clear links between assessments and interventions in 100% of cases.

Provide parenting interventions in at least 25% of Level 1 Parenting Parenting interventions Area Managers cases Assessment to identify in at least 25% of cases suitable for cases. parenting interventions undertaken in 100% cases at PSR / Initial assessment stage.

Maximise the engagement of victims in restorative Victim’s wishes Restoratives Justice Area Managers processes by ensuring at least 25% have a say in the incorporated into audit to evidence level restorative process intervention plans at least 25%. evidenced in 25% of cases.

Following user survey provide actions to ensure “What Do You Think” “What Do You Think” Area Managers positive outcomes for young people. completed in 75% of completed in 90% of cases. cases.

Page 14 of 36

Risks and opportunities Risks  Performance failures by partner agencies or contradictory performance targets  Partner agencies reduce funding or are unable to provide services  A lack of public confidence in the youth justice system  New legislation asking for increased service delivery and no additional finances to meet its requirements Opportunity  The introduction of new ways of working (The Scaled Approach) that will assist with more effective targeting, better use of resources and increased learning opportunities for staff  The national Children’s Plan, the development of Integrated Youth Support and the Youth Crime Action Plan provide an opportunity for enhanced services to children and young people who offend  Improving Health, Supporting Justice - developing partnerships and joint commissioning in establishing, shaping and delivering local services  Increased focus on what young people, their parents /carers and victims are telling us to improve the effectiveness of services.  Engaging communities for them to say what young people should do to make amends for their offending behaviour

Resource Implications We will need to maintain the current level of funding from the partnership and the YJB to deliver on the desired outcomes. We can improve our efficiency by improving performance. The Scaled Approach will bring some realignment in the way resources are allocated. Current planning assumes that the associated revised National Standards will allow for greater focus on those in need rather than a ‘one size fits all ‘approach.

Page 15 of 36

Dependency on Strategic Projects All of NYOT’s activity is aligned with LAA projects connected with Children and Young People and Community Safety, more explicitly:  Development of Norfolk’s Integrated Youth Support Service  Progress and action under the Youth Crime Action Plan  Commissioning services under the Children and Young Peoples Partnership Trust framework  Improve performance and implement Integrated Offender Management through the Norfolk Criminal Justice Board  Listening to what our customers say about the service they receive and making changes in services to meet need

Contribution to other corporate objectives Service: Norfolk Youth Offending Team

Actions/activities proposed Corporate Objectives 1 to 9 Action/activity proposed Milestones – 6 Milestones – end of Responsible officer months year Lead a strategic approach to 75 % of young people in full 75% 75% Chris Small the development of the Norfolk time education training and economy employment Help make Norfolk a safe Reduction in young people NI 19 & NI 111 both NI 19 & NI 111 both on Sue Massey place to live and work who offend and re-offend on track track or better Improve educational 75 % of young people in full 75% 75% Chris Small attainment & help children time education training and achieve their ambitions employment Improve the health and well- Implement recommendations Action plan 50% Action Plan 100% Helen Taylor being of Norfolk’s residents in Health Needs Assessment complete complete of young people who offend Build vibrant, confident and 95% of victims satisfied with 95% 95% Chris Small cohesive communities the service they receive

Page 16 of 36

Impact of service

When providing public services we are expected to work in a way that not only provides good value financially, but is also equitable, sustainable and customer focused. In preparing service plans, services are required to conduct a Single Impact Assessment (SIA) that assesses the potential positive and negative impacts of the proposed actions against a range of cross-cutting themes. Completing a SIA is an essential part of planning at NCC; it is a simple tool to help those who plan services or who are making decisions to quickly identify and manage those key cross-cutting issues. The SIA is primarily a scanning tool and is not intended to be a detailed impact assessment – by answering the questions you should be able to quickly judge whether a more detailed assessment of impact is required. Full details of how and why a SIA should be completed are outlined on the SIA Tool. The findings of this assessment are summarised here, along with any further actions to mitigate against negative impacts or promote positive impacts.

Theme Impact Further actions

1. Community cohesion & NYOT’s services are based on and designed to We will maintain our constant identification of any equalities meet individual need with specific focus on disproportionate activity within the youth justice difference. In respect of community cohesion our system by regular review of data. primary focus is to reconcile young people with  Continue to review and evaluate services to all their communities and reduce youth crime and the young offenders with specific focus on young fear of crime. women who offend to have an impact on their offending behaviour  Through supervision of staff consistently review practice with young people from BME groups. Consistently review and develop our work with young people who display any discriminatory behaviour or attitudes

2. Accessibility planning Most of our office venues are disability compliant Invest further in ensuring compliance for and we constantly review what we do to make accessibility. sure services are accessible to all who need and work within them.

Page 17 of 36

3. Environment & sustainability The main issue for NYOT is rurality and the need We will seek to maximise travel efficiencies at all to travel long distances by car to see children and times, for example, seeing young people in similar their families. localities on the same trip

4. Deprivation Many of the young people we work with come Under Every Child Matters we will strive to ensure from deprived areas and research shows young people achieve and have high aspirations comparative offending can be high. We work for their futures extensively with partners in areas of deprivation to mitigate against its impact.

5. Health and Well-being The health and well being of our client group is Further develop our assessment skills and ensure critical to young people being able to make a the right service is offered at the right time to make positive contribution a difference

6. Crime & disorder The whole of our activity directly relates to crime The plan covers in detail what we will do to reduce and disorder activity youth crime in Norfolk

7. Safety & welfare Safeguarding children and public protection are at We will fully implement risk assessment the centre of what we do and will further this /management and safeguarding policies objective.

Page 18 of 36

Business Continuity Management

Business Continuity Management Critical Activities/Priority  Supervision of young offenders particular those who are high risk or vulnerable and support for Services their families  Youth Court Duties  Safeguarding children and public protection  Early intervention for high risk young people Risks  Loss of IT infrastructure  Loss of buildings  Pandemic outbreak affecting over half of the workforce Action  Staff able to take on a number of different roles  Good home working arrangements  Standalone copy of case management system  Critical suppliers have validated Business Continuity arrangements Planning  Contributing to Corporate arrangements with detailed NYOT arrangements  Operational plans in place for critical activities or priority services that have been tested.  Plans are documented on Corporate Business Continuity

Page 19 of 36

Value for Money: Service Value for Money Assessment

Value for Money Analysis Eastern Region YOTs 14

Suffolk 13

12 Hertfordshire Luton

11 Norfolk Bedfordshire

10 Thurrock

Peterborough Performance score Performance 9

8 Southend-on-Sea Cambridgeshire 7 Essex

6

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 £/head of 10-17 pop

Page 20 of 36

Analysis of VFM From the above chart it can be seen that NYOT is providing good value for money when comparing cost per head of 10 to 17 year old population against National Indicator derived performance scores. To the left (or above) the line represents better performance for cost and using this Norfolk is shown to have 2nd best performance in the Eastern region. Value for Money Improvement Actions  Continue to improve performance in all key areas to further increase value for money  Undertake a full review of service activity and performance against predicted budget for 2011/13 by June 2010 and implement any changes to our profile by March 2011  Review all posts to ensure we have the best value delivering the best possible service

Customer focus Meeting the ten customer service quality determinants Norfolk County Council’s Customer Services Strategy specifies ten customer service quality determinants. These are the aspects of service delivery which must be consistently excellent in order to provide excellent customer service overall.

Determinant What this means Service Comments and evidence Assessment (Green/Amber/Red) Access The ease and convenience of accessing the service Green Feedback from our service users is good in the majority of cases Communication Consistent, accessible plain English communication Green As above with strong feedback mechanisms Competence Staff with the skills and knowledge to provide the Green Good overall performance and the service majority of staff believing they have the skills to do the job( 2009 NCC staff survey) with regular monitoring of this though supervision and appraisal.

Page 21 of 36

Courtesy Staff at all levels who are polite, respectful, friendly and Green Young people tell us that their supervising show consideration NYOT worker treats them with respect. 100% of victims have been satisfied with the service they receive Credibility A trustworthy service with a strong reputation and Green Feedback from partners image Reliability Published service standards. Providing consistent, Amber/Green We have national standards that are met accurate and dependable service to these standards most of the time but more consistency is needed Responsiveness Dealing with problems quickly, responding to and acting Green Complaints are dealt with without delay on feedback Security Ensuring the physical safety, financial security and Green Recent Audit shows good compliance confidentiality of customers Tangibles The physical aspects of the service such as equipment, Amber/Green Good levels of IT to enable staff to do their facilities, staff appearance job. Some improvements in our offices physical appearance is needed Understanding Understanding our customers and knowing individual Green Last years national inspection showed us the customer customer needs as very strong in this respect

Customer focus improvement actions

 Produce new information leaflets by June 2010  Carry out a review of waiting areas and make improvements as required by December 2010  Understand what our service users are saying would have worked better and make changes by December 2010

Consultation and customer research The table below summarises the planned consultations throughout the timeframe of the plan, and what is known from other forms of customer research to inform service changes.

Planned consultations  We consult all young people at the end of their time with us & customer research  We consult all victims about the service they receive from us  We will consult a cohort of parents during 2010  We will consult partners throughout the year about the progress we are making and what needs to be Page 22 of 36

done differently  We will consult with communities to shape reparation activity

Customer insight As above Key performance targets for customer focus From 2009/10 there is a new corporate framework for measuring and setting targets for performance against the Council’s key customer care standards: This data is supplied centrally.

 Telephone calls answered within 15 seconds  Letter and fax enquiries answered in full within 10 working days  Email and text enquiries answered in full within 3 working days  Visitors that are seen within 5 minutes of appointment time  Registered complaints that get a detailed reply within 20 working days

.

Page 23 of 36

Delivering the plan - people management & workforce development

Workforce Development The below table summarises key people management issues and plans for the service Staff profile See attached Appendix 1 Workforce planning NYOT has a strong and motivated workforce of both paid and voluntary staff. We continually keep our staff profile under review and consider the way NYOT is designed, to ensure we are fit for purpose.

The current organisational review of NCC makes the sensible recommendation that NYOT is relocated from the Chief Executives’ Department to the Children’s Services Directorate. The report proposes that the management structure is left unchanged with a view to reviewing arrangements following an external inspection anticipated in late 2010. To balance all the 2010/11 budgets, approximately £229,000 of savings have been identified and it has been necessary to make some administration and management staff reductions by not recruiting to some vacant posts

New youth justice legislation and ways of working were introduced nationally on the 30th November 2009. NYOT had identified a half-time post within its operational management structure to lead our preparation for the Scaled Approach, Youth Rehabilitation Order and revised National Standards. It will be critical to learn the lessons before we embark on any major change. It can be anticipated that as the year progresses further opportunities to refine the middle management structure will arise and service needs in relation to practice delivery as well as the further evolution of the organisational review will be fully considered and addressed.

NYOT is fully involved in the Children and Young People’s Workforce Development Strategy both at a local level and nationally. In September 2009 the Children and Young People’s Partnership Trust published Developing a Workforce for Norfolk; a framework that describes an approach to workforce development that is locally led and firmly based on the needs of children and young people as well as the workforce itself. It creates a new approach to planning, educating and training Norfolk’s workforce that is firmly integrated with service planning, locally across the partnership and Norfolk. It describes how we will jointly improve the quality of services for children, young people and their families through more targeted professional development and by involving service users and the workforce in the improvements required.

Page 24 of 36

Training and staff NYOT designs its learning and development plan to provide a pro-active agenda of participation and access. development This includes regular joint training with key children and young people service providers, and accessing Norfolk County Council opportunities. Regular meetings of training managers from partner organisations and the YJB Eastern Region Training Consortium enable the pooling of skills and expertise and a core staff development and learning programme is identified. These linkages are a vital part of the forward planning supporting the Every Child Matters agenda and the multi-disciplinary approach to our work with young people. New and emerging practice issues identified from local and national audit processes also inform the training programme. NYOT has significant induction and ongoing learning and development, supervision, appraisal and evaluation systems in place, which have been accredited through the Investors in People standards and are fully supported by Norfolk County Council policy and procedures. NYOT has recognised the need for a structured development progression for our staff and volunteers and fully utilised the Youth Justice Board’s National Qualification Framework. From the outset, NYOT has been committed to the national aim of providing a children’s workforce, with a common purpose, vision, values, language, and behaviours, focused on achieving positive outcomes for children and young people. One that provides integrated working practices, delivered by a high quality, appropriately trained workforce with complementary roles focused around young people and children, and underpinned by the five key Every Child Matters objectives. These were crystallised in September 2009 with the publication by the Children and Young People’s Partnership Trust of Developing a Workforce for Norfolk Over the next three years these developments will impact on and drive NYOT’s learning and development and will require a clear focus, ensuring that national youth justice legislative requirements are also fulfilled. NYOT seeks to receive the benefits of recruiting staff that are fully prepared for their roles, with the right skills, knowledge and experience but is also prepared for the task of further developing the careers of its varied workforce. Joint work with the Youth Justice Board will see NYOT continue to utilise nationally accredited training programmes from the Open University developed to help equip managers, those responsible for staff development and practitioners for the changes that have resulted from the implementation of the Scaled Approach and the Youth Rehabilitation Order. These are supported by continuation of the National Qualification Framework enabling youth justice staff to gain professional qualifications developed by the Open University. From 2009 this was supported by a comprehensive, e-learning process known as the Youth Justice Interactive Learning Space containing interactive courses, which are flexible, accessible and enable learning to take into account each learner’s requirements. Our work with volunteers continues to develop. The professional youth justice qualifications have become accessible via the Open University, enabling our unpaid colleagues excellent opportunities to extend skills, knowledge and expertise. This offers a more accessible career pathway for those not already employed

Page 25 of 36

within the youth justice system by providing the skills, knowledge and abilities to do the job and a number of our current paid staff started with us as volunteers. Our volunteer training programme is now well-established and varied, including a structured induction programme delivered over 5 days and supported by monthly support evenings, which incorporate bite sized learning opportunities and the regular supervision of volunteers. Policies and processes are now fully inclusive of the volunteer workforce.

Health, safety and The health and safety needs of NYOT staff are well met by a rigorously applied Health and Safety Policy and wellbeing Procedure, sustained by a robust training programme for key responsible staff and fully supported by specialist advice from a dedicated member of the Corporate Health and Safety team; whose role is to provide advice, guidance and assistance to help ensure NYOT is able to manage health and safety issues effectively.

The allocated corporate Health and Safety Adviser attended the NYOT Operational Management Team meeting in May 2009 to report back on activities completed in the previous year and agree the priority actions for 2009. These included:

 Line Managers to undertake a review of the driving for business risk assessment in line with NCC Corporate Motor Policy. Also reinforce NCC policy of not using blue tooth hands free sets whilst driving.  Reinforce the use of the monthly analysis monitoring of CRYSIS; the lone working policy in NYOT  Operations Managers to visit two reparation sessions, unannounced.  Operational Management Team members were reminded to speak to the corporate Health and Safety Adviser for advice and inspections resources.  The corporate Health and Safety Adviser to attend the NYOT Operational Management Team six monthly to carry out and review agreed actions.  The corporate Health and Safety Adviser to prepare a brief for County Administration and Strategic Management Teams publicising the use of the Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Service (IPRS)  Outcomes from incident reporting should be fed back to individuals.  All Units are engaged with developing a Well Being culture.

Page 26 of 36

Key performance targets for people management Include here any performance indicators that you use to monitor people management and workforce development. Corporate HR is currently evaluating which indicators they can provide data for corporately.

Indicator Result 09/10 Target 09/10 Target 10/11 Target 11/12 Target 12/13 Average days staff sickness 5.70 days per FTE at 6.00 7.50 7.00 7.00 the end of September 2009 projected to be higher. Staff turnover – Most staff have left to In the 9 month period <20% <20% <20% <20% gain promotion resulting in many internal April – December moves. 2009, from a total paid workforce of 110, 13 (11.8%) staff left NYOT altogether and 8 (7.3%) staff joined us. % of NYOT staff who have had a formal 84% 100% 100% 100% 100% appraisal with their line manager in the last twelve months (source: NCC Employee Survey 2009) % of NYOT staff who have regular one- 95% New measure 100% 100% 100% to-ones or supervision meetings with their line manager (source: NCC Employee Survey 2009) % of staff who feel they understand the 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% NYOT service objectives (source: NCC Employee Survey 2009) % of NYOT staff who have confidence in 79% New measure 80% 90% 100% the senior management of NYOT (source: NCC Employee Survey 2009) Page 27 of 36

Delivering the plan – financial resources and asset management

Financial Management The table below shows the approved budget for this year and the indicative budget for future years

Approved Budget Indicative Budget Indicative Budget 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Gross Income 4,667,173 To be confirmed To be confirmed

The “Approved Budget” figure above includes an “in-kind” contribution from partners of £830,026 in respect of seconded practitioners.

Details and commentary:

Details and commentary: NYOT does not have a base budget but each year seeks a contribution from partners that will meet net Pool Budget expenditure. A number of grants are received for specific purposes and in arriving at the “Approved Budget 2010/11” figure it has generally been assumed grants will be received at the same level as 2009/10 although some level of inflation might be given with some of the grants. In the case of Connexions funding, NYOT has been informed that the grant will be cut by 20%. To balance all the 2010/11 budgets approximately £229,000 is needed from the Commissioning Budget and it has been necessary to make some staff reductions and to not recruit to some vacant posts. Wherever possible management time and overheads are charged to grant aided budgets and every opportunity is taken to attract funding from outside NYOT. Many budget items in 2010/11 have been contained at the 2009/10 levels without inflation. During 2010/11 some elements of Early Intervention funding will cease and the remainder will cease during 2011/2012. The implications for NYOT’s budgets will be significant and these will be considered together with the implications of the Scaled Approach implementation at a number of financial planning meetings to be held with funding providers. It is not possible at this time to say what the budget is likely to be in 2011/12 and 2012/13.

The source of NYOT’s 2010/11 funding is shown on the next page.

Page 28 of 36

PARTNERS CONTRIBUTIONS TO POOL BUDGET Children’s Services 1,091,289 Health 126,296 Norfolk Constabulary 189,444 Norfolk Probation 136,133 ` 1,543,162 YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD GRANTS General Funding 458,114 Referral Orders 153,447 Intensive Supervision & Surveillance Programme 191,386 Prevention 419,072 Keeping Young People Engaged (K Y P E) 61,725 Norfolk Drug & Alcohol Partnership - YJB contribution 116,891 Integrated Resettlement Support 55,000 1,455,635 OTHER “GRANTS” Norfolk Drug & Alcohol Partnership contribution / YJB 47,836 Connexions 109,969 Area Based Grant 310,930 Challenge and Support 75,000 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership 65,000 608,735 USE OF COMMISSIONING BUDGET 229,615

PARTNERS “IN-KIND” CONTRIBUTION – SECONDED STAFF Children’s Services 492,679 Health 106,993 Norfolk Constabulary 145,128 Norfolk Probation 85,226 830,026 TOTAL 4,667,173

Page 29 of 36

Asset Management The below table shows key information about the planned use of assets during the period of this service plan. Extent of current assets We currently lease the following accommodation: 45 Netherwood Green (on County Hall site) – 91.53 sq mts (HQ) 49 Netherwood Green (on County Hall site) – 80.58 sq mts (HQ) Graphic House, Thorpe Road, Norwich – 226 sq mts (Operational Unit) Havenbridge House, Great Yarmouth – 367.45 sq mts (Operational Unit) Asset House, Kings Lynn – 234 sq mts (Operational Unit Two rooms in The Enterprise Factory, Thetford – 39.60 sq mts (YISP Operational Unit) Sufficiency of assets We will continue to review sufficiency during 2010/2011 to ensure assets meet service demands. Impact on assets To be reviewed when budget is finalised. How changes will be Current accommodation is considered satisfactory. delivered

Key performance targets for resources Include here any performance indicators that you use to monitor financial resources and asset management. Corporate Finance is currently evaluating which indicators they can provide data for corporately. Indicator Result 09/10 Target 09/10 Target 10/11 Target 11/12 Target 12/13 Budget variance Anticipated Break even Break even Break even Break even shortfall of £124,000 now predicted to be underspend of approx £62,000 £ efficiency savings We have not Achieved Many budget filled posts to items in 2010/11 make savings of have been £102,840. contained at the 2009/10 level without inflation Page 30 of 36

whist maintaining service delivery. % invoices paid within 28 days This information will be collected corporately

Service & Resource Planning Checklist

The following checklist has been completed and signed confirming that the necessary steps have been taken in preparing this service plan and resource plans.

No. REQUIREMENTS Y/N COMMENT Context and drivers 1 Have you considered the major external factors and trends over the next 5 Y years? 2 Have you used customer information to review and shape your plan? Y 3 Have you considered the corporate drivers around customer focus, finance, Y people management, asset management, VFM, efficiency savings and corporately significant projects? Corporate outcomes and performance challenges

4 Does your plan clearly identify how service objectives deliver corporate Y objectives (community outcomes)? 5 Have you reviewed past and current performance, used comparative data, Y considered customer experiences and referred to audit and inspection recommendations? 6 Does your plan identify key areas for improvement and sustaining progress, Y performance measures and targets – over the next 3 years? 7 Have you considered how your key service actions contribute to achieving our Y Strategic Ambitions? Page 31 of 36

No. REQUIREMENTS Y/N COMMENT 8 Have you assessed and demonstrated how your service provides value for Y money? 9 Does your plan assess emerging opportunities and risks and identify how these Y will be managed? Impact of the service on customers, citizens and communities

10 Have you assessed your service using the ‘single impact assessment tool’ and Y put in place appropriate actions? 11 Have you assessed your service against the 10 determinants of quality Y customer care specified in the Customer Care Strategy and identified any further improvements that need to be made? 12 Have you considered and identified any health, safety and wellbeing issues that Y may arise from your service objectives and put in place appropriate actions? Requirements for service delivery and transformation 13 Does your plan identify the critical activities and actions that are needed to (a) Y sustain progress, and (b) deliver necessary improvements (including any transformational changes) in order to achieve stated outcomes? 14 Does your plan identify the resource implications necessary to enable delivery Y (including staff, budget, accommodation and ICT requirements etc) and are the required resources in place? 15 Does the 3 year financial plan (including capital programme) adequately reflect N A full review of needs for next 3 years will the resources implications of the plan, including cost pressures, service be carried out in April 2010 demands, improvement targets, opportunities for efficiencies and revenue implications of capital schemes? 16 Have you assessed and incorporated cost and savings opportunities for delivery Y of services within the Local Area Agreement in the 3 year financial plan? 17 Have you assessed and incorporated risks relating to business continuity? Y Engagement in planning preparation for service and financial plans 18 Have you engaged your team/staff at appropriate stages in development of the Y plan and resource requirements? 19 Have you engaged your Review Panel and Cabinet Member? Y

Page 32 of 36

No. REQUIREMENTS Y/N COMMENT 20 Have you engaged any relevant strategic/funding partners? Y Decision Making 21 Are all proposals requiring policy change, budget investment or reduction Y supported by evidence of option appraisal, whole life costs, assessment of risks and impact on such as equality, diversity and sustainability? And implications reported to members and COG?

Format & Publication 22 Has the plan overview been created in Prism? n But will be 23 Is the plan available on the intranet? n But will be In-Year Monitoring & Review 24 Have you put in place arrangements for regular performance and budget Y monitoring against plan and periodic review? 25 Have the service objectives been translated into team and individual objectives, Y which will be evident in appraisals?

Head of Service (or equivalent) Date: Signature: Chief Officer and on behalf of Norfolk YOT Management Board agreed on??/?/?? Date: Signature:

Page 33 of 36

Staff in the Youth Offending Team (by FTE) as at 31st December 2009 Appendix 1

Managers Managers Senior Senior Practitioners Practitioners Administrative Sessional Students/ Volunteer Total Strategic Operational practitioners practitioners (FT) (PT) And trainees (FT) (PT) Operational Support

Permanent 5 9 36 5.15 25.34 80.49 Fixed Term 5 5 Secondee Children’s 1 8 0.5 9.5 Services Secondee Probation 2 1 3 Secondee Police 3 0.54 3.54 Secondee Health 1 1

Secondee Connexions Secondee Other Outsourced Temporary 1 1 58 60 Vacant 1.5 4 5.5 TOTAL 5 10.5 1 55 7.19 26.34 5 58 168.03

Gender/Ethnicity White Male 2 1 1 16 1.21 3.6 12 36.81 Black Male Asian Male Mixed Race Male 1 1 Chinese/Other Male White Female 3 8 33 5.98 22.24 5 45 122.22 Black Female 1 1 Asian Female 1 1 Mixed Race Female 0.5 0.5 Chinese/Other Female Vacant 1.5 4 5.5 TOTAL 5 10.5 1 55 7.19 26.34 5 58 168.03

Page 34 of 36

Glossary of Terms

Common Assessment Framework Standardised approach to accurately and efficiently identify, early one, additional needs of children and young people Community Orders Orders made in the Youth Court, offering a wide range of interventions depending on the needs and behaviour of the young person Contact Point Basic on-line directory providing a quick way to find out who else is working with the same child Creative Arts Interventions Using arts and drama to engage hard to reach young people in learning CRYSIS NYOT’s lone working support system to ensure all staff are safe Enhanced Arrest Referral Scheme Help to those substance misusing young people at the point of arrest Integrated Offender Management New multi agency approach to working with some of the most problematic offenders in Norfolk, both young and adult Integrated Youth Support Strategy Promotes effective joint working with key partners to raise aspirations and attainment of children and young people. It brings together a range of service areas to plan, design and subsequently deliver improved quality services for all young people Intensive Interventions Ways of working with young people that cover 24 hours, 7 days a week for set periods to change their behaviour and enhance opportunities National Standards These govern what Youth Offending Teams must do Offending Behaviour Programmes Ways of working with young people on court orders that are designed to reflect what is currently known about achieving positive results Parenting Interventions Specific programmes to help parents manage their children’s behaviour more effectively Reparation Any activity undertaken by a young person that gives something back to the victim or the community Restorative Approach A way of working with the offender and victim that attempts to repair the harm done to the victim and is based on reconciliation, restoration, healing and rehabilitation Scaled Approach Tailoring the intensity of interventions, depending on the needs and behaviour of the young person Sexually Appropriate Young People’s Project Ways of working with young people on court orders that are designed to reflect what is currently known about achieving positive results but specifically designed to change inappropriate sexual behaviour Think Family An approach that encourages local services to adopt a system of joined-up support, taking into account family circumstances and works in partnerships with families Youth Crime Action Plan Comprehensive, cross-government analysis of what the government is doing to tackle youth crime. The scheme advocates greater police enforcement, targeted action, earlier

Page 35 of 36

intervention and greater support for parents Youth Inclusion and Support Panels Early intervention before young people come before the Courts to improve their behaviour and opportunities before this becomes entrenched Youth Justice Board Non departmental public body, overseeing the work of Youth Offending Teams. Works to the Ministry of Justice and Department of Children, Schools and Families Youth Rehabilitation Order New Court order offering a wide range of interventions, depending on the needs and behaviour of the young person Youth Task Force A national package of actions and funding to do even more to tackle the root causes of bad behaviour and prevent young people getting involved in the first place

Page 36 of 36 Report to Children’s Services O & S Panel 11th March 2010 Item No 17

Annual Approval of the Statement of Purpose of Norfolk’s Residential Children’s Homes and a Summary Review of the year

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary

To comply with the Children’s Home Regulations 2001 and meet the requirements prescribed in the National Minimum Standards 2002, each children’s home Statement of Purpose must be approved annually by the registered provider.

In the case of Local Authority children’s homes the registered providers are elected Members.

1. Background

1.1 As outlined above, legislation required that there is a clear Statement of Purpose for each of our children’s homes. The Statement of Purpose must detail the aims and objectives of the home and how a number of standards (as set out below) will be met. Standards include:

- Planning for Care - Quality of Care - Complaints and Protection - Care and Control - Environment - Staffing arrangements - Management and administration

In addition each home must provide a children’s guide, which explains the purpose of the home and explains how a child can complain and access advocacy.

2. Range of Provision

2.1 Norfolk County Council runs 8 children’s homes:

Foxwood (Sprowston)

A home to provide short-term breaks for 6 children and young people aged between 5 – 17 years with severe learning, physical or sensory disability with complex health needs. At present there are 35 children accessing this service.

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 1 of 7 Marshfields (King’s Lynn)

A home to provide short-term breaks for 4 children and young people aged between 5 – 18 years with a severe learning, physical or sensory disability, multiple disabilities or complex health needs. At present there are 30 children accessing this service.

16C Harvey Lane (Thorpe St Andrew)

A home to provide emergency service for 4 children and young people aged between 12 – 17 years.

Sparrow Hall Farm (Blofield)

A 1/2 bedded crisis intervention unit for children and young people aged between 8 – 17 years.

16 Well Green (Frettenham)

A 2 bedded crisis intervention unit for children and young peopled aged between 8 – 17 years.

85A Waterworks Road (Norwich)

A 2 bedded crisis intervention unit for children and young peopled aged between 8 – 17 years.

Easthills (Costessey)

A long-term residential home for 6 children and young people aged between 11 – 17 years.

Garfield House (Dereham)

A long-term residential home for 6 children or young people aged between 13 – 17 years.

A copy of each children’s homes Statement of Purpose and children’s guides are available in the members room. The Statement of Purposes are on the Children’s Services intranet. To go to them click on the ‘Children and Families’ link, and then select the ‘Looked After Children and Families’ link, then select ‘Looked After Children’.

2.2 Norfolk’s range of residential provision is enhanced through several Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with voluntary providers. These providers must maintain their own Statement of Purposes for their own children’s homes, and Norfolk County Council routinely monitors their compliance to care standards. These SLAs are with:

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 2 of 7

Earthsea House – 8 bedded Run by Childhood First therapeutic unit for children aged 5 – 12 years.

Merrywood – 4 bedded unit for Run by Childhood First children aged 11 upwards.

Break Units Break Charity

North Street Children’s Home Long-term Children’s Home 5 bedded unit for 8 – 18 years.

Tennyson Avenue Long-term Children’s Home 4 bedded unit for 8 – 18 years

Yarmouth Road Long-term Children’s Home 4 bedded unit for 8 – 13 years

Rosedale Long-term Children’s Home 4 bedded unit for 10 – 18 years

Cromer Road Long-term Children’s Home 4 bedded unit for 8 – 18 years.

Children with Disabilities (CWD) units Break

Norfolk Bed Scheme – 1 bed Short-term purchased Respite for 5 – 18 years Short-term Nelson Lodge – 6 bed Respite for 5 – 18 years

Magpie Family Assessment – units Undertakes family assessment during court for up to 4 families proceedings

As can be seen Norfolk’s overall range of residential provision covers a wide spectrum in order to meet the diverse needs of our children. We have a total of 76 beds available; 32 in-house and 44 purchased via SLA’s.

2.3 Children’s Services Residential Strategy is based on providing a wide range of high quality, value for money provision within the county to meet the needs of the children who require residential placement. Wherever possible we try to ensure that children and young people looked after can be done so as close to their home of origin as possible.

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 3 of 7

2.4 The Children’s Services County Manager is leading a comprehensive review of all residential services (including agency placements), in order to ensure our range of residential provision can meet the needs of our children. Provisional results indicate there is a shortfall in the numbers of smaller children homes who can assess children in crises.

3 Summary of the Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) of Norfolk County Council Children’s Homes

3.1 Ofsted undertakes an unannounced 2 day visit to each children’s home once a year. The purpose of this inspection is to assure children and young people, parents, the public, local authorities and government of the quality and standards of the service provided. The inspection is carried out under the Care Standards Act 2000. Their subsequent report details the main strengths of provision inspected, and any areas for improvement identified during the inspection. The judgements in the report are made in relation to the outcomes for children set out in the Children Act 2004 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for the service. Reports of their findings are published. There is a requirement of the home to produce and action a reply to the ‘notice of requirements’ identified by Ofsted in relation to their findings.

3.2 The attached table (Appendix 1) shows the inspection judgements in relation to the most recent inspection of each Local Authority home which indicates that of our 8 children’s homes, 2 were judged as being outstanding, 3 as good, 3 satisfactory. A definition of judgements are found on Appendix 1. Easthills has achieved its fourth consecutive ‘outstanding’. The Ofsted report stated ‘the overall quality rating is outstanding with an outstanding feature in all six outcomes. Each young person is receiving a focused level of care and support that successfully promotes their personal, social and educational development. Young people are able to make meaningful contributions to the running of the home because their views and opinions are valued’. The feedback from the inspector is the home should be held up as an exemplar for all residential childcare. As can be seen from the attached table our residential provision continues to provide our children and young people with high quality services.

3.3 There were no serious concerns raised in the inspections. On two occasions the inspectors have commented on the physical buildings. One was in relation to the size of a medical room at Marshfields, the other about the speed of which the bath took to fill at Garfield. Both issues are or have been addressed. The majority of other findings related to the traditional problems of record keeping, recording and monitoring. As a result all requirements and recommendations from our inspections have been addressed and further improvements have been made on management systems, administration and recording.

3.4 We continue to achieve positive improvements in the occupancy levels across both our own children’s homes and within our purchased SLA placements as can see in Appendix 2. This has continued to improve the cost effectiveness of our services and at the same time has preserved the high quality of the residential provision for our looked after children.

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 4 of 7

4 Developments in the residential system over the last year

4.1 The educational provision and achievement for looked after children continues to improve. Any child coming to live in one of the local authority homes has an immediate assessment of their educational needs and a provision is sourced as quickly as possible to ensure that no young person will miss any of their education. All young people have their own laptops to ensure that they have access to all material and sources needed to undertake their studies. Each home has dedicated facilities to enable children/young people to do their homework/studies in an appropriate environment. Together with the help of the Virtual School the “catch up” programme (which involves primary carers reading regularly with the children) is being rolled out within our children’s homes.

4.2 Children’s Services have this year been developing a support service for families of adolescents facing family breakdown. The service called the County Adolescent Prevention Service (CAPs) is allied to our residential provision at 16’c’. This allows emergency and respite accommodation to prevent long-term admissions to the care system whilst the families are worked with.

4.3 Young people from our children’s homes are represented on our Children in Care Council and the issues for children in residential care are forming part of the joint agenda being created. One result has been the standardisation of pocket money rates between children in fostering and those within residential.

4.4 After a dialogue had started with Holt Hall, the residential sector has been exploring the beneficial possibilities for young people to get engaged in horticultural projects. As a result, one young person is working on a garden project at Holt Hall and the children’s home where he lives. The residential sector is exploring opportunities to develop this project further.

4.5 An application has been put forward to the Heritage Lottery Fund for 7 residential children’s homes to work alongside an Arts project to complete individual pieces of public art demonstrating the key elements of the 2012 Olympic Games. These are:-

- Excellence - Equality - Respect - Friendship - Inspiration - Determination - Courage

Each piece of art will be linked to the history or story of the geographical area of the children’s homes involved. It is hoped this project will be supported by Heritage Lottery Funds and work can begin this summer.

4.6 Apart from the roll out of the 2000 Children Act, new minimum standards for residential care have been out for consultation. These standards have been looked at in detail and their contents have been translated in the Norfolk County Council Corporate Parenting Development Plan.

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 5 of 7

4.7 The Care Matters agenda is promoting the adoption of the social pedagogy approach in residential care. Social Pedagogy can be summarised as a holistic approach to caring for children in residential settings, combining education and care and emphasising the shared responsibility of parents and wider society. Children’s Services together with the University of East Anglia have developed a ‘foundation degree course’ in Social Pedagogy over 3 years and 5 places are available from September 2008.

5. Resource Implications

5.1 Property:

- Marshfields extension to the bedrooms is planned for completion this year.

- Sparrow Hall Farm (Blofield) is having an extra bedroom added to increase the permanent occupancy level from 1 to 2. Again this extension will be completed this year.

6. Other Implications

6.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

As can be seen in the purpose and functions documents, all our homes are committed to policy, procedures and practice that enforce equality and address the poor outcomes for this group of children.

6.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

Children’s Services deliver a range of residential homes to meet the needs of young people who require residential care. As can be seen from the quality of care as judged by Ofsted, and our own quality assurance checks, our children’s homes are having very positive effects on the outcomes for our young people.

6.3 Any Other implications

Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.

7 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

7.1 All our residential children’s homes are using restorative approaches in order to reduce children and young people being criminalised. This technique helps young people to recognise the harm that they have caused others. This requires a young person to have the capacity of empathy and the understanding of the harm that they have caused. The skills of the worker are to work with both the harmer and the harmed without blaming, and to arrive with a resolution acceptable from both parties. The County Manager, Youth Offending Team and the Police have drawn up a draft protocol to look at Restorative Approaches across all services.

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 6 of 7 8. Action Required

8.1 Members are asked to recommend the approval of Statements of Purpose and Functions for all the Local Authority children’s homes to Cabinet to comply with the Care Standard Act 2002.

Background Papers

List here those papers referred to in compiling this report. (Only those that do not contain exempt information).

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:

Cathy Larkowsky, Service Development Manager, Residential Tel: 01603 306363 Email: [email protected]

Malcolm Griffiths, Corporate Parenting Service Manager Tel: 01603 222574 Email: [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

Malcolm Griffiths & Cathy Larkowsky Version 1 Page 7 of 7

APPENDIX 1

Childrens Residential Homes Recent Ofsted Inspection Findings

Homes Overall Outcomes – Children Act 2004 Date of Inspection Inspection Healthy Safe Achieve Positive Economic Organisation Findings and Enjoy Contribution Well-Being 16c Harvey Lane Satisfactory Good Good Good Good Good Satisfactory 15.01.10 Waterworks Road Satisfactory Good Satisfactory Good Good Good Good 22.07.09 Well Green Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Frettenham 3.12.09 Sparrow Hall, Blofield Good Good Good Outstanding Good Good Good 30.06.09 Easthills Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding 20.1.10 Garfield Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Good Satisfactory 18.11.09 Foxwood Good Good Good Outstanding Not Judged Good Good 18.03.09 Marshfields Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Good Good Outstanding 13.1.10

Key: Not Judged Quality in previous inspection meant inspection this year not necessary. Outstanding This aspect of the provision is of exceptionally high quality. Good This aspect of the provision is strong. Satisfactory This aspect of the provision is sound. Inadequate This aspect of the provision is not good enough.

APPENDIX 2

Childrens Homes Occupancy Levels April 2009 – January 2010

Homes April May June July Aug Sept October Nov Dec Jan Average occupancy to date Cromer 100% 100% 100% 93.55% 85.48% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95.4% Road North 80% 65.16% 50.65% 53.55% 60% 59.33% 59.35% 60.68% 80% 80% 64.9% Street Rosedale 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 102.5% 105.65% 100% 100.8% Tennyson 75% 87.10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96.2% Avenue Trafalgar 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Lodge Yarmouth 100% 100% 100% 86.29% 94.35% 95% 100% 98.33% 75% 97.58% 94.6% Rd Easthills Rd 97.22% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.7% Frettenham 96.67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 61.67% 70.97% 61.67% 85.45% 100% 87.7% Garfield 79.44% 100% 96.67% 83.33% 83.33% 83.83% 83.33% 77.78% 66.67% 76.88% 83.1% House Waterworks 100% 100% 100% 96.77% 95.16% 100% 100% 100% 74.19% 100% 96.6% Road Merrywood 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% House Earthsea 100% 100% 100% 97.58% 75% 79.17% 87.50% 87.50% 98.75% 100% 92.6% House Blofield 100% 100% 100% 148.39% 83.87% 176.67% 138.71% 120.00% 135.48% 203.23% 130.7%