Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Date: Thursday 13 January 2011

Time: 2:00pm

Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich

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

Membership

Mr G Cook (Chairman)

Mr R Bearman Ms D Irving Dr A Boswell Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr B Bremner Mr W Nunn Mr M Brindle Mr M Scutter Miss C Casimir (Vice-Chairman) Mr B Spratt Mrs J Chamberlin Mr P Wells Mrs S Gurney Mr A Wright Mrs S Hutson

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 A Thomas

Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Member

Mr T Garrod Vulnerable Children Mrs J Murphy Education To view reports click on links shown in blue

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 (Page 1)

To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel held on 7 October 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 10 January 2011. 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. 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 10 January 2011. Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda.

7. Cabinet Member Feedback

Overview Items

8. Service and Financial Planning 2011-2014 (Page A1)

To set out the financial and service planning position for Children’s Services for 2011-14, including a summary of the results of the Big Conversation consultation.

9. Fair Funding: Consultation Outcome (Page 11)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services.

10. Schools Budget 2011/12 (Page 103)

Report by the Director of Children’s Services.

11. Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance (Page 133) Monitoring Report 2010-11

Report by the Director of Children’s Services.

Scrutiny Items

12. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny (Page 143)

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: 5 January 2011

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

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Minutes of the Meeting Held on Thursday 7 October 2010

Present:

Miss C Casimir (Vice-Chairman in the Chair)

Mr R Bearman Mr M Kiddle-Morris Dr A Boswell Mr W Nunn Mr B Bremner Mr M Scutter Baron M Chenery of Horsbrugh Mr B Spratt Mr T Garrod Dr M Strong Mrs S Gurney Mr P Wells Mrs S Hutson Mr M Wilby Ms D Irving Mr A Wright

Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative:

Dr B Carrington

Non-Voting Cabinet Member:

Mrs A Thomas

Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Members:

Mr J Carswell Vulnerable Children Mrs J Murphy Education

Non-Voting Co-Opted Advisors:

Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr M Sale Norfolk Governors’ Network

Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman announced that due to a forthcoming operation Mr Cook was unable to attend and chair the meeting. On behalf of the Panel the Chairman wished Mr Cook a speedy recovery.

1. Apologies and substitutions

1.1 Apologies were received from Mr Cook (Mr Wilby substituting), Mrs Chamberlin (Baron Chenery of Horsbrugh substituting), Mr Brindle (Dr

Strong substituting) and Mr Poulson.

2. Minutes

2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2010 were agreed by the Panel and signed as an accurate record of the meeting.

3. Declarations of Interests

3.1 The following personal interests were declared:

3.2 Mr Kiddle-Morris - item 12 as a Governor of the Litcham Federation of Schools with cooking kitchens.

3.3 Dr Strong – item 9 as local member for Wells, which included the Field Study Centre.

3.4 Mrs Thomas, Dr Strong, Dr Boswell, Mr Bremner, Mr Wilby and Mrs Gurney – item 10 as having a SureStart nursery in their division.

4. Items of Urgent Business

4.1 There were no items of urgent business.

5. Public Question Time

5.1 Appendix A to these minutes sets out the questions and replies to public questions.

6. Local Member Issues/Member Questions

6.1 Local Member comments or questions were taken at the beginning of each relevant item.

7. Cabinet Member Feedback

7.1 The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services noted that in the recent OFSTED inspection the Adoption Unit had achieved ‘Outstanding’ in all categories. The Panel congratulated them on this achievement.

Scrutiny Items

8. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny

8.1 The annexed report (8) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report asked Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny.

8.2 During the discussion the following points were made:

2  The anti-bullying statistics were noted to be better than comparable Local Authorities. The table on page 22 showed the results of a survey and it was acknowledged that children may not have been aware that action was taken. An element of incorrect completion of the survey was also likely. It was important to understand what the results meant and their correlation with sources such as OFSTED findings and school council reports.

 Tackling of cyber-bullying was noted as an area with excellent work with training taking place in schools. This was a new form of bullying and strategies would be developed as more was learned about it.

 Policies around possession of mobile phones in classes were a matter for individual schools to decide. It was acknowledged that in some areas this had been a problem, and that some teachers had experienced harassment via this medium.

 Concerns were raised that the highest rate of non-activity in relation to reported bullying was experienced when the child contacted the police or a helpline. Work was underway with Norfolk Police and organisations such as Childline to address this.

 It was noted that item 4 of the Forward Work Programme – Promotion of Green Issues – needed more focus. It was clarified that this included better use of energy and environmental sustainability. The title would be reworded to provide more clarity.

8.3 The Panel AGREED:

 to approve the scrutiny topics listed and their reporting dates.

 to approve the Terms of Reference for the scrutiny review of the levels of attendance in schools.

 that an additional scrutiny review of anti-bullying did not need to be added to the list.

No further topics were added to the Forward Work Programme.

Overview Items

9. Future Provision for Environmental and Outdoor Learning; Outcomes from the Holt Hall and Wells Field Study Centre Consultations

9.1 The annexed report (9) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report provided a summary of the outcomes of the consultation on the future use of Holt Hall and Wells Field Study Centre. It explored the options for future use and made recommendations for the way forward.

3 9.2 The Local Member for Holt gave his view that Holt Hall was a valuable asset that should be kept by the County Council, as children had gained so much from it, and that the Communications Team needed to better market the facility.

9.3 During the discussion the following points were made:

 The profile of the two facilities had been raised through the consultation. The facilities gave Norfolk an opportunity to become a national leader in Environmental and Outdoor Learning.

 Concern was raised that swift disposal of one of the facilities would provide a quick release of capital but could result in a loss of the services that were provided. It was suggested that the assets could be more valuable in six to twelve months time. It was clarified that a sale would not be completed for at least six months, providing time for community partnerships to formulate proposals. The sale would include a clause relating to continuing provision of the existing facilities in some form. It was noted that the clause needed to be secure to ensure that the facility was used as an educational resource in perpetuity.

 It was noted that the pragmatic approach was to sell Wells Field Study Centre which was in a more saleable position, and retain Holt Hall which needed some investment. It was suggested that a caveat to the Cabinet approval could be included to note that proceeds from the sale could only use used for improvements to Holt Hall.

 Concern was expressed that public information had stated that there would be a time period between the end of the consultation and the decision being made, and that the community had not been given sufficient time to formulate a bid.

 It was clarified that 3 full time equivalent posts had been cut in a bid to minimise deficit, which was expected to be £20,000 by the end of March 2011 for the Wells Field Study Centre.

 The success of the How Hill Trust in operating that facility in a similar situation was highlighted.

 It was noted that there was an interested buyer for Wells who wished to continue with education provision from there. It was felt that the release of capital was appropriate provided the services were still available from the facility.

 Approximately £35,000 of repairs were required to the Wells facility, and a full repairing lease was not considered to be a viable option.

 Queries were raised regarding the customer base if the facility was run privately, and whether charges would be capped. It was noted that the Council would have no jurisdiction over the charges levied, however if it

4 retained the facility it would have to move to full cost recovery anyway.

 It was noted that research into the under-use of both facilities could be useful and that focus on the customer market could bring in additional revenue streams. It was noted that Holt Hall had seen an increase in usage by 10% in the last two months and that both facilities offered very different resources. Holt Hall was at 80% occupancy for term time (Monday to Friday) so the main growth area was weekend and holiday time.

 The following motion was proposed and seconded: ‘This Panel recommends to Cabinet that a final decision on disposal of Wells Field Study Centre is delayed for at least six months in order to further develop the issues and suggestions from the consultation to date.’

 The Panel voted 4 in favour and 11 against the motion, therefore the motion fell.

9.4 The Panel AGREED the above comments in relation to Wells and Holt Hall.

10. Government In-Year Spending Reductions: Phase 3 Children’s Centres and Early Years Quality and Access Funding

10.1 The annexed report (10) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report summarised the review process to date and reassessed all projects subject to these budgets. It then identified a revised package of programme reductions against the principles and recommended that the package was passed to Cabinet.

10.2 The Local Member for Henstead agreed with the recommendation in Annex 4 relating to Poringland Early Years.

10.3 During the discussion the following points were made:

 Meetings were still taking place regarding this project and the Panel and Cabinet would be updated regularly.

 Councillors welcomed the news that where Phase 3 Children’s Centres were to be cut alternative arrangements would be put in place to ensure provision using existing resources wherever possible.

 It was noted that the proposal in 2.2 to use additional Extended Schools funding predominantly to support local Early Years projects should not apply to Phases 1 & 2 children’s centres.

10.3 The Panel AGREED:

To note the report and the above comments and recommended that Cabinet approved the programme of reductions and the continuation of the

5 programme as proposed in the report, together with lifting the spending freeze.

11. Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Report – Quarter 1 2010-11

11.1 The annexed report (11) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report updated the Panel on performance and finance monitoring for the 2010-2011 financial year.

11.2 During the discussion the following points were made:

 Concern was expressed that the cost of Looked After Children (LAC) was rising and that more accurate predictions should be made. The criteria relating to LAC’s were determined by the Children’s Act and no change had been made to the decision-making criteria. When numbers rose, details of children taken into care were circulated to key contacts which included the Cabinet Member. The Director of Children’s Services had every confidence that children were not being taken into care unnecessarily. It was noted that the key priority was to ensure that those who needed to be in care got the very best value for money, while preferably staying in Norfolk.

 The dip in performance on page 70 showing 59% of initial assessments completed within 7 days, followed by 55.9% within 10 days as at July 2010, was queried. It was clarified that this was due to a change in how information was collected, recorded and calculated. These figures were based on government calculations. Changes had been made to CareFirst to improve the accuracy of recording. Fortnightly meetings took place to monitor compliance with the new system.

 The projected 2.5% revenue budget overspend was highlighted. Work was underway to determine what money had been committed. Spending on non-essential goods and services had ceased and contracts for non-frontline staff had been put on hold. Identified savings would be reported in November.

 The variance of £-4.464m relating to provision for Modern Reward Strategy (MRS) was clarified as relating to a schools budget provision for unknown MRS costs. Financial commitments relating to MRS had been completed therefore this sum was released from the balance sheet into the schools budget.

 The variance of £-0.708 relating to the Building Schools for the Future reserve fund was clarified as a 2010/11 provision that the budget did not incur and which was allowed to be carried forward. This was removed from the balance sheet when it was not required.

 The forecast overspend in relation to Looked After Children (LAC) transport costs related to a provision for £1m savings, where only

6 £60,000 could be made in savings. The forecast overspend in relation to LAC legal costs was the result of a change in the legal requirements in relation to assisting families.

 A request was made that schools moving out of special measures were reported in the quarterly monitoring paper.

11.3 The Panel AGREED:

To note the report.

12. School Catering Project: Outcomes

12.1 The annexed report (12) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report set out the results of the school catering project and identified short and long term efficiencies within the service.

12.2 During the discussion the following points were made:

 The ‘more personalised approach to the delivery of a meals service to individual schools’ was clarified as meaning that Norse would provide a generic Service Level Agreement (SLA) to which the school could add or remove specific requirements. Prices would be calculated on the basis of requirements.

 70% of produce was seasonally locally sourced. Norse aimed to source locally as much produce as possible. It was noted that schools were encouraged to source local to their area, not just local to Norfolk.

 It was noted that during severe weather every effort was made to provide some form of meal to a school that took delivery of meals if a school with a supplying kitchen was closed. It was acknowledged that a reinforcement of the message that alternatives to closure were available would be helpful.

 It was noted that the vision for the project was very focused on primary schools, however as the project progressed it would focus on monitoring secondary schools together with primary schools that did not use Norse as the main supplier for catering.

12.3 The Panel AGREED the above comments relating to the Schools Food Strategy, noted the changes to the delivery of the primary schools meal group contract and the introduction of a formal Service Level Agreement, and noted the current consultation with schools on the introduction of the Service Level Agreement as a mandatory part of the school meals group contract from April 2011.

13. School Funding 2011/12 – Consultation Response

7 13.1 The annexed report (13) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report set out the contents of the Coalition Government consultation paper on the funding of schools during 2011/12.

13.2 During the discussion the following points were made:

 The measurement and distribution of funding in relation to the pupil premium was analysed using census data via ACORN which defined deprivation in different types of households and gave a better match. Further detail would be provided.

13.3 The Panel AGREED the above comment on the proposed response to the Department for Education’s consultation on School funding 2011/12.

The meeting concluded at 4:55 pm.

CHAIRMAN

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

8 Appendix A

Public Questions

Question from Ben Francis: “In relation to the report ‘Future Provision for Environmental and Outdoor Learning; Outcomes from the Holt Hall and Wells Field Study Centre Consultations’, would the panel consider allowing more time if a partnership is highlighted and agreed with possible funding streams and business ideas before confirming a decision on Option C sale with a clause?”

Reply from the Chairman: “The County Council decided to reduce the funding for Wells FSC from 1st April 2010. Continuing to operate the Centre until September 2010 has meant that funding for other activities will have to be diverted to pay the costs at Wells FSC. Therefore any delay in making a decision about the future of the Centre has further cost implications for Children’s Services and the Environmental and Outdoor Learning Team, at a time when budgets are hard pressed to meet demand. We are aware that there are ongoing discussions between potential members of a local partnership and we would wish to enable these discussions to reach a conclusion. The process of moving from a Cabinet decision on the sale of the premises to the actual sale will allow sufficient time for the partnership to prepare their proposal.”

Question from Jonathan Savoury: “As a long standing District Councillor I recognise the financial pressure the County Council is under. However the Council should not be seeking to sell this nationally acclaimed centre. Will the Panel recommend to Cabinet that NCC retains ownership thereby allowing time to make arrangements for ‘tenants’ who can offer residential educational learning for young people on environmental issues and/or community activities?”

Answer from the Chairman: “The recommendations to Cabinet being discussed by this Panel this afternoon includes the option of the future use of Wells as an educational resource. My previous answer also indicated the possibility of a potential purchaser being interested in a local partnership and with ongoing educational use. However, as stated in the previous answer, the financial situation needs to be resolved a matter of urgency.”

Question from John Martin: “The report relating to item 12 on the agenda - Schools Catering Project - refers to the commissioning of a research project. Were external consultants employed in this respect and, if so, (a) what was the cost to the Council and (b) why could the research not have been carried out in-house?”

Answer from the Chairman: “Yes external consultants were employed at a cost of £29,992. External consultants were employed as, after careful consideration, it was clear that internal resources were not available to undertake this work. The external consultants brought a set of skills in terms of analysis and contractual frameworks together which was not available internally. They also had immediate access and knowledge on the detailed operation of the school meals service in a number of other similar local authorities.”

9 Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 13 January 2011 Item no. 8

Budget Proposals 2011-14 (Report of the Director of Children’s Services)

Executive Summary The report provides Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel with:-  The overall financial planning context agreed by Cabinet was of cost pressures over three years of some £95m; inflation assumptions based on a 2 year pay freeze, but with a pay award of £250 for those earning under £21,000, 2% for general inflation, with 4% for school and social care transport costs, and £60m loss of Government Grant over the next three years.  Details of the Local Government Settlement which includes 90 grants (including Area Based Grants) being reduced to nine core grants in 2011/12, a formula grant reduction in 2011/12 of £29.449m and a decrease of £17.189m in 2012/13; the ending of all non frontline school related grants £8m: the transfer of £72m school specific grants into the Dedicated Schools grant; a per pupil cash freeze on the Dedicated Schools Grant; the creation of an Early Intervention Grant formed from previous grant streams valued £29.351m in 2011/12 and increasing to £31.164m in 2012/13.  A detailed list of £16.464m costs and pressures facing Children’s Services in 2011/12.  A detailed list of proposals for £24.526m savings in Children’s Services in 2011/12 together with details on how the proposals, if approved, might be implemented.  A summary of the main feedback of the Big Conversation consultation which for Children’s Services have centred on the proposals for  Ending the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over;  Ending the subsidy for denominational transport;  Re- designing and re-shaping the special educational needs service;  Ceasing County Council funding for youth services;  Reducing the scale and capacity of services that provide support for Looked After Children and School Improvement, and  Schools responses focussed on the reduced level of support for teaching and for all aspects of school activity.  An outline of the priorities for the use of the £30m school’s capital grant allocation for 2011/12.

Recommendation Members are asked to consider and comment on the following:  The proposed core role and strategy for the County Council, as set out in section 5, and  Spec ific revenue budget proposals and capital programme for Children’s Services, as set out in section 6 and 7. 1. Background

1.1 On October 26th the County Council launched the Big Conversation, a consultation about the future role of the County Council, and about specific budget proposals for 2011-2014.

1.2 The context for this consultation is the Council’s need to bridge a predicted budget gap over the next three years of at least £155 million. This ‘gap’ is made up of:- increasing costs, increasing demand for services, inflation and a reduction in Government funding for local authorities.

1.3 This paper brings together, for Panel Members, the following:

 Financial and planning assumptions agreed by Cabinet in September to inform the Council’s budget proposals

 An updated budget position for Children’s Services, based on the local government settlement published in early December

 A detailed list of costs and pressures facing Children’s Services

 A detailed list of proposals for savings in Children’s Services

 A summary of the results of the Big Conversation consultation, including public and stakeholder feedback on the savings proposals.

2. Financial and planning context

2.1 The context for the County Council’s three-year planning was set out by Cabinet in its report in September. This highlighted some significant policy changes for local government:

 A shift to localism, where as much decision-making and accountability is devolved from national to local government, with an expectation on local government to devolve to local communities and local areas where practicable

 A drive to build capacity in communities to enable groups to take on the ownership of assets, or the running of public services in local co- operatives or social enterprises

 The removal of ring-fencing of some previously specific grants, to allow the public sector more freedom in targeting monies where there is need and in making efficiency savings

 An end to a top-down performance regime, and a shift to local self- publishing so local people can scrutinise performance and spending

 A move in the NHS to GPs holding budgets and commissioning healthcare for local populations

 The abolition of Regional Development Agencies, and an opportunity for local areas to establish Local Economic Partnerships in their place

 The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, and with them, targets for house-building.

2.2 Services were asked to plan on the basis of the following financial assumptions:

 Cost pressures for the County Council over three years of some £95m, of which population change accounts for £41m and inflation £37m.

 Inflation - a 2 year pay freeze, but with a pay award of £250 for those earning under £21,000 in line with the Chancellor’s Budget Statement in June; and 2% for general inflation, with 4% for school and social care transport costs.

 A £60m loss of Government Grant over the next three years.

2.3 Taking both cost pressures and loss of grant together suggested a funding requirement, for services to stand still, for Norfolk over the next three years in the order of £155m.

3. Update on Local Government Settlement

3.1 The Government announced a two year Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement on 13th December 2010, covering 2011/12 and 2012/13. It has been issued for consultation with a closing date of 17th January 2011 for responses. The final Settlement will be announced towards the end of January/early February.

3.2 Following the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced some significant changes to the way that funding is to be allocated in future. The provisional funding settlement for the following two years sets out the implications for Norfolk County Council of these changes.

3.3 The biggest overall change is that the number of grants has been reduced. From 2011/12 funding that was previously received via 90 grants (including Area Based Grants and specific grants), will be allocated by formula grant plus nine other core grants (of which six will apply to NCC in 2011/12 and 2012/13). Formula Grant for Norfolk is £256.906m in 2011/12 and £239.717m in 2012/12. Based on the adjusted formula grant for 2010/11 (adjusted for transferring grants), this equates to a decrease of £29.449m (-10.3%) in 2011/12 and a decrease of £17.189m (-6.7%) in 2012/13. The total revenue grants announced for Norfolk are:

Provisional Provisional 2011-12 2012-13 £m £m Formula Grant 256.906 239.717 Early Intervention Grant 29.351 31.164 Learning Difficulty and Health 39.299 40.231 Reform Lead Local Flood Authority 0.199 0.509 325.755 311.621

3.4 One element of the formula that has played a significant part in the amount of funding that Norfolk has received in recent years is the damping mechanism. This has been a feature of the formula since 2006/07 when a new grant formula was introduced. The arrangements were put in place to ‘dampen’ the financial impact of the new formula on ‘losing’ authorities. As the damping adjustment is self funding, gaining Councils have their grant abated to support the ‘losing’ Councils. This year, the formula has been amended to protect those local authorities that are most dependent on Formula Grant, however, the mechanism continues to feature prominently and Norfolk’s grant will be abated by £21.6m in 2011/12 and £22.3m in 2012/13. The Formula grant figures above are after damping.

3.5 The Early Intervention Grant is a new core grant created from a number of Area Based and Specific Grants. The Learning Difficulty and Health Reform Grant is also a new core grant, but reflect a previously announced transfer of funding from Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to upper tier councils.

3.6 In addition non ringfenced grant is expected via the New Homes Bonus grant; however, the mechanism for this grant will not be confirmed until January 2011. A cash freeze in the amount of Dedicated Schools Grant per pupil has been announced by the Department for Education.

3.7 The settlement has seen the cessation or transfer into formula or core grants of all Area Based Grants and most specific grants. All non frontline schools related grants have ceased. With the exception of funding transferring into devolved Dedicated Schools Grant, all funding is now un-ringfenced.

3.8 The Government has confirmed its commitment to provide funding to those Councils who choose to not increase Council Tax in 2011/12. A Council Tax Freeze Grant of £8.532m will be payable to Norfolk from 2011/12 to support a freeze in Council Tax in that year.

3.9 We have been allocated £11.357m in 2011/12 to be transferred from the Primary Care Trusts in Norfolk to support joint working on social care between the County Council and Health. Although outside of the Local Government Finance Settlement, the Department for Communities and Local Government has stated that the Department of Health is providing funding in both 2011/12 and 2012/13 through the NHS budget, to support integrated working between health and social care services. For Norfolk, £11.357m will be allocated in total via Norfolk PCT and Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT. The Government expects that spending decisions around these monies will be made jointly between Councils and PCTs.

3.10 The Local Government Finance Settlement also included announcements on capital funding for the next two years. The Government confirmed its intentions within the Spending Review 2010, to include no new supported borrowing allocations in the spending review period. Instead all capital funding will be given in the form of capital grant – the majority of which is non ringfenced. Capital grant allocations have been received for Highways Maintenance, Integrated Transport, Education and Social Care. Some Government Departments, including Defra and Communities and Local Government, are still reviewing their capital allocations and will make announcements shortly. Further capital grant will be distributed by the Department for Transport on the basis of bids. The Government will also continue to assist capital spending through funding to support Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects.

3.11 From 2011/12 schools will receive a new Pupil Premium grant, which will provide £430 per pupil eligible for free school meals. From 2012/13 the premium will be extended to those pupils who have previously received free school meals. The funding will be devolved directly to schools and will not be ring-fenced.

3.12 At Cabinet in September, a financial planning assumption of a 25% reduction in spend and grant over 3 years was approved. This planning assumption was based on a projected funding shortfall of £155m arising from reductions in government grant and additional cost pressures. Whilst further detailed work is required around elements of the Settlement, for example the impact of some Area Based Grants which have ceased, the initial assessment is that the Council’s overall planning assumption is broadly on track over three years. Front end loading of the reductions by the Government has been a little more severe than planned, but in general terms we are still looking to bridge a £155m shortfall over three years.

4. Implications of the Settlement for Children’s Services

4.1 The elements of the Local Government Finance Settlement relating to Children’s Services are the ending of a number of grant streams and the introduction of the Early Intervention Grant. Details of the school funding settlement including the impact of the pupil premium are reported elsewhere on the agenda.

4.2 Eighteen non-frontline schools education services grants have been discontinued. The current value of these grants is £8m. Two grants supporting music and extended rights for free travel are still under review. Apart from two grants supporting school intervention and education health partnerships for which it is intended to retain the existing budget of £364,000, the remaining fourteen areas of grant supported spending will be ceasing.

4.3 The new Early Intervention Grant has been formed by the merging of twenty two separate grant streams. This grant is to support early intervention and preventative services. Key areas of intervention which the Government has highlighted are free early education for disadvantaged two year olds; short breaks for disabled children; Sure Start Children’s Centres. The Government stresses that the Grant underpins creative approaches to local priorities, across all services for children, young people and families.

4.4 Based on the new allocation formula Norfolk is assessed as entitled to £32.603 million in 2011/12. The Government has calculated that Norfolk currently receives £32.061 million for these grants, ie the baseline, in 2010/11. The national funding pot has been reduced by the full amount of the 2010/11 in-year Area Based Grant reductions and a further 10.9%. In allocating funding for 2011/12 the Government has applied floors and ceiling, which has resulted in Norfolk’s grant allocation being reduced to £29.351 million.

4.5 Norfolk’s Early Intervention Grant increases to £33.971m in 2012/13 but after damping this is reduced to £31.164 million. In respect of the services included within the Early Intervention Grant it is estimated that Norfolk was planning to spend £29.732 million in 2011/12.

4.6 The priorities for the use of the Early Intervention Grant are early intervention and prevention work with the following groups - early years (particularly the disadvantaged); disabled children; ensuring effective parents and families; school intervention, and vulnerable youth.

4.7 Despite the reduction in grant for Norfolk the Government has also published its White Paper on Education (The Importance of Teaching) which sets out a clear agenda for the Local Authority in supporting parents and children to access high quality education. The White Paper emphasizes the need for the Local Authority to provide strong leadership on strategic planning to ensure that there is an adequate supply of “good” places of learning, to ensure that schools that fail or are likely to fail are turned around and to ensure that the needs of all pupils are provided for. Some of this detail was not known at the start of the “Big Conversation”. The priorities for expenditure under the Local Government financial settlement need to take account of anticipated changes in Education legislation that will result from the White Paper.

5. Big Conversation – proposed role and strategy for Norfolk County Council

5.1 The Big Conversation sets out a new role and strategy for Norfolk County Council. It confirms that the three strategic ambitions should continue to underpin the council’s activities – to make Norfolk:

 An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity

 A vibrant, strong and sustainable economy

 Aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills

5.2 Going forward, the Council’s new role would see efforts and money focused on:

 Speaking up for Norfolk – providing strategic leadership and influence sufficient to ensure that Norfolk’s voice is heard wherever people are taking decisions that are critical to its future economic prosperity, investment, health and well-being.

 Assessing people’s needs and commissioning efficient, responsive and cost effective services to meet them.

 Supporting, developing and maintaining the infrastructure that helps our economy.

 Being a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our county and protecting the public. Signposting people to the services they need and providing good quality information to help people choose services relevant to them.

 Helping and enabling others to build and maintain strong, sustainable and caring communities, giving back community ownership of locally important priorities best tackled through local community action.

5.3 In order to balance the books whilst protecting as much of the frontline as possible, the Council will look to:

 Make efficiencies

 Redesign services

 Scale back the scope and volume of some services and have fewer priorities

 Become a smaller council, and look to communities to take on more responsibilities

The full consultation document is attached at Appendix 1.

6. Specific proposals for this service

6.1 Introduction. The full list of Children’s Services pressures and savings are set out in Appendix 2. Since the Big Conversation consultation process started a significant amount of development work has been undertaken on each of the Big Conversation proposals. The financial information contained in Appendix 2 has changed based on this development work. Details of the most significant aspects of this work are set out in the following paragraphs. Also included in Appendix 2 are a significant number of additional and new savings proposals which were not included within the Big Conversation consultation. These are separately identified in the Appendix.

Children’s Services Revised Focus 6.2 The Big Conversation includes a number of proposals which significantly impact on the priorities for, and structure of Children’s Services. For this reason the overall design of the Service has been reviewed.

6.3 The aim in redesigning Children’s Services is to achieve the required reduction in cost and expenditure whilst focusing resources on the activities that will make the most impact on improving outcomes for all children. Supporting, challenging and improving early years, schools and colleges; supporting parents and carers; assessing population and individual needs; commissioning appropriate support; protecting those who need it and being a prudent parent to children in our formal care.

6.4 The duties of Children’s Services have been clearly set out in the Schools White Paper (The Importance of Teaching) and require the strategic oversight of the County’s early years and education system with an emphasis on ensuring that the democratic mandate of members is strong in relation to championing the right of parents and children to first class education. Children’s Services will be required to ensure the appropriate supply of good school places and access to those places; identify performance issues in schools and intervene if necessary; support the development of further academies and free schools and ensure provision for children out of mainstream education and/or with special educational needs.

6.5 Assessment of need is a key responsibility for Children’s Services and we will integrate our systems for assessment of individual need wherever possible with key partners such as health, adult social care, the police and schools. The multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) will be our integrated front door to children’s social care assessment linked to the Customer Service Centre.

6.6 To maintain the right balance between prevention and intervention is a challenge as resources diminish.

6.7 The best prevention of harm and poor outcomes is primarily through good parenting supported by excellent early years and childcare and, subsequently, the enormous benefit of good schools and colleges.

6.8 Children’s Services will work with partners in health, District Councils, schools (and clusters of schools), colleges, the voluntary sector and other agencies as appropriate to support and improve the effectiveness of parents, early years providers, schools and colleges. We will do this through joint commissioning arrangements, including place-based approaches, and through integrated delivery solutions based on the ‘team around the child’ and ‘team around the school/cluster’ approaches. The Government’s clear intention is that prevention and early intervention approaches are prioritised, hence the creation of the Early Intervention Grant.

6.9 We will seek to commission services wherever possible and will only directly provide services where the risk to reliable delivery of our statutory duties is deemed to be too high if the service were not under our direct control. Where services are marketed to others we will do this on the basis of full-cost recovery.

6.10 Over the next three years we will seek to diversify the range and type of providers with more provision coming from the voluntary sector and social enterprise models including staff mutual arrangements. Therefore, initial proposals may focus on setting up new teams within the County Council but subsequent examination will take place to see if the team or the service can be provided externally.

6.11 Management and support costs will be further reduced for 2011/12 and will be kept under review as the service delivery profile of Children’s Services changes.

Capital Spending Proposals 6.12 The Big Conversation proposals are not to fund any new capital spending through supported borrowing (B1) and to reduce support staff as a result of a smaller capital programme (B2). As set out in the Capital Programme paragraph of this paper the Government has issued capital grant allocations for 2011/12 but no borrowing allocations. As part of the Big Conversation it has been proposed that no capital spending be undertaken except that funded from capital grant.

6.13 The Government has reviewed the capital delivery mechanism for 2012/13 which will be set out in the report of James Review – however, it is already clear that capital work on new academies in Norfolk will be undertaken under the purview of Partnership’s for Schools Contractors framework.

6.14 It is anticipated that local authority involvement in capital work will be significantly reduced after the James Review. As a result of these two factors the Big Conversation also sets out a reduction in the resources devoted within the services to delivering the existing programme of work. The Service will look to Norse to provide technical programme management skills where necessary.

Home to School Transport Proposals 6.15 The Big Conversation proposals on Home to School Transport are looking to save £7.4 million over the three year period. Of this sum efficiency savings are expected to deliver £4.5 million. Three policy changes are proposed; the first is to remove the subsidy for post 16 transport (B3); the second to withdraw the subsidy on denominational transport (B4) and the third to remove subsidised transport in exceptional circumstances (B4).

6.16 Post 16 charges are based on 50% of the actual cost of the mainstream service (Learning Disabled and Disadvantaged are treated the same as mainstream service users). The charge for the academic year 2010/11 is £358. The charge will be increased, in accordance with existing policy, to approximately £392 for the academic year 2011/12. The Big Conversation proposal is to increase this charge to £784, which is 100% of costs, from September 2012 thus removing all the local authority subsidy.

6.17 The main implications from this change are a possible reduction in the take up of post 16 education and learning; an increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET); the likely reduction in choice of educational institution for students. A risk also exists that if student travel reduces it could impact on the transport network and put pressure on the public transport subsidy budget. A risk also exists to the viability of courses at both Easton College and City College Norwich which depend on students traveling significant distances.

6.18 Consultations are continuing with key Post 16 education and training providers to explore the possibility of an alternative model of sharing costs.

6.19 The denominational transport proposal involves  Withdrawing denominational transport to Bury St Edmunds from September 2011;  Granting no new denominational transport to Notre Dame High school from September 2011;  Removing remaining existing transport from Great Yarmouth/Gorleston area to Notre Dame High school from September 2012.

A risk exists that the shortage of secondary school places in the Great Yarmouth/Gorleston area may necessitate transport to the nearest school outside that specific area.

6.20 The proposal to remove subsidised transport in exceptional circumstances (B4) involves the ending of transport support where a family has undergone a sudden unexpected change in circumstances including unavoidable move to temporary accommodation, severe medical problems or social care problems.

Special Educational Needs Proposal 6.21 The Big Conversation proposal was to re-design and re-shape the special education support service so that fewer statements of special education need are required (B6). The intention is to use 2011/12 to undertake a full business re-design across SEN services and related functions in order for this new approach to be supported in 2012.

6.22 This will allow formal consultation be undertaken with schools in the autumn, and for the Authority to take into account the proposals with regards its future role as a democratically mandated Champion for Children, expected in the forthcoming Green Paper on Special Educational Needs.

6.23 This Big Conversation proposal will see a shift in focus to higher levels of early intervention advice and support to schools through partnership, from Educational Psychologists, Specialist Teachers, and the specialist expertise of our Complex Needs Schools and Specialist Resource Bases.

6.24 This fundamental shift of approach, with funding delegated to schools, possibly through cluster arrangements, should see the allocation of resources to children with additional needs, uncoupled from the current statementing process, so that interventions are targeted more effectively earlier, and only those children identified as having the most complex needs will require a formal multi-agency assessment through a Statement of Special Educational Needs.

School Improvement and Attendance Services Proposals 6.25 The Big Conversation proposals on the attendance service (B7); school improvement and intervention services (B8); school place provision (B9), and music, performing arts and outdoor education (B10) are all being planned within a newly designed Education Achievement and Improvement Service. The Service will bring together in one place a number of key functions for the County Council and provide schools with continuing access to traded support services.

6.26 The proposal to reduce the scale and capacity of the attendance service (B7) has required a redesign of Attendance Services to achieve savings of £600,000 out of a budget of £1.3 million. The redesigned service will entail a small advice and improvement team but with 12 key operational attendance improvement officers to work within the 3 Operational Divisions.

6.27 The proposal to reduce the scale and capacity of improvement and intervention services for schools (B8) focuses on the redesign of school improvement and intervention services to create a new service costing £2.1 million producing savings of £3 million. This team will form a core element in the Education Achievement and Improvement Service and will employ a small specialist team of Education Advisers with expertise in school improvement to work alongside early years advisers funded by grant. This service will form the focal point for the County Council to fulfill its expected role related to schools and early years settings to ensure the quality of education provision.

6.28 This proposal will necessitate at least a halving of the advisory team currently working with schools. Discussions are continuing with schools to determine the size of potential traded aspects of provision which would complement the team and enable a greater range of expertise to be employed. Work is also continuing in exploring opportunities for joint working with other local authorities, outsourcing aspects of provision or establishing close operational working with a strategic partner.

6.29 The proposal for music, performing arts and outdoor education (B10) involves the redesign of each of these services to form part of the overall traded school support services with savings of £200,000 over three years.

6.30 The proposal to reduce the scale and capacity of the supply of schools place planning service (B10) involves the redesigning the school planning and organization teams to be part of the new Education Achievement and Improvement Service.

Youth and Community Support Services Proposals 6.31 The Big Conversation proposals on Youth (B11) and Community Learning support (B13) are for the cessation of funding for all Youth and Community Services. It was made clear during the consultation that this meant no funding would be available for County Council run Youth Services and there would be no funding to commission other sectors and organisations to be alternative providers.

6.32 Local Authorities are expected to promote activities for youth but within the statutory basis, while enshrined in various pieces of education legislation, the level of provision to meet the expectation is unclear. In total the savings to the County Council are £5 million.

6.33 The cessation of Youth Services (B11) saving £4.6 million will involve the decommissioning of 300 projects involving over 14,000 young people aged 11-19. 50% of the provision is focused on targeted youth support to vulnerable young people including those at risk of being NEET, at risk of exclusion, young parents etc. 25% of the provision is related to positive activities such as youth clubs, Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme and active citizenship while the remaining 25% is based on community development through supporting parish and voluntary youth clubs, drop in centres and advice and guidance to local communities.

6.34 This budget also supports the County Council subsidy of £86,000 paid to the Whitlingham Outdoor Education Centre. A number of organizations have shown interest in either taking over this facility or working in partnership with NCC to run the Centre. It is felt that there is sufficient interest in this approach to ensure the future of the Centre but detailed proposals will need to be worked up after the final decision on this budget.

6.35 The reduction in staff will mean that the Children’s Service Divisional Teams will have to be restructured without the youth service staffing component. The decommissioning process will also have to address currently 11 premises and 8 vehicles, a camp store and camp site. These could have a significant impact on some voluntary sector youth activities. The project team have succeeded in identifying the tasks required to decommission the services affected by this budget and have also started the process of seeing if there is any grant funding available to ensure that the Local Authority’s statutory requirements are met.

6.36 The cessation of Community Learning support (B13) involves the ending of County Council funding for a range of community learning projects including Playing for Success / Study Support in Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn, North Walsham, Seckford and at the Norwich City Football Ground. This has been compounded by the withdrawal of government grant for the Playing for Success programme.

6.37 At this stage all of these centres are scheduled for closure but officers continue to see if there is some partnership work with schools that can be negotiated to run some of these projects locally with schools and other organizations. At this stage it is hoped that some of this important work will continue without the County Council funding and government grant but it is recognized that much of the work will be decommissioned. In total this will save £400,000 including funding for PE advice that will have to be picked up in the new Education Achievement and Improvement Services.

Corporate Parenting Proposals 6.38 The Big Conversation proposals on Corporate Parenting were to achieve procurement savings for Looked After Children (B15) and reduce the scale and capacity of the service to Looked After Children (B16). These proposals also include the Independent Chairing service, Children with Disabilities services, the Family Group Conferencing service and the Adoption and Fostering services.

6.39 The following principles underpin the proposals for securing the service within budget:-

 Most children are best brought up within their families  Our collective role as Corporate Parent is to be a good and prudent parent.  The needs of most of Norfolk’s Looked After Children are best met in Norfolk  Good assessment and Care Planning is critical to achieving good outcomes for Looked After Children  Social Work support is best where caseloads are manageable and staff are freed from unnecessary bureaucracy  All our practice meets the requirements of Care Matters and associated legislation and national guidance  Ensuring Norfolk has sufficient placements will need intelligent procurement and sub-regional collaboration and this will reduce the average annual costs.

6.40 By adopting this set of principles it is planned to reduce the average unit costs of Looked After Children placements in Norfolk through improved commissioning and procurement processes.

6.41 The proposal has required a significant redesign of our current corporate parenting functions. The redesigned service will place six corporate parenting fieldwork teams (2 per division) under the line management of the Locality and Integration Managers. The adoption and fostering services will be combined as one service and alongside our in-house residential provision will be managed by an Operational Manager, Adoption, Fostering & Residential Care.

6.42 All social care services for Children with Disabilities including fostering, residential and respite care provision will be brought together as one service and will be managed under the Additional Needs Operational Delivery Manager.

6.43 In relation to our in-house residential provision, it is proposed that Norfolk refocuses the work undertaken in-house on areas that the local authority is best placed to deliver and the wider marketplace chooses not to fill. This would see our in-house homes largely focus on short-term crisis and assessment/reunification work.

6.44 Under the proposals the Family Group Conferencing Service would be deleted. Family Group Conferences are one form of restorative approaches used with families in crises. This skill should be embedded within all teams working with families.

Family Support Proposals 6.45 The Big Conversation proposal on Family Support (B18) was to reduce the scale and capacity of family support. Family support covers a broad range of services provided either by the County Council or commissioned and delivered by other organisations.

6.46 The Family Support proposals include Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), including future commissioning arrangements for CAMHS and Drug and Alcohol services to young people; Home Care and Supervised Contact services to vulnerable children and families; the Unthank Centre, County Adolescent Prevention Service (CAPS)and other support services and various Family Support contracts with voluntary sector organisations. Some services funded under this budget only provide support for families where there are child protection concerns and their loss would present a risk to the authority. All services have been reviewed.

6.47 Discussions have taken place with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services about the redesign of the current five Family Solutions Teams to reduce management costs by creating three teams which fit with the new operational divisions in Children’s Services. Further savings are being identified by the formation of a joint commissioning body with Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Partnership.

6.48 Proposals to reduce spending on family support services has caused us to review the role of both our Homecare Service and our Supervised Contact Service. Both services support families where there are child protection concerns and the skills required of staff are similar. We have redesigned the services to form one service which will be managed within the three operational divisions under the management of the Operational Managers for Safeguarding.

6.49 The Unthank Centre offers individual and group-based therapeutic support for children from birth to 12 years of age. Its location in Norwich means that in practice the service is only available to those children within traveling distance. It is however one of the few direct therapeutic interventions offered by Children’s Services for children who have been traumatized by separation or abuse. Proposals to reduce spending on family support service have caused us to review the role of the Unthank Centre. The proposal is to close the Unthank Centre and to reduce staffing to six posts, two of whom will be based in each operational division to provide services locally. The loss of the child centred environment provided by the Unthank Centre could be compensated for by good use of locally based children’s centres.

6.50 County Adolescent Prevention Service is a countywide team which provides support to adolescents to prevent them coming into care. The proposal is to reduce the team to nine staff who will be based within the operational divisions working closely with the Children in Need Teams and the Duty and Safeguarding teams.

7. Capital programme

7.1 The Department for Education published the capital settlement for Local Authorities on 13th December. It is a one-year settlement pending the outcome of the James review into schools’ capital funding, which will determine capital mechanisms from 2012 onwards. Norfolk has been allocated £29.895 million grant for 2011/12. The grant is all capital but is not ring fenced and does not have an expenditure time limit.

7.2 Although the grant is not ring fenced, Government has allocated funds against in consideration of local need for ‘Basic Need’ (new places in growth areas) and school condition. All tax-payer funded schools are eligible for Basic Need funding where work addresses the need for new places. There is a separate Condition allocation for Voluntary Aided schools.

7.3 The 2011/12 allocation total of just under £30 million compares with a 2010/11 allocation of £45.5 million, of which £7 million was supported borrowing. There is a very significant reduction in sums allocated as Devolved capital to Norfolk schools, from £10.3 million this year to £2.8 million in 2011/12.

7.4 The settlement will be helpful in addressing areas of Basic Need where there are poor quality places as a result of previous growth and the early pressures from future major growth. Capital Priorities Group received a list of such areas at its last meeting, which included

 Cringleford VA (a statutory commitment: £3.45 million plus £2.13 million underwriting of land receipts)  Rackheath Primary (and, associated, Broadland High)  Gt Yarmouth VA High  Wymondham High and primaries  Little Plumstead VA Primary (additional places)

7.5 Capital Priorities Group will give detailed consideration to relative need in these and other areas of growth at its February meeting, with a view to developing a clearer programme strategy for Panel in March 2011.

7.6 A small number of Condition related projects can be carried forward from the current year.

7.7 A key policy programme for consideration by Capital Priorities Group in February will be the three-year junior reorganisations (Grimston, Mundesley, Lingwood and South Wootton areas) and the extent to which capital support can be made available for the associated schemes, temporary or permanent.

7.8 Whilst it remains a high priority for the County Council, a new Complex Needs School to replace Chapel Road School, Attleborough, would take up about half the Norfolk 2011/12 allocation. Funding the scheme from this allocation would cause significant risk to the County meeting its statutory Basic Need duty and would leave urgent Condition schemes outstanding.

8. Feedback from consultation

8.1 At the time of writing this report, the Big Conversation is still underway.

8.2 Up until December 31st, in the region of 2000 comments had been made via the on-line Big Conversation site and Have Your Say mailbox; over 250 letters, feedback forms and phone calls; and up to 2000 more responses through specific engagement led by departments.

8.3 To date, the majority of responses have been concerned with specific budget proposals. Where residents have commented on the overall direction for the County Council, the majority have wanted the council to make savings in a way which has least impact on services, particularly those for vulnerable people.

8.4 One element of the consultation was a series of stakeholder discussions, externally facilitated, designed to gather the views from a range of different groups about the impact of the proposed budget savings. These were delivered in five, two-hour long events held in November and December 2010. The following Norfolk based groups and sectors were represented:  Voluntary groups  B usinesses  Healthcare sector  Education sector  Young People

8.5 In general, the County Council’s proposal for a smaller more strategic set of core roles was supported and stakeholders recognised the rationale behind the proposal and the need to achieve this. There was support for ensuring that communities are engaged and that service delivery should be high quality and targeted at those most in need.

8.6 For Children’s Services the main areas of feedback have centred on the proposals for  Ending the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over  Ending the subsidy for denominational transport  Re-designing and re-shaping the special educational needs service  Ceasing County Council funding for youth services  Reducing the scale and capacity of services that provide support for Looked After Children, for School Improvement and support services for schools.  Schools responses focussed on the reduced level of support for teaching and for all aspects of school activity.

8.7 Appendix 4 includes a table of the key themes of comments received Click here to view responses up to 10 January 2011 deadline 8.8 Detailed minutes will be made available to Cabinet from Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

9. Equality impact assessment

9.1 Individual Equality Impact Assessments are being carried out on all the Council’s budget proposals that potentially have an impact on identified groups with protected characteristics.

9.2 The legislation and statutory codes of practice informing the Council’s work on equality impact assessments recommends that consultation with relevant groups should form a core part of the evidence used to prepare an equality impact assessment.

9.3 At the time of writing this report, the consultation is still on-going, so this Overview and Scrutiny report provides an interim position on the findings so far. In general these are consistent with the high level impact assessment published by the Council on October 26th at the start of the consultation, which found that if implemented in full, the proposals may significantly impact on disabled residents, young and old, and their carers and families. Because of the association between disability and old age, older people may also be affected.

9.4 It is important to note that whilst some specific issues around ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and religion and belief are also emerging through the public consultation, the overall impact of the proposals – both individually and collectively – is reported as being on disabled young people and adults, and older people.

9.5 The evidence-gathering has identified some positive impact from the proposals – for example, opportunities to relocate some cultural services to more accessible premises.

9.6 A full equality impact assessment report will be published alongside the Cabinet budget papers. This is consistent with legislation and will allow Cabinet Members sufficient time to inspect each proposal’s equality impact assessment (along with all the other relevant evidence), prior to the Cabinet meeting on 24 January 2011 to agree the recommendations to Full Council on 14 February 2011.

9.7 In all their decisions and functions public authorities must give due weight to the need to promote disability equality in relation to the six parts of the general dutyi:

 Promote equality of opportunity between disabled people and other people

 Eliminate unlawful discrimination

 Eliminate harassment of disabled people that is related to their disabilities

 Promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons

 Encourage participation by disabled people in public life; and

 Take account of disabled people’s disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled people more favourably than others.

9.8 Where the Council identifies potential adverse impact on protected groups, it must do two things. Firstly, it must consider whether to go ahead with the proposal, or amend it in some way, with a view to promoting equality and tackling disadvantage for the protected group affected. If it takes the decision to go ahead with the proposal in its current form, it must identify actions to reduce or mitigate the adverse impact.

10. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

10.1 The reasons why young people offend are complex and specific to individuals. However, with the reduction in provision that target those young people who are at risk of offending (e.g. those who disengage from education, are in families who do not function well or turn to substance misuse) there is a potential that Norfolk could see a rise in youth crime and anti social behaviour.

10.2 The Youth Offending Team will continue to work closely with crime and disorder partners to minimise this and target resources at those young people who are at the highest risk of offending.

11. Staffing implications

11.1 The financial implications of reductions in staffing levels for all services is being assessed corporately in the light of latest available information and will be incorporated within the overall budget proposals to be reported to Cabinet on 24 January.

12. Risk Assessment

12.1 The main risks and issues associated with these proposals have been highlighted in Section 6. However, given the scale of potential change associated with the budget proposals, there are a series of risks which are generic to all services, and against which each individual proposal is being evaluated. These are:

 Service performance: the risk that the scale of change will impact on performance and on user satisfaction with services  Staffing: the risk that skills and knowledge may be lost as people leave or are made redundant, and that staff morale is adversely affected  Capacity for change: the proposals require significant transformation and change to services, and there is a risk that there will be insufficient capacity to re-design services and implement new ways of working  Increasing demand: there is a risk that where preventative services are being scaled back, that there may – in future – be an increased risk in demand, as people’s needs become more pressing.

13. Action required

Members are asked to consider and comment on the following:

. The proposed core role and strategy for the County Council, as set out in section 5, and

. Specific revenue budget proposals and capital programme for Children’s Services, as set out in section 6 and 7.

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

iSee: www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-duties/guidance-and-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice Norfolk’s Big Conversation

Norfolk’s Big Conversation What it is, why it is needed and how can you join in

Protecting the frontline and meeting the savings challenge

Why we are consulting Your County Council is predicting a budget gap of at least £155 million over the next three years unless it acts to change things. That is because if things continue as they are, the combination of increasing council costs, increased demand for services, inflation and a cut in Government funding means we would need to spend at least £155 million more than we can expect to receive in income. The reasons for this are: · Almost 55 per cent of our annual income comes from the Government – and that is being reduced to reverse the national deficit. · Every year the demand for many of our services increases. We provide locally, services for the whole of Norfolk including services such as fire and rescue, care for vulnerable children, and care for vulnerable older people and people with disabilities. Demand for many of these services continues to rise year on year. For example, the numbers of Norfolk people aged 85 or over are projected to double by 2031 (from 2007), which is much higher than the England average. In addition, a needs assessment forecasts a rise of 71 per cent in the numbers of people with dementia in the 20 years from 2008 to 2028. On current trends, in this area alone, we could face cost pressures of an extra £13 million a year. · Inflation costs mount each year – and even when general inflation levels are relatively low, inflation on things such as energy and fuel costs are often much higher, affecting the cost of road and transport services especially. · We have undertaken not to increase council tax for two of the next three years. So this conversation is about how, with your help, we can help create a new chapter for some of the county’s public services. We are committed to help build strong and vibrant communities in Norfolk where families and businesses thrive, at a price we can all afford, and we have already pledged not to increase our share of your council tax next year to keep residents’ costs down. Our aim is to make every penny work harder and wherever possible, to do more with less. Over the next three years our aim will be to protect the frontline as best as possible by exhausting all avenues of efficiencies and targeting most resources and services to the people who need them most. The Coalition Government has now announced the results of the comprehensive review of government spending it carried out to tackle the growing national debt. It will be some weeks before we know the

1. precise impact of this for our Budget, but we intend to play our part by reshaping the way the council does business to deliver high quality, better value services at a more local level and at a price we can afford. But we need your help. We need you to tell us what services you value most, and how you would like to see these services delivered. There are some services we have to provide by law at taxpayers’ expense, such as care for children and young people whose families are not able or perhaps willing to care for them, and care for vulnerable older people. But there are also areas where we have significant discretion over how much we do and what we provide, such as subsidies to various services like Park & Ride, financial grants to organisations and arranging adult education provision.

We know that many of these are highly valued. However, the County Council, like the country, has to balance its books. We would like your views about what the County Council should be expected to do and provide in the future, paid for through your taxes, and what we should support, encourage or expect individuals or communities to do for themselves.

Our view is that over the coming years we should reduce the size of the County Council and streamline its role, and with others, help to grow more active communities. So in this document we set out:

· The County Council’s view is that it should reduce its role in the future and with less money to spend, allow space in which a dynamic private sector and flourishing and supportive independent providers can thrive. By doing this, we want to see, and stimulate where we can, more flexible and innovative choices for local people with more provided through greater community enterprise, private or voluntary organisations, or new social enterprises.

· What we think the main role of the County Council should be in future.

· Our proposals so far for helping to balance the books over the next three years.

· The specific savings proposals we have developed to take us on the way to delivering at least £155 million savings over the next three years.

· The areas where we believe the council should now stand back from and cease funding to enable others to step in.

2. Here is a brief summary of what we are consulting on and what we would like your views on

Our role: We are proposing a new core role which would see us focus our efforts and money on: · Speaking up for Norfolk – providing strategic leadership and influence sufficient to ensure that Norfolk’s voice is heard wherever people are taking decisions that are critical to its future economic prosperity, investment, health and well-being. · Assessing people’s needs and commissioning efficient, responsive and cost effective services to meet them. · Supporting, developing and maintaining the infrastructure that helps our economy. · Being a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our county and protecting the public. Signposting people to the services they need and providing good quality information to help people choose services relevant to them. · Helping and enabling others to build and maintain strong, sustainable and caring communities, giving back community ownership of locally important priorities best tackled through local community action. What do you think of our proposals for our new core role? Do these fit with your idea of what the County Council of the future should be? If not, please tell us why.

Our proposed strategy: 1. Making efficiencies We think we should streamline the council, cut council running costs and work with other public services to save money. What are your ideas for how the council could save money? 2. Redesigning services We think that we should radically transform some of our services to make them better fit for the 21st century. What do you think we could do differently? How can we modernise? 3. Scaling back the scope and volume of some services – fewer priorities We think that we should stop providing some services that we do not have to provide and that we believe are lower priorities for spending when times are tough. What services do you value the most? What services should we stop providing? What services could be provided by other organisations, for example voluntary organisations or town and parish councils? We think that we should stop spending taxpayers’ money to subsidise some of our services so that people pay more of the true cost of that service. What services do you think we should charge more for? 4. Smaller council – bigger communities There is a great community spirit in Norfolk, what do you think you or your community could do to help? And what could Norfolk County Council do to help communities? You can read more about our proposals on page 8 of this document. With your help, your views and your suggestions we can maintain and improve priority public services. So please, join the conversation now. 3. Who we are consulting Local residents, community groups, public sector organisations, town and parish councils, voluntary and community organisations, local businesses and anyone else in Norfolk, or elsewhere, who are affected by our proposals and wishes to have their say. How we are consulting This is our written consultation document that we are sending to our stakeholders to ask for their views. We are holding some face-to-face meetings with different groups to get their views. These include meetings with voluntary and community organisations, businesses, education providers and health providers. We are also holding some meetings with representative groups and individuals who may be affected by our proposals, such as older people, young people, disabled people and people from Black and Asian minority ethnic communities. We will be providing a discussion pack, so groups, communities and organisations can hold their own discussions and feed back their responses. Our proposals will be on our council website at www.norfolk.gov.uk/bigconversation There will be an online discussion forum to share views about our proposed strategy and also a way to comment on any of our individual budget proposals. There will be the opportunity for residents to feed back their views through Your Norfolk magazine, which will go to all households in December. At the same time as holding Norfolk’s Big Conversation we will be consulting on some specific budget proposals to help us balance our books over the next three years. When we are consulting Our consultation starts on Tuesday 26 October 2010. Norfolk County Council would like your views on the proposals set out in this document. We need your views by Monday 10 January 2011. We ask for responses by this date so that we can make people’s comments available to the Cabinet on Monday 24 January 2011. Under our consultation guidelines we generally allow a 12 week period for written consultations. However, the timetable for this consultation is necessarily constrained by the exceptional circumstances we are faced with. We have to gather views to feed into our Cabinet meeting in January so that Full Council can agree a budget on Monday 14 February. In these exceptional circumstances we are having to consult in the time that we have available.

4. Our approach to Equality Impact Assessments Our budget proposals will have implications for the future delivery of services. In order to ensure that all potential equality issues are identified and inform decision-making, we have put in place a comprehensive equality impact assessment process. This includes: · A high-level assessment of the proposals, and their overall impact, to identify whether they will particularly affect any groups of residents, and if so, the implications. · An individual assessment of each proposal (where it affects protected groups), evidence-based on the views of residents from these groups (for example, disabled people, Black and Asian minority ethnic people, older and young people etc), community and voluntary groups and stakeholders representing diverse communities. · The production of a final equality impact assessment report, summarising the findings of consultation, and setting out the potential equality issues for consideration along with mitigating actions, to be considered by Cabinet on Monday 24 January 2011 alongside the Budget report. · Our initial, high-level equality impact assessment is available on our website at www.norfolk.gov.uk\bigconversation. How you can respond to the consultation Norfolk County Council would like your views on the proposals set out in this document. We need your views by Monday 10 January 2011. When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If you are responding about a specific efficiency and savings proposal please make it clear which proposal your comments are about. · You can respond online at www.norfolk.gov.uk/bigconversation · You can email your response to: [email protected] · Or you can respond in writing to: Freepost Your Norfolk (You do not need to use a stamp) · However, if you want to help the council save money please use a stamp and send to this address: Norfolk County Council, Customer Service Centre, North Wing, County Hall, Martineau Lane, NORWICH, NR1 2DH How we will make our decision and feed this back to you When the public consultation has closed, these proposals will be considered by Overview and Scrutiny Panels. These panels will be able to review the proposals in the light of the grant settlement, and the views expressed during the consultation. Views from these Panel meetings will then be fed through to Cabinet for its meeting on Monday 24 January 2011. At this meeting, Cabinet may agree the proposals, amend them or make new ones in the light of what they have heard and will recommend a Budget to Council. We will report back your views to our elected members at our Cabinet meeting on Monday 24 January 2011. Elected members will take account of these views when agreeing the budget recommendations that they will make to Full Council. You will be able to read these in the minutes from the meeting. Full Council will decide and agree the budget on 14 February 2011. We will publish our final budget on our website at www.norfolk.gov.uk 5. Information about responding to this consultation

Responding on behalf of a group If you are responding on behalf of a group we will ask you to give a summary of the people and organisations you represent and, where relevant, who else you have consulted in reaching your conclusions.

Personal information, confidentiality and data protection Information you provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information laws. This includes the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice that we have to comply with that deals with issues of confidentiality. Because of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system is not enough, in itself, to be regarded as binding.

We will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act, which means that we will not give your personal data to any third parties.

Receiving your comments We are sorry but, given the scale of the responses anticipated and our timescale, we are unable to respond to individual questions or comments. However, we assure you that Cabinet members will consider all the consultation responses we receive very carefully before making their final recommendations.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Where can I go to for more information? If you have any questions about this consultation, please contact Norfolk County Council on: Tel: 0344 800 8020 Email: [email protected]

If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Anne Tansley Thomas Tel: 01603 222844 Email: [email protected] and we will do our best to help

6. Protecting the frontline and meeting the savings challenge - our proposals Our role Change and renewal to protect frontline services – Norfolk County Council’s proposed strategic direction 2011 - 2014

Overarching strategic priorities for Norfolk

We believe our principal purpose is to be ambitious for the whole of Norfolk; helping Norfolk thrive and prosper through good, value-for-money public services, strong community leadership and support, and close working with all those in the public, private and voluntary sectors. We propose that three strategic ambitions should continue to underpin County Council activities – to make Norfolk: · An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity · With a vibrant, strong and sustainable economy · And aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills.

A renewed and sharpened sense of purpose We propose to reduce and simplify our role and size as part of our change and renewal proposals. As a consequence, we want to hear from you about our proposals that in future, our new core role should see us focus most of our efforts and money on: · Speaking up for Norfolk – providing strategic leadership and influence sufficient to ensure that Norfolk’s voice is heard wherever people are taking decisions that are critical to its future economic prosperity, investment, health and well-being. · Assessing people’s needs and commissioning efficient, responsive and cost effective services to meet them. · Supporting, developing and maintaining the infrastructure that helps our economy. · Being a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our county and protecting the public. Signposting people to the services they need and providing good quality information to help people choose services relevant to them. · Helping and enabling others to build and maintain strong, sustainable and caring communities, giving back community ownership of locally important priorities best tackled through local community action.

When we consulted local people through a series of community discussion groups last year, we were told that some of the things we do should be done, or could be done better, by or with others – especially if it helped to keep their taxes down. We put forward some of those ideas in this document so you can tell us what you think about them, but we want to hear your ideas too.

7. Our strategy Our proposed approach for protecting the frontline as much as possible and balancing the books 2011 - 14 The proposals set out in this consultation paper take the council to 2014. Many things may change over this period - new priorities for Norfolk may arise, demand for services may increase or decrease and funding arrangements can change. As yet, we do not have the full information from the Government that enables us to be precise about the impact of its Comprehensive Spending Review. But we do know the scale of the challenge ahead and the broad approach we intend to adopt to ensure we live within our means. The savings proposals here take us a long way forward and we will continue working through the approach set out below, which includes continuing to re-design services to make them more efficient and looking for further efficiencies and savings. We will then consult on further proposals in the future as necessary. Norfolk County Council is already one of the most efficient county councils in England and has a very strong track record of managing our finance and performance well. So we are confident of meeting the challenge. See where our current budget comes from and how our income is spent on page 17. 1. Making efficiencies Our savings proposals aim to direct as much taxpayers’ money as possible to the vital frontline services people need. We will focus relentlessly on saving as much as possible by being ever more efficient. We are proposing further action to: · Streamline the council, simplify processes and systems and reduce staff numbers · Cut council running costs and management overheads · Be smarter about the way we buy goods and services · Join up more with other public services · Investigate new ways of delivering services · Benchmark our services against those of other councils to ensure they provide best value · Rationalise use of assets 2. Redesigning services Our proposed approach is based on making the very best of the money we do have by taking a hard look at how we provide all our services and redesigning them wherever necessary to remove unnecessary processes and get the best we can, for the money we have to spend. This approach can best be characterised as being more innovative and targeted with the considerable income we will still have to make it work well, rather than simply looking to ‘salami slice’ budgets to save any given percentage. 3. Scaling back the scope and volume of some services - fewer priorities Our proposals to stop funding services that are not part of our core functions and reducing the size of the County Council will enable us to direct more of our resources to a shorter list of priorities and keep council tax levels stable. If we are able to keep council tax levels down, families and individuals will be better placed to decide where and how to spend more of their own money on the things that matter most to them. In addition, where we need to, we are proposing to reduce the scope and volume of some service levels to target our money more sharply to the areas of critical need. 8. For Norfolk County Council, our proposals would mean: · The County Council will be smaller in size and more streamlined and efficient in the way it works and we will have reduced management costs and overheads. By 2014, we expect our own workforce to have shrunk by at least 3,000 and to be continuing to shrink further, and we would welcome ideas on other ways to deliver services. We will use significantly less consultancy and see reduced advertising and travel costs. We will also have reviewed major ICT programmes and the number of offices we use. Pay rises for most of our staff are determined by national pay negotiating bodies. We intend to press hard for a two-year pay freeze.

· We will be ensuring consistent best value for our services through regular benchmarking and may outsource or re-provide as necessary to achieve this. We will continue to analyse the cost of our services to see whether others can provide them at better value for our residents. If they can, we will look to outsource or re-provide them. We are currently reviewing our highways services and will either negotiate financial savings or re-tender the service. · Cost control will be at the heart of service procurement and delivery. We will have reduced the unit costs of our services and will be working hard to bring them down further, especially the costs of the most expensive. For example at present it costs taxpayers an average of £51,000 to support every child who comes into council care. We will be relentless in our efforts to bring such costs down while maintaining quality of care. To help contain ever-rising costs for adult care services, we propose to raise the threshold by which people become eligible for our care from ‘critical and substantial’, to ‘critical’ only. · More people will be choosing and buying the care they want and need from others using their own personal care budgets. If we tighten our eligibility criteria for social care we will make sure our own reduced care budget is used to provide an essential safety net for the people most vulnerable and most at risk. For example Most social care services in Norfolk are already provided by the private or voluntary sector and we are proposing that, although our social workers and occupational therapists will still arrange care for people in the future, the council will no longer directly provide any care itself. Everyone who is eligible for council funded care will be offered a personal budget with which they can purchase the care service of their choice, either making the arrangements themselves or with help from the council or the voluntary sector. · We will be exploring and using a wide range of different options for delivering valued community services, for example – we will have explored the potential of setting up a Trust for securing and safeguarding the future of the joint museum services.

· Rather than delivering services directly, council staff will be focused mainly on finding out the needs of local residents and making sure that the necessary services are available to meet them at good quality and value for money, and providing good quality information to enable more people to help themselves. · People will be paying more towards the real cost of providing the services they receive or receiving help and support from others within their neighbourhoods. Some of the subsidised 9. services that people have come to expect either won’t be provided, or will be provided by others, or won’t be subsidised to the same extent any more. Instead we will either advise people of where the services are, and who provides them and at what cost, or we will expect more individuals to help pay more of the real cost of the service they get in the future.

For example Older people who may only need a simple piece of equipment to help in their daily lives, such as a handrail, will be advised what to buy and where they can buy it, rather than having it provided free by the council. Or where we arrange and fund a service like home care for someone we will ask them to pay more towards the cost where they can.

· We will have reviewed all the assets we own to make them work harder for taxpayers. We will look to share accommodation where we can and sell or transfer assets where it accords with our priorities. 4. Smaller council – bigger communities Communities may want to see some of the services we can no longer afford to fund continue in some way. We propose to hand back to Norfolk people responsibilities for things we believe should no longer form part of the core services provided by the County Council and funded by council tax payers. We will also look to devolve more of our services to parish and town councils.

We want to support communities to develop and own sustainable local solutions for keeping their areas vibrant and strong to support local priorities. We also propose to work closely with others to help build the necessary extra capacity locally to meet these changed expectations. We welcome ideas and proposals for how best we can do this.

As a starter, here are some of the ideas we have received so far about services that should, or could be, better delivered by local groups, societies, volunteers or organisations in the future. · Volunteering for local schools - for example delivering basic road safety or bicycle training. · Being responsible for helping to stop speeding in local communities – owning local speed watch services. · Empowering and supporting parish and town councils to take on more highways maintenance working with our highway and community rangers. We intend to consult on some specific ideas and options shortly. · Giving local young people choices of activities or places to meet out of school hours. · Keeping footpaths clear and clean. · Good neighbour schemes or collectives to look out for and support local older and vulnerable people. · Volunteering to support local libraries. · Accredited parish or community handyman schemes to support people who need basic help such as gardening, handrail fitting etc. · Community meals or dining schemes.

10. Putting the strategy into action On Monday 14 February 2011, we must set our Budget for 2011/12. So as well as asking for views and ideas about our proposals for re-shaping Norfolk County Council’s role and priorities for the future, we also want to hear views about some specific savings proposals for next year and the following two years.

In making these proposals we have used the financial approach we have set out in this document. Here are some of our main efficiency and savings proposals so you can tell us what you think. However, you can see the full list of saving proposals we have developed so far in ‘Norfolk County Council’s consultation proposals for Budget savings 2011-2014’. Some of these proposals will be the subject of more detailed consultation with people who use our services and key stakeholder organisations, and these are marked on the full list.

We propose to use the approach we set out here, to ensure a fully balanced budget year on year. 1. Making efficiencies: otalT savings £48 million Among other things, we propose to:

Cut management overheads We have already reduced the number of senior managers saving £1.4 million a year and streamlined all support services by bringing them together, which will result in more savings. We have also reviewed benefit packages and redundancy entitlements for all non-teaching staff. Where jobs are concerned, we keep every single vacancy under review and only appoint where it is absolutely necessary. We will continue to review all services on an ongoing basis and expect there to be further staff efficiencies as a result, over and above those that arise from the specific proposals given here.

Save through the smarter buying of goods and services – the way we procure things We propose to tighten and strengthen the way we buy goods and services and add our buying power to that of others where we can to drive down costs and save money for services.

Cap and cut the cost of borrowing We propose to review the level of our present borrowing, which we use to fund improvements to the county’s infrastructure such as roads and schools. By doing this we will save money from debt repayment costs, but we will have less to invest over the coming few years.

Manage the cost of inflation We must save millions of pounds to manage the extra pressures and costs on our services, including those of inflation, for example on our heating bills, even though we will have a lot less Government grant to help us. As a consequence we will ask our providers to step up their efficiency and do the same and may not always provide an annual increase to third parties sufficient to cover the full cost of inflation.

11. Generate more income We propose to work harder to bring in more income to the council – because every pound we bring into the council helps protect the front line.

Proposals include: · Offering more advertising and sponsorship opportunities to offset more of the cost of keeping people informed about our services. · Raising more by reviewing charges and decreasing the level of subsidies. We currently charge for some services and subsidise many, meaning that individuals are able to pay less, because taxpayers pay more. We think we should alter the balance. In particular we propose: - Asking some people who currently receive social care services to pay a more realistic charge for their services. - Ending the subsidy for secondary school transport for some people who choose to send their child to a denominational school. - To end the subsidy for post 16 transport. - To reduce and seek to remove the subsidy for Park & Ride. - Charging schools the full cost of support services they decide to buy from the County Council. 2. Redesigning services: Total savings £29 million We propose to radically transform some services to make them better fit for 21st century needs. Among other things, the world has changed from the days when a state taxpayer funded option was the only choice for vulnerable people looking for some types of support in their daily lives.

Many community and commercial organisations now provide options that give people a choice they simply didn’t have before. For example, balanced ready meals are now available widely through supermarkets with delivery options at a greater choice and lower cost than the council can provide through its more limited Meals on Wheels service. Similarly, community based leisure options offer a wide choice of daytime activities. Norfolk is blessed with a vibrant community life and voluntary sector, and strong parish and town councils. So we propose to modernise our services to take account of these changes in society and importantly, make sure we are targeting our services to where there is greatest need.

Redesigning services savings proposals include: To implement new care arrangements for vulnerable older people Norfolk’s older population continues to increase and more people with severe levels of disability can now expect to live much longer and, with support, lead more fulfilling lives than was the case some years ago. People’s expectations about the kind of support they may need to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible also continues to rise.

We are proposing:

12. · New arrangements for people who will need residential care with more ‘housing with care’ options and enhanced provision for people with dementia commissioned by the County Council but provided by others. · To continue to work as closely as possible with the NHS, particularly GPs, integrating services where we can at a local level to ensure people receive joined up care. · To continue to work with local voluntary groups to help ensure that vulnerable people can receive local, informal support wherever possible through strong and sustainable community networks.

To refocus highways services on maintaining current road networks We propose to refocus the highways service to maintain and manage the existing highways network, providing a more efficient and responsive service. Our highways and community rangers will respond to routine maintenance requests and we will empower and support parish and town councils to do more themselves, where they want to. To provide more self-service options for customers so more people can access our services at a time that better suits them - easier access and lower cost We propose to: · Review and reduce staffing in our libraries. · Move to 9am - 5pm opening times for our call centre operations. · Continue to review advice and guidance services – the wide availability of information about and access to County Council services through our Customer Service Centre, our website, all libraries through our council@yourlibrary service and similar arrangements being put into other venues, for example some parish councils and voluntary organisations, means we are no longer reliant on the small number of joint council information centres to provide these services.

To implement the waste strategy to avoid landfill tax costs We are currently in the top five of all councils in the UK for reducing waste and continue to work hard with all other Norfolk councils to drive up recycling rates. Every tonne of waste that goes to landfill now costs Norfolk taxpayers’ money that would be better spent on frontline services. Landfill tax this year will cost some £11 million – and the tax cost is going up year on year by another £1.8 million. So we are proposing a state-of-the-art power and recycling plant on the Saddlebow Industrial Estate in King’s Lynn that will burn left over waste and produce cheap electricity and more materials that can then be recycled. We would like this to be operational in 2015 by which time, supported by Government PFI credits, it will save Norfolk taxpayers £8 million a year.

To implement the rural bus strategy - this will support rural transport with more flexible, well publicised ‘book and choose’ local transport schemes such as ‘dial-a-ride’ rather than through direct subsidies to bus companies for scheduled rural services that are underused at heavy cost to taxpayers. 3. Scaling back the scope and volume of some services – fewer priorities: Total savings £73 million We have looked to re-prioritise spending where we can to shift investment between service areas or stop some non-essential work to help better protect priorities. 13. As a consequence, among other things, we propose: · To reduce the budget for countryside access and conservation and explore the scope for voluntary and community organisations to do more.

· To scale back grant funding for the arts. While we want to continue seeing a thriving cultural scene in Norfolk, this means that some arts organisations will need to rely less on council tax payers for funding in future. · To direct as much funding as possible to meeting the costs of paying for those whose care needs are more critical and reduce the amount of grant we currently provide to voluntary organisations for general support to older vulnerable people. However we also believe that given the chance, local communities are much better able to arrange more flexible and cost effective solutions to meet local needs and make a smaller grant go further. So we are considering a participatory budgeting pilot project that will devolve to a local level the decisions about where and how this grant should be best spent to meet local need. · To raise the criteria used to determine who is entitled to receive council funded social care services from ‘critical and substantial’ to ‘critical’ only. This means that we will be spending our reduced care budget on the people who really need our urgent help. We will help people whose needs are not critical to find other means of having their needs met. However, before we change the criteria, we want to hear from people who currently care for or support an older or vulnerable person what more the council can do to help them continue to care and help stop or delay the need for further care for their loved ones. 4. Smaller council – bigger communities

We propose to stop funding or providing directly those services we believe are not core to the proposed new role of the County Council and that therefore should not be up to the council taxpayer to pay for. However, in stepping back we will, wherever possible, offer support and advice to communities or social enterprise organisations wanting to develop and implement their own solutions, for example, finding different ways of meeting locally important priorities without a call on council tax payers.

Our objective is to help communities become even more resilient and active so they can look after more of their own needs and gain greater control of their own affairs. On page 10 we put forward some of the ideas we have heard from others. In this conversation, we welcome more views and ideas from Norfolk people and Norfolk communities about how best to achieve and support these objectives.

We also believe that as more vulnerable adults are given a personal budget with which to choose their own care, more opportunities will open up for community entrepreneurs and others to provide more innovative and varied choices for these new consumers in the marketplace. Where necessary we will help stimulate and support the development of these new market options.

14. Conclusion We are proposing a new core role which would see us focus of our efforts and money on: · Speaking up for Norfolk – providing strategic leadership and influence sufficient to ensure that Norfolk’s voice is heard wherever people are taking decisions that are critical to its future economic prosperity, investment, health and well-being. · Assessing people’s needs and commissioning efficient, responsive and cost effective services to meet them. · Supporting, developing and maintaining the infrastructure that helps our economy. · Being a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our county and protecting the public. Signposting people to the services they need and providing good quality information to help people choose services relevant to them. · Helping and enabling others to build and maintain strong, sustainable and caring communities, giving back community ownership of locally important priorities best tackled through local community action. What do you think of our proposals for our new core role? Do these fit with your idea of what the County Council of the future should be? If not, tell us why. Our proposed strategy

1. Making efficiencies We think we should streamline the council, cut council running costs and work with other public services to save money. What are your ideas for how the council could save money?

2. Redesigning services We think that we should radically transform some of our services to make them better fit for the 21st century. What do you think we could do differently? How can we modernise?

3. Scaling back the scope and volume of some services – fewer priorities We think that we should stop providing some services that we do not have to provide and that we believe are lower priorities for spending when times are tough. What services do you value the most? What services should we stop providing? What services could be provided by other organisations, for example voluntary organisations or town and parish councils We think that we should stop spending taxpayers’ money subsidising some of our services so that people pay more of the true cost of that service. What services do you think we should charge more for? 4. Smaller council – bigger communities There is a great community spirit in Norfolk, what do you think you or your community could do to help? And what could Norfolk County Council do to help communities? In the meantime we will continue scrutinising and reviewing all our services and every aspect of council spending in our drive to become ever more efficient, save more money and direct as much money as possible to the services people value most. Your ideas and suggestions can help us. 15. Remember Even after we have made savings of this scale, in 2011/12 and beyond, Norfolk County Council will still be investing close to £1.5 billion pounds of your money in priority public services.

Your views will help us continue to spend your money wisely and well.

Here are some of the costs we face

· One fire engine costs £27,000 each year to lease. · A residential care package for one older person can range between £15,000 and £93,000 a year. · Providing residential care packages for adults with a learning disability can cost between £16,000 and £206,000 for one adult each year – although the average cost of care is £45,000. · On average it costs the service £17,368 per year to deliver day care for an adult with a learning disability. · Average cost of foster care for one child is £550 per week. · Every tonne of waste that householders bring to our recycling centres costs us £91. · The cost of subsiding Park & Ride journeys currently costs the council 89p per journey.

16. Some information about our current budget Where our £1.577 billion income comes from 2010/11 This chart sets out where we get our money from. You will see that £438 million of the income we get from Government is a grant to support schools. This goes to them and they decide how to spend it.

How the income is spent 2010/11 This chart sets out how the council spends its money at present. If we take out the £438 million of Government grant that goes directly to schools, of the remaining budget, £909 million is spent on just three services - Children’s Services, Adult Social Care and Environment, Transport and Development (which includes waste management).

Thank you for reading our proposals - we now want hear your views.

Find out how to respond to our consultation on page 6

17. APPENDIX 2

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 CHILDREN'S SERVICE £000 £000 £000

ORIGINAL BUDGET 172,599 154,028 146,782 ADDITIONAL COSTS Basic Inflation - Pay ( 2011-13 -0% plus £250) 1% for 13-14 172 172 650 Basic Inflation - Prices (General 2%, School and social care 2,611 2,684 2,761 passenger transport 4%) Public Law Outline 1,700 0 0 Looked After Children - increased residential and foster care 10,001 2,081 2,081 agency provision Increased demand for school related early retirements 1,000 1,000 1,000 Increased costs of Adoptions Service 200 0 0 Increased demand for LAC Transport 580 0 0 Cost of Capital Borrowing 0 1,011 1,011 Use of NEET related LPSA reward grant in 2010/11 200 0 0 16,464 6,948 7,503 Sub total Additional Costs BUDGET SAVINGS Big Conversation proposals B1 No new borrowing to supplement government grant for capital projects in schools 0 -1,011 -1,011 B2 Reduction in staff as a result of a smaller capital budget for building projects -681 -169 -169 B3 Home to School Transport - end post -16 transport subsidy 0 -2,500 0 B4 Home to School Transport - halt denominational transport; end funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and achieve -232 -199 -39 B5 Reduce the number of school cross patrols -58 -58 0 B6 Re-design and re-shape special education support service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required. 0 -1,900 0 B7 Reduce the scale and capacity of the attendance service -363 -220 -17 B8 Reduce the scale and capacity of improvement and intervention services for schools -867 -867 -867 B9 Reduce the scale and capacity of the supply of schools places service. -84 -60 -60 B10 Reduce the Council's contribution to the funding of the schools music service and performing arts service, and outdoor -158 -45 -55 B11 End local authority funded youth services -3,869 -733 0 B12 Efficiencies from a re-shaped connexions service - now Early Intervention Grant 0 0 0 B13 End local authority contribution to study support community learning projects -377 -11 -11 B14 & Redesign management and support as a consequence of B19 redesign of school focussed services and social care services. -1,990 -828 -550 B15 Procurement savings on placements for looked after children -3,283 -4,175 730 B16 Reduce the scale and capacity of services to support looked after children -2,791 5 -1,589 B17 Smarter more efficient processes for conducting child death reviews and the work of the Local Children's Safeguarding -52 -48 -50 B18 Reduce the scale and capacity of family support services -2,294 -561 -1,743 B20 Discontinue provision of clothing grants -41 0 0 Other and new savings proposals Building Schools for the Future - end of programme -1,560 0 0 Reduced staffing requirements in 2010/11 for responsibilities transferred from the Learning and Skills Council -250 0 0 Reduction in services as a result of withdrawal of Area Based Grant funding, including choice advisers, support for implementation of national strategies in schools, school improvement partners. -1,675 0 0 Reduction in the County Council's partnership contribution to the Youth Justice Service -203 -153 -152 Reduced provision for additional school staff early retirement and redundancy costs -520 -520 -520 APPENDIX 2

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 CHILDREN'S SERVICE £000 £000 £000 Reduced contribution to school sports facilities and no -76 -38 -38 contribution to Specific Grant No inflation allocation for existing early retirement costs -115 -115 -115 End of local provision of student awards -198 0 0 Home to School Transport - reduced inflation in 2010/11 -1,380 0 0 Home to School Transport - procurement/efficiency savings -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 Discontinue local authority contribution to flexible 14-19 Partnerships -129 0 0 Former Children's Fund expenditure -200 0 0 Organisational Review - full year effect of Phase 1 -81 0 0 Sub total Savings Proposals -24,526 -14,195 -6,245

COST NEUTRAL CHANGES, i.e. which do not impact on the overall Council Tax

Capital Adjustments *Depreciation charges -634 0 0 *Revenue expenditure funded capital under statute (REFCUS) -11,578 0 0 charges *Grant on REFCUS Charges 12,721 0 0 Debt management expenses -13 0 0

Office Accommodation 16 0 0

Shared Services:- - ICT -213 0 0 - Finance -534 0 0 - Procurement -205 0 0 - Performance, Planning and Partnerships -1,021 0 0 - Communications and Customer Services -470 0 0 - Human Resources -1,020 0 0 2010/11 Organisation Review Savings -325 0 0 Modern Reward Strategy 2,159 0 0 Pension Adjustment -859 0 0 FIMS -64 0 0

Sports Grant -65 0 0 Payroll Charges -59 0 0 Modern Social care Efficiency Savings -60 0 0 Sub Total Cost Neutral Changes -2,224 0 0

BASE ADJUSTMENTS Area Base Grant transferred to Early Intervention Grant -4,255 0 0 Area Based Grant reduced in 2010/11 -4,030 0 0 Sub Total Base Adjustments -8,285 0 0

PROPOSED BUDGET 154,028 146,782 148,040

* These changes are required to comply with the Local Authority Accounting Code of Practice but do not impact on the Council Tax calculation. Appendix 3

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2011-14

Indicative Capital Programmes for 2011-12 Children’s Services

Scheme 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 £m £m £m Children’s Services Devolved formula capital 2.795 High Growth Area – Cringleford 4.400 Unallocated capital grant (note 1) 25.495

Children’s Services - Total 28.290 4.400

Funding of Programme

Non ringfenced capital grant funding 28.290 4.400 (note 2) Funding from capital receipts and prudential borrowing Other External Grants and Contributions

Total 28.290 4.400

Note 1: the Department for Education has indicated the allocations for 2012- 13 until 2014-15 will be informed by the outcome of the James Review which will be published early in 2011. While the allocation and management for these programmes may change to reflect the recommendations of the review, it is expected that the funding available nationally for basic need and capital maintenance of schools will be roughly in line with the funding for 2011/12.

Note 2: the total grant received in 2011/12 is £32.69m. It is intended to use the 2011/12 capital grant over two years enabling the funding of part of the Cringleford VA scheme payments in 2012/13.

Appendix 4 Summary of responses

Appendix 4 brings together a summary of responses to the Big Conversation received by the County Council up until December 31st 2010. Whilst every effort has been made to include all comments received up until this date, given the number of different responses, and the v ariety of c hannels for responses, it may be that we have not c aptured them in this repor t. However, any add itional responses will be made available for each Overview and Scrutiny Panel, coveri ng responses received between January 1 st 2011, and January 10th, (the closing date), which should ensure a comprehensive set for all members.

The responses hav e been sum marised as they were submitted, so there may be some comments which are on iss ues that ar e beyond the remit of the County Council, or responses which put forward suggestions or alternative that need to be tested for practicality. At this stage, we have taken the view that Members should have the chance to see the comments as presented. The full text of all responses will be made available for Members in the Members’ Room , as soon as is practicable after January 10th 2010. Table of contents

Section A Summary of responses to Adult Social Services Budget proposals Pages 2 Section B Summary of responses to Children’s Services budget proposals Pages 22 Section C Summary of response to Cultural Services budget proposals Pages 42 Section D Summary of responses for Customer Services budget proposals Pages 52 Section E Summary of responses for Environment and Development services Pages 56 budget proposals Section F Summary of responses for Fire and Rescue Service budget proposals Pages 67 Section G Summary of responses for Resources Department budget proposals Pages 71 Section H Summary of responses for Travel and Transport budget proposals Pages 81 Section I Summary of responses on general themes of the Big Conversation Pages 92 Section J Key findings from Big Conversation stakeholder groups Pages 108

Section K Key themes from consultation meetings Pages 115

Section L Key themes from on-line dialogue Pages 126

Page 1 of 129 Section A Summary of Responses to Adult Social Services Budget Proposals

Of the targeted mailout to service users (31,000 people) we received the most responses on:

1. Raise eligibility criteria (A14) 2. Reduce scale and capacity of Sensory Support Service (A15) 3. Reduction in prevention (A22) 4. Re-design of day services provision (A11)

Of the proposals not in the targeted mailout we received the most responses on:

1. Reduce scale and capacity of quality assurance service (A3)

And the fewest responses to:

1. Organisational review (A1) 2. Business support review (A2) 3. Reduce spend on training (A5) 4. Rationalising offices and buildings (A7) 5. Reduced and redesigned management and support arrangements as consequence of service redesigns (A20)

Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

A1 Organisational review Responses were received from the general public.

Savings arising from There were fewer than 5 responses to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the Phase 2 of the proposal. organisational review undertaken by PwC. It was suggested that previous organisational reviews mean the organisation is already at a limit and any further reductions would impact on effectiveness.

A2 Business support review Responses were received from the general public.

Page 2 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

We aim to make savings of There were fewer than 5 responses to this proposal. Those who responded supported the proposal. 25% by reviewing levels of business support and It was suggested, however, that senior management wages should be cut instead of making those with administrative processes. lower salaries redundant.

A3 Reduce scale and capacity Responses were received from the general public, including: carers, staff, and other professionals. Two of quality assurance detailed group responses were received from the Council’s Quality Assurance and Safeguarding teams. service In addition responses were received from Norfolk Independent Care, which represents all of the independent providers of Health and Social Care services in Norfolk, and from Norfolk Independent This would see a reduced Domiciliary Care Group and the North Norfolk and Broadland Carers Group. budget for quality assurance work, so fewer There were over 25 responses to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the proposal. quality checks on services provided by the Overwhelmingly it was felt that the reduction in the scale and capacity of the Quality Assurance Team independent sector, could lead to significant increased risk for those unable to advocate for themselves. In addition, including residential responses from the provider groups highlighted the role of the current team in improving the quality of homes, and homecare. care in the independent sector.

Concerns were raised that the proposal would put people at risk and allow independent providers to provide poor/inadequate services in the drive for profits. It was felt this would cause an increase in complaints that would have to be dealt with.

The Adult Safeguarding Team expressed particular concern that the increased pressure this proposal would place on their team would reduce their ability to service safeguarding referrals and issues reported and would, therefore, impact on their ability to safeguard adults. In particular, concerns were raised about an increased risk of “catastrophic” incidences affecting service users as a result of abuse or neglect. The two teams work closely and the intelligence and relationships between teams and with providers would be lost. There would also be a reduced ability to identify and spread best practice.

The Quality Assurance Team pointed out that the proposal is for a reduction across the entire team (essentially it will reduce the team by 50%) and will therefore affect other areas of quality assurance work, not solely work connected to the independent sector. They also raised particular

Page 3 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

concerns about the monitoring of Direct Payments and day services, which are not regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Without Quality Assurance monitoring these services will undergo no independent checks. They suggested that there is no capacity elsewhere in the Council to target and progress issues with provider performance including safeguarding and that to outsource such work would end up increasing costs, not reducing them. They also pointed out that by reducing monitoring of social care staff assessment and practice , more inappropriate and expensive packages of care may be commissioned. The Team also warned that accusations of negligence would be more likely if the department has insufficient checks in place on the work of its staff and that of commissioned providers and that if found guilty of maladministration, the Council may have to make financial compensation to the estate of an individual, waive outstanding care charges or carry out extensive procedural and policy changes.

It was pointed out that the recently announced reduction of the national regulator’s role in inspection and the growth in personal budgets and further outsourcing actually increases the need for quality assurance. In addition, responses highlight recent government proposals suggesting an increased importance for quality systems when holding the Council to account.

Suggestions put forward:

 That there is a future role in self assessment, supporting quality linked payments for services and sharing knowledge with the public that the Quality Assurance Team is best placed to undertake.  That the County Council could slash some of its own internal quality assurance measures instead.

A4 Ensuring all those entitled Responses were received from the general public, including carers, members of the Norfolk Disabled to free personal care Parents Alliance and the WRVS (Women's Royal Voluntary Service). receive it There were fewer than 10 responses to this proposal. The majority of those who made a direct We anticipate that more response to the proposal supported it. new users will be entitled to continuing care, which There was a view that this change should not be implemented until personal health budgets are means Community working properly for everyone. Services does not pay for their care, since it is NHS

Page 4 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views funded. A5 Reduce spend on training Responses were received from the general public, including staff. A group response was received from the Council’s Southern Community Care Team (13 signatories). This would see a reduction in the scale of training for There were fewer than 5 responses to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the Community Services staff. proposal.

Concerns were raised that the reduction in training spending will mean staff will struggle to maintain the statutory qualification, which is essential to professional practice. It was felt that this could impact on service delivery.

It was pointed out that Norfolk County Council has a commitment to ensure professionals receive the required mandatory training days to maintain their social work qualification.

A6 Limiting inflation uplift to Responses were received from the general public, including voluntary sector representatives and the the independent and third Holt Area Patient Group. In addition, Norfolk Independent Care, which represents all independent sector providers of Health and Social Care services in Norfolk, made a detailed response.

There would be no uplift There were fewer than 5 responses to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the for inflation for 2011/12, proposal. and an assumed 1% uplift for 2012/13. This would Respondents were concerned that increases in fees had not kept pace with inflation for several years, mean providers would widening the gap between what was being paid and the cost of providing good quality care services. need to make efficiency Concerns that demand for higher quality alongside more service users, at a time when fees are savings to manage any reducing in real terms, would create real hardship and risk business failures of providers. They were increased costs. also concerned that this gap will increasingly be bridged by older people who end up paying for the services they need from their own resources.

Concerns were raised that the voluntary sector is already suffering from insufficient funding and further pressures will lead to direct service cuts and potentially organisations completely shutting down, not just efficiency savings.

Page 5 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

It was also felt that this change would impact on the achievement of outcomes for local people and expectations of the voluntary sector would have to be adjusted.

It was suggested that the Council should work closely with the voluntary sector to ensure that systems are not so bureaucratic they stifle creativity.

A7 Rationalising office and Responses were received from staff. There were fewer than 5 responses to this proposal. Those who building costs responded supported the proposal.

We are reviewing our Staff who responded are positive about the use of technology to work from home and release office and offices and buildings and buildings related savings. will make savings by rationalising the number of offices, and introducing modern working practices, including more mobile working and maximising the use of technology. A8 Re-design the assessment Responses were received from the general public, including staff and organisations. There were fewer service than 10 responses to this proposal, though this included a group response from the Council’s Southern Community Care Team (13 signatories), Breckland District Council, Diss Youth Group (6 individuals), We propose to redesign the Mancroft Advice Project (4 individuals) and, North Norfolk and Broadland Carers Group. There was this service over the next roughly an equal split of opinion on this proposal. three years and see a shift towards a ‘self-service’ Those who supported the proposal believed that self service would save money. approach. This would be more cost-effective and Those who opposed the proposal (including the Southern Community Care Team) raised concerns would prioritise social work about the suitability of self assessment, how accurately users and carers would be able to identify the time on people in greatest real level of their needs and how the most vulnerable would cope with this change. need. Breckland Council expressed concern that self service would lead to greater strain on district councils in relation to DFGs (Disabled Facility Grant) as people could over specify their needs.

Page 6 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

It was suggested that expert assessment is the Council’s responsibility.

A9 Re-design hospital Responses were received from the general public including carers. There were fewer than 10 discharge process responses to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the proposal.

We propose to re-design Concerns were raised that removal of this service would lead to an increase in readmissions as patients the hospital discharge may not be properly supported when discharged. As health colleagues focus on whether a patient is service with a reduced medically ready to be discharged, someone needs to assess whether they are socially ready and budget. provisions are in place to support them on their return home.

It was felt that if provisions are not in place when people return home, vulnerable people may suffer and their conditions may worsen.

It was suggested that a social work team should be retained in hospitals to assess patients awaiting discharge from a social perspective.

A10 Remove council subsidy Responses were received from the general public, including: service users, staff and community for community meals organisations.

The Council will continue There were over 2,000 responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). to meet the care needs of Slightly more respondents expressed support for the proposal. people who currently receive meals on wheels, Those supporting the proposal felt that the quality of the existing service is not good enough and that but propose to no longer alternative services are likely to work out cheaper. contribute to the meal itself. There was also a strong feeling that meals form part of normal household expenses and people should expect to have to meet these costs themselves, if they can afford it.

Some respondents agreed with the proposal subject to the following points:

 The service is a useful daily check for clients and this loss needs to be taken into account

Page 7 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 People should have help with meals through their personal budgets  A similar, reliable service must be available elsewhere  Volunteers should pay for their food as well and not get it free

Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about those who will struggle to cook for themselves or pay for alternative services, and the possible risk of malnutrition. Many respondents reported that they themselves would be unable to cook for themselves (this particularly effects those who are registered blind) and this service provides their only hot meals, since help with care at home does not give enough time for help with food. It was felt that this proposal would be a false economy if poor nutrition undermines health.

Many questioned the reliability of private providers and some reported that they are not aware of any alternative services being available in their area. Some respondents wished to know how the quality of independent services would be monitored.

Many also expressed concerns for isolated people and the loss of social contact that this service provides. There were fears that those that really need the service would not be able to access it e.g. due to difficulties using the internet.

Many expressed an opinion that food is essential and that the Council should look for a cheaper way of providing the service instead of removing the subsidy. The following suggestions were put forward:

 Some users would be prepared to pay more to keep the service  People could pay for food but not delivery  The subsidy could be means tested  People might be prepared to pay for the meals they receive at day services  Families could make a contribution to the costs  The Council could charge 20% of the cost of the meal  The reduction in subsidy could be phased in more gradually e.g. over three years  Smaller portions could be supplied

Some other suggestions were also put forward:

Page 8 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 Other local community groups could help to deliver this service  Those needing meals could offer £1 to neighbours to provide a meal  Local school kitchens could be used  High paid council staff should lose meal expenses too  Hospital food should be paid for  Council tax should be raised instead

It was suggested that more details should have been provided with the consultation information so that proper comment could have been made.

A11 Re-design of day services Responses were received from the general public, including: service users, staff, other professionals, provision carers, the voluntary sector and providers. There were also group responses from the staff of the Dementia Day Care Service in Eastern District (18 individuals), the Southern Community Care Team We propose that by the (13 individuals) and North Norfolk and Broadland Carers Group. end of 2012, the council will not be running in- There were over 1,900 responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). house day centres. People The majority of respondents expressed support for the proposal. will have individual budgets and will be helped Whether they supported the proposal or not, many respondents expressed a view that day services are to choose day services for essential in helping carers cope and in preventing social isolation and that existing Council day services themselves. We are are generally perceived to be of good quality. already working to adapt and re-shape service Overwhelmingly, people supported the idea that there should be a range of choice in day service delivery to meet future provision and that a variety of activities should be available to people. The majority believed that the need. proposal would meet this aim.

Some respondents agreed with the proposal subject to the following points:

 The Council should still be there to help and provide advice  Independent providers should be up and running before any existing provision is removed

Many respondents were happy, however, with things the way they are – they value existing day

Page 9 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

services and are anxious about losing them. Many respondents have been using current services for many years. Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns that independent providers will not be readily available to fill the gaps left by the Council and that those that are available will not be sufficiently monitored, reliable or of the same quality. It is feared that independent providers, particularly those that use volunteers, may not have the know-how to manage people with high levels of need. There were further concerns about the turnover of carers in independent provision and the uncertainty this creates for service users.

There were also some concerns about the move to personal budgets and fears that vulnerable people would not be able to manage them. It is felt by some that the bureaucracy of this new system will outweigh the savings and that costs will increase as there is less sharing of activities/transport etc. One provider who responded is concerned that personal budgets would not guarantee income and, therefore, jobs for day carers would not be secure. Other respondents were concerned about the impact of the proposal, and the move to personal budgets, on carers who may not be able to meet any additional support needs, and who rely on the respite provided by current arrangements.

Other respondents raised concerns that the proposal will end up costing more in the long run by reducing the independence of service users and that a lack of access to personal transport might prevent some from accessing the new services.

Some concerns were raised about the ability of non-statutory organisations to provide enough alternative support in the proposed timeframe. Some respondents felt that the non-statutory sector was well placed to meet this challenge, but would need time to adapt. It was suggested that the Council has a role to play in this case in shaping and stimulating the market.

The following suggestions were put forward:

 Some fair/means tested charging system might help to protect day services  The Council will need to ensure there is help for vulnerable people with managing personal budgets  That people who are second home owners should pay more  Means test all Council services

A12 Savings on transport costs Responses were received from the general public, including: service users, staff, councillors and

Page 10 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views as a result of changes to providers (including Elizabeth Fitzroy Support and Norfolk Independent Care, which represents all of day services the independent providers of Health and Social Care services in Norfolk).

With the changed pattern There were over 1,900 responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). of day services, there will The majority of respondents expressed support for the proposal. be fewer transport costs. We propose that for people Some of those supporting the proposal expressed a view that service users who have Motability who need to travel to vehicles should use their own transport to get to and from services, not County Council transport. services, as part of their assessed care needs, they Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about the impact that it would have on people’s will use personal budgets ability to access the services they need. Some felt that the extra costs would simply lead to service to pay for the transport. users not attending day care services as they would not be able to afford both the transport and the service charges. This could lead to a deterioration in general health and well-being which would imply a longer term cost to the Council.

Some respondents were anxious that, if the increased transport costs did lead to a drop in demand for day services, this could lead to an overall cut in the provision of services locally and impact on service user choice.

Some respondents pointed out that there would be a particularly hard impact on service users in rural areas who have to travel further distances and that this would be unfair.

Concerns were raised, particularly by providers, that personal budgets may not be able to cover both transport and care services costs.

A13 Supporting more people Responses were received from the general public, carers and Breckland District Council. Fewer than with mental health 10 responded to this proposal. There was a mixture of opinions about the proposal. problems to live independently One respondent agreed with the proposal, subject to service users being able to live safely within the community. We will continue our programme which sees The remainder opposed the proposal and raised concerns about it putting vulnerable people at more people with mental health risk. They felt that it was unfair on individuals and on the communities they live in and that community

Page 11 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views problems currently in cohesion would be at risk. They expressed a view that individual choice and community safety should residential care moving be the priority. into homes in the community. This is in line Breckland Council identified the need for close working with housing authorities as people living in the with best practice. community would need housing.

A14 Raising the eligibility Responses were received from the general public, including: service users, carers, staff, other criteria professionals and organisations.

We propose to raise the More than 1,800 responses were received for this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct eligibility criteria for service mailout). More respondents opposed the proposal. to ‘critical’ only. Currently it is ‘critical and substantial’. Group responses were received from:

 West Norfolk Befriending  Dereham and District Access Group  Southern Community Care SW Team  North Norfolk and Broadland Carers Group  Norfolk Muscular Dystrophy Campaign

Those supporting the proposal felt that they could agree with the proposal subject to the following points:

 Those who will become critical should also be supported  No one should be left without a service  Carers’ needs should be taken into account  All services for those who are ‘critical’ should be means tested

However, many respondents had serious concerns about the proposal. Those who opposed it raised concerns about it being a false economy that would provide savings only in the short term and would lead to more expensive unplanned services down the line. Some felt there was a risk that the change would potentially make people’s needs become critical sooner by placing more pressure on carers. This

Page 12 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

means that more people would be likely to need residential care or other more costly ‘crisis’ services (Department of Health project analysis was cited as an example of evidence that proves this is the case). Some respondents suggested that the Council would not have the resources to deal with the amount of new people that would become critical quickly. Others thought that potential savings would be negligible compared to the amount the Council needs to save overall.

There were concerns about existing service users who will have their support withdrawn. It was felt that other sectors would not be able to meet the gap in provision. There were also doubts about the robustness of Council assessment and, consequently, how rigorous and fair the decision-making about individuals would be.

Some suggested that support is already at inadequate levels so it should not be reduced further. Some pointed out that it is generally considered very bad practice to raise the eligibility criteria to critical only and would set us apart as the only authority in the Eastern Region to have done so.

Many respondents reflected on the impact that the proposal would have on NHS services. Some felt that it would result in increased long term costs for the NHS as well as Community Services. Others pointed out that the Health Service is continuing to invest in prevention so it does not make sense for the Council to move in a different strategic direction.

Many felt that the proposal was morally wrong and that Norfolk would no longer be protecting its most vulnerable citizens. Some suggested the change would isolate many vulnerable people, leaving them at greater risk of neglect and of being abused.

Staff identified that they would experience hostility and resentment from the service users they currently work with and some stated that they would no longer be proud to work for Norfolk.

A number of respondents questioned the legality of the proposal and suggested that there would potentially be legal challenge that could result in the Council being fined.

The following suggestions were put forward:

 All services should be means tested rather than changing the eligibility criteria  Reviews of people who are critical should not be done by telephone

Page 13 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 The Council should use more Occupational Therapy equipment

A15 Reduce the scale and Responses were received from the general public, including service users, carers, staff, doctors and capacity of the sensory organisations. support service More than 1,600 responses were received for this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct We propose to scale back mailout). this service so that it meets only statutory Group responses were received from (where signatories are identified they have been included): requirements. It would mean the work of the  N+N Head of Optometry Department current sensory support  Optomologists at the James Paget University Hospital (7 signatories) team would cease and  Norfolk and Norwich Association for the Blind (NNAB) statutory services  The Board of Governors of Cromer High School commissioned through  The Mardler (60 individuals) other providers.  The Stroke Association  West Norfolk Deaf Association  Great Yarmouth Visually Impaired Group  Diss Youth Group  Holt Area Patient Group

The majority of respondents were concerned that the removal of the Sensory Support Service targets one of the most vulnerable groups in Norfolk. Views were that it would lead to isolation, loneliness, ill health, greater risk and people losing their independence.

Users, carers, organisations and health and social care professionals gave high praise to the current services and expressed concerns that the expertise and knowledge of the staff would be lost. There were concerns that as the only service in the County, with no existing adequate alternatives, there would be a void. Making deaf and blind people navigate a fragmented service would be confusing and without expert workers they would not be able to use personal budgets.

Doctors expressed the importance of people being supported in the community, particularly the newly

Page 14 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

diagnosed, and found the current service invaluable. They also highlighted the important role of the current team in identifying and helping people find the right support for other issues e.g. mental health or financial problems.

There are views that this would prove a false economy as more people would become critical. This would mean people needing other/more services and would hasten the need for admission to residential care homes. Some felt that this would increase demand on both social care and NHS budgets. This would add to pressure caused by the aging population.

The following alternatives for making savings were put forward:

 Charge for equipment for those who can pay, no fee for those who can’t  Reduce the service, don’t close it  Focus on the client, not computers  Recruit more volunteers  That it could be provided by the NHS  Increase council tax  Cut council management pay instead  Cut frivolous council spending instead  Council pay rises should be frozen

A16 Reduction in specialist Responses were received from the general public, including staff, carers, Breckland District Council and advice the voluntary sector (Norfolk Association for the Disabled). Fewer than 10 responded to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the proposal. This would see some posts removed which currently Concerns were raised about the impact of this proposal in the longer term. There were views that it provide specialist practice could be a false economy as people would lose support in maintaining independence and needs would advice on disability, direct become more severe sooner. Some felt that a cut in grants for smaller voluntary services could lead to payments, housing a loss of support that is valued by service users because it is often more human, less distant and more improvements, dementia, in touch with users. supported placements, medicines management. Concerns were also raised that, taken in addition to cuts to training for practitioners, this proposal would

Page 15 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

lead to a third-rate service to those most in need of expert assistance.

One respondent particularly wished to highlight the value of specialist housing work in Learning Difficulties, which meets the Council’s aim of moving people on from residential care. While Breckland District Council expressed concern that it would put additional pressure on their advice/support services, particularly around housing and homelessness issues.

A17 End the council’s Responses were received from the general public, including service users, and from the Grove HIV/AIDS service Genitourinary Medicine Clinic. More than 1,600 responses to this proposal were received (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). The majority of respondents expressed support for the proposal. Most support for people with HIV and AIDS is Many respondents expressed a view that this was essentially a medical need and not a social need and through the NHS. This that the existing service was duplicating services offered by the NHS. proposal would see an end to this discretionary service Many agreed with the proposal subject to people being able to get the support they need elsewhere which offers advice and (i.e. the NHS). support to some people newly-diagnosed with HIV Those who opposed the proposal felt that the service is needed and that people in this situation should and AIDS. have access to help and advice. There were concerns about the ability of the NHS to pick up this work. Some felt that it would not be cost effective to remove the service.

The response from the Grove GUM Clinic expressed concern that stopping the support to people with HIV and their families would compromise their care in the community.

A18 Reduce the scale and Responses were received from the general public, including service users, staff, carers, Elizabeth capacity of mental health Fitzroy Support, Norwich and Central Norfolk MIND, West Norfolk MIND and South West London and services St George NHS Trust. There were more than 1,600 responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). The majority of respondents opposed the proposal. This proposal would see a reduction in the budget for Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about the increased pressure that this change would mental health social care place on families and carers and the potential knock on effect on demand for other services, such as for adults. Children’s Services. Many did not feel that the voluntary sector would be able to pick up the shortfall in

Page 16 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

provision, meaning that people’s mental health issues will deteriorate. It was felt that this might prove ultimately to be a false economy.

Concerns were also raised about the impact of the proposal on NHS services. Some suggested that it will increase pressure on the NHS as more acute beds will need to be provided for the increasing number of people becoming severely ill due to lack of support.

Many expressed their distress that this proposal will hit one of the most vulnerable groups within society, who are least well placed to speak up in their own interests. Some pointed out that it is already difficult for those with milder mental health issues but this proposal will exacerbate the situation by removing services from those with all but the most extreme mental health issues.

Some respondents were also anxious that the proposal could increase dangers to both those with mental health issues and the communities in which they live.

A19 Reduce the scale and Responses were received from the general public, including service users. There were more than 1,600 capacity of some learning responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). There was roughly an difficulty services even split in responses.

We currently give grants A significant number of respondents agreed to the proposal subject to the caveat that those with the through the Learning greatest needs are looked after. Some respondents who supported the proposal felt that services Difficulties Development currently provided through the Fund aren’t producing any real outcomes anyway. Fund to organisations for specialist work relating to Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about the future of the voluntary services that these learning difficulties. This grants support and suggested that they will not survive without the support of the Council. Several includes advocacy and questioned who would be able to meet the gap in provision that would be left. Many felt that people with advice, and supports some learning difficulties need this support and that there is growing demand for it so this proposal does not partnership working. We make sense. propose that this service will cease. Many feared that the loss of these services may push carers over the edge, creating crises for service users and their families and ultimately leading to increased costs for the Council to bear.

A large number of respondents pointed out that the saving takes a very large proportion out of a

Page 17 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

relatively small budget and felt that this was an unfair distribution of savings.

Some respondents commented that there was not enough information provided with the consultation documentation to be able to fully understand the impact of the proposal.

A20 Reduced and redesigned Responses were received from the general public. A very small number of people (fewer than 5) management and support responded to this proposal. None of those who responded supported the proposal. arrangements as consequence of service No detailed comments were submitted. redesigns

The proposals for changes in services represent major impact on management arrangements at all tiers of adult social care services will need to be reviewed and re-scaled as necessary to align with the changes and ensure fit for purpose. A21 Reduce the scale and Responses were received from the general public, including service users, staff and other capacity of the equipment professionals. A group response was received from the Council’s Southern Community Care Team (13 service signatories) and Breckland District Council. There were more than 1,700 responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). The majority of respondents expressed support for The equipment service has the proposal. been free to all users – not just people who are There was general agreement amongst respondents that equipment can make a significant difference entitled to social care. This to quality of life. proposed change would limit free equipment to only There was a strong feeling of waste in the current system and many expressed the view that currently those who are eligible for people take equipment they don’t really need because there is no charge.

Page 18 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views social care, and they will have personal budgets to A substantial number supported the proposal to charge for equipment, but the majority felt that this pay for the equipment. should be means related so that only those who can afford to pay are asked to do so. A number of For people not eligible, we suggestions were made for different ways that costs could be part shared with service users rather than would help sign-post to them meeting the full cost (see below). Some felt that all those needing equipment should receive it, where they can purchase regardless of whether or not they are eligible for support. equipment. Some respondents agreed with the proposal subject to the following points:

 Urgent equipment needs should be met  People should be able to get impartial advice on what they need and where they can get it  Equipment should be covered by personal budgets.

Many who opposed the proposal expressed concerns about those who need equipment and would not be eligible for help but would also not be able to afford to buy the equipment for themselves – this could lead to increased costs in the long term if individuals’ independence is allowed to deteriorate. There were fears that many people will simply go without the equipment they need and put their wellbeing at risk.

One staff respondent asked how this proposal would impact on the NHS since they also use the equipment service.

There were conflicting views about the quality of the existing service. A few respondents felt that the equipment service is already poor and that to make this change would make it even worse. Other respondents expressed support for the existing scheme.

Some suggestions were made for different ways that costs could be part shared with service users rather than them meeting the full cost – including:

 The Council and service user or family meeting 50% of the cost each  Small donations by each service user  Charges for equipment but free fitting  Charges for equipment rental

Page 19 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 Help with larger, more expensive items that individuals would not easily afford  Means testing so that only those who can afford it pay the full cost

Some other suggestions were put forward:

 Equipment should be loaned rather than given and returned when it is no longer needed  The Council should try to get businesses to sponsor equipment

A22 Reduction in spending on Responses were received from the general public, including service users, carers, staff, organisations. prevention services We propose to review Norfolk Registered Social Landlords Alliance, Breckland District Council and Norfolk Independent Care) spending on prevention and 57 petition postcards. There were more than 1,600 responses to this proposal (owing to this and community support proposal being in the direct mailout). More respondents opposed the proposal. services which are currently provided, Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about it being a false economy, with only short-term including the Supporting savings. Many suggested that a lack of preventative services will lead to an increase in those requiring People programme, critical services and higher overall costs for NCC as fewer vulnerable people will be able to live assistive technology, and independently and will need costly services such as residential care or psychiatric services. A cut in the prevention commissioned Supporting People budget would lead to an increase in the cost of purchasing care so would ultimately through the third sector. not save the Council money. In addition, reduced prevention services would increase demand on NHS We propose to reduce the services. overall level of spend for these services. Some respondents pointed out that this proposal undermines the Council’s recent strategic priorities e.g. to increase the uptake of assistive technology. Removal of such services could inhibit our chances of coping with an ageing population.

The removal of Supporting People funding would see increased demand in homelessness support and temporary accommodation costs for district councils.

A23 Review of charges for Responses were received from the general public, including service users and staff. There were more social care than 1,700 responses to this proposal (owing to this proposal being in the direct mailout). The majority of respondents expressed support for the proposal.

Page 20 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

We were already proposing a consultation There was significant support for charges that are means related, subject to an assessment process on charges – this will now that is fair and ensures that those on the lowest incomes are protected. be included alongside the current budget proposals. Some respondents agreed with the proposal subject to the following points:

 The financial assessment process must be rigorous and fair  Those on low incomes must be protected

Some respondents thought that these proposals were already in operation.

Those who opposed the proposal had significant concerns that charging will unfairly penalise those with savings or property.

There were also some concerns that the poorest may simply go without services they need and that this could lead to a deterioration in their quality of life, or that they might be pushed into severe poverty.

Some respondents believed that services should be free for all, no matter their income level and felt it is unfair that some will pay and some won’t for the same service.

Some concerns were expressed about the associated administration costs for the Council.

The following suggestions were put forward:

 Service users should be charged at least a proportion of costs that arise when they do not make use of services that are provided for them e.g. do not turn up to day service provision without due notice  The Council should ask the Government to allow for an increase in the admin charge for blue badges  The Council should make more effort to pursue payment from those who are supposed to pay currently and don’t  Several respondents want more information about how assessments would work  Means testing should take into account all vital outgoings such as utilities, insurance etc.

Page 21 of 129

Section B Summary of Responses for Children’s Services Budget Proposals

We received the most comments (more than 50) on:  B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over  B4 - End the subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies  B11 - Cease County Council funding for youth services  B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required  B5 - Review the school crossing patrol service.

And the least responses (fewer than 5) on:  B14 - Redesign management and support as a consequence of the redesigning of school-focussed services  B17 - Smarter, more efficient processes for conducting child death reviews and the work of the Local Children's Safeguarding Board  B19 - Reduced and redesigned management and support arrangements as consequence of service redesigns  B2 - Staff reductions as a consequence of the scaling back of capital budget for smaller building projects  B15 - Procurement savings on placements for looked after children.

Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

B1 A number of responses were received from the public including Norfolk County Council staff, teaching No new borrowing to professionals, Diss Youth Group, Family Voice Norfolk, Shout Youth Group, Taverham Youth Club supplement government (ages 11-14), Youth Fix and the Mancroft Advice Project. Most respondents disagreed with the grant for capital projects in proposal. school. Respondents commented that this could lead to limited access to the full curriculum for disabled After we have completed pupils, with some unable to attend their local school and remain part of their local community. Some projects in our 2010/11 respondents referred to equalities legislation, particularly the new Equality Act and the duty for schools

Page 22 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views capital programme we to provide auxiliary aids and services. propose to only carry out building projects funded Specific suggestions were: centrally by the  Ensure positive duty to make reasonable adjustments is maintained Government. An exception  Ensure school Governors are given training on public sector equalities duty to this could be if it can be  Make this a short term strategy. proven that capital receipts can cover the funding of a project. This would mean less money for general improvement works, works to make buildings DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant, or changes to mobile classroom arrangements to reflect changes in pupil numbers.

B2 There were very few responses received about this proposal from the public but there was general support for the proposal. Staff reductions as a consequence of the scaling Specific suggestions were: back of capital budget for  smaller building projects. The money should be fully devolved to schools  Norfolk Property Services or other private companies should be commissioned to do the work in A smaller service would not close liaison with schools - the Children's Services staff input should focus on the commissioning need as many staff. and contracting aspect.

B3 A high volume of responses were received from the public, including college tutors, head teachers, End the subsidy for school current sixth formers, high school students, parents and carers of high school and sixth form students, and college transport for sixth form college student union, teachers, college principals (City College, Easton College, Paston those aged 16 and over. College), student representatives, older people, the Trustees of the Wayland Partnership, Mancroft

Page 23 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

We propose to end the Advice Project, Family Voice, Taverham Youth Club, Boom, Diss Youth Group, Shout Youth Group, subsidy for post-16 Youth Fix, Chairman of Federation of Catholic Primary Schools (Waveney Valley), Norfolk Autistic transport. It will mean that Spectrum Disorder Group, Norman Lamb MP, Henry Bellingham MP, Parish Councils (Blakeney; all parents and carers will Hindolveston; Great Snoring) and businesses. pay an annual cost of transport of £784 per Specific group responses were received from UK Youth Parliament; Norfolk’s Further Education student per year. colleges, sixth forms and UEA (12 institutions); Area Headteacher meetings; Norfolk’s 14-19 Strategy Group; parents, carers, teachers, staff, governors and representatives of the Diocesan Board (70 in

total).

“Stand for you Services” petition against this proposal was received signed by 379 students at City College Norwich and an online version of the petition has141 signatures.

A social networking group was formed with 150 people opposing many of the national post 16 changes including this specific proposal.

The majority of responses were against this proposal, with fewer than 20 respondents agreeing with the proposal.

The majority commented that the removal of the post-16 travel subsidy will deter young people from continuing their education, lead to an increase in youth unemployment, mean inequality of educational achievement since those in rural areas and families on lowest incomes will be hardest hit, and will be detrimental to the economy of the county. There were also concerns raised about the impact on young people with disabilities and the disproportionate impact on their chances of continuing education.

There were concerns about possible connections to a rise in anti social behaviour and rise in the number of young people who are not in employment, education of training and the effect this may have on communities, especially rural ones. Families with more than one child and lone parent households expressed particular concern about not being able to afford further education without this subsidy. There is concern that the proposal, if implemented, could lead to postcode lotteries for Further Education whereby only those within easy travelling distance could attend sixth form.

Page 24 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

It has been suggested by some respondents that this proposal is not lawful under the Education Act and does not support the government’s commitment to have statutory engagement in learning at age 17 by 2013 and age 18 by 2015, and does not support Norfolk’s ambitions for greater uptake of post- 16 education.

Many people were concerned that any changes should not be introduced before 2012 since parents have made choices about schools for 2011 prior to this proposal being known. There is concern that this proposal shouldn’t affect those part way through a two year course.

There were concerns that the bus routes rely on student trade to maintain their viability and that there would be an impact (reductions) on the wider bus network.

Easton College and Downham Market Sixth Form commented on the very significant impact this could have on their future viability.

Some people commented on national policies and on services, not provided by the County Council, including:  Additional tax for all 45-70 year olds who are in the 40% tax bracket for the benefit of the younger generation  Reconsider free travel for the over 60s instead  Put pressure on the government to raise money from the banks instead  Don’t buy plasma TVs for schools  Remove barriers to lift sharing e.g. CRB checks.

Specific suggestions were:  Look for partnership funding so the subsidy can continue  Stop funding the rural speed initiative  If this goes ahead ensure there is increased parking provision at the colleges  Savings made should never be at the cost of education  Provide an affordable subsidised bus service instead  Increase prices only in line with inflation

Page 25 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 Cut council pay and pensions instead  Cut frivolous council spending instead  At least make the passes valid at weekends as well  Means test people so the poorest still qualify for the subsidy  Don’t charge school pupils the adult fare  Put all road improvements on hold and delay all new buildings  Provide free transport in the winter season  Work with the bus companies to offer a youth card for all 16-19 year olds. This could cost £50 per year and give a 50% discount on all journeys  Since from 2013 students will have to remain at school until they are 17, the payment from parents/carers should be from 17 not 16  Provide free bus passes for all 16-18 year olds  NCC could bulk buy rail season tickets for students  Students currently in the first year of a two year programme shouldn’t have to pay this since they cannot change their course  Apply a charge to all children using school buses to keep the costs for over-16s down  Increase council tax to cover the cost of this  Give young people the information to understand the situation and let them make suggestions for ways to save money  Set up a website (and a phone number for those without web access) to bring together people in similar areas who could lift share  Improve cycle routes to give realistic alternative to young people  Make savings from providing transport for pupils excluded from their local catchment area school.  Rather than doubling the cost of transport for everyone, why not double some contributions on a means tested basis  Institutions are willing to contribute money towards an overall pot of money for transport to help the situation – may be an opportunity to rethink the system and check it is the best value for money possible  Norfolk County Council to continue to organise transport if parents are asked to pay transport costs. B4 A significant number of responses were received from the public, including: college tutors, current sixth End subsidy for formers, parents and carers of high school and sixth form students, sixth form college student union,

Page 26 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views denominational transport; student representatives, older people, Diocesan Board, Head Teacher of Notre Dame RC VA School, end the funding of transport Head Teacher of St Mary’s RC VA Primary and Nursery School, East Anglian Diocese’s Deputy in exceptional director of school services, Norfolk Disabled Parents Alliance, Norfolk Autistic Steering Group, Shout circumstances and make Youth Group, and denominational parents and families. savings through further efficiencies. Group responses were received from: the Roman Catholic Diocese of East Anglia, the Headteacher, leadership team and Chair of Governors at Notre Dame High School, the Headteacher and Chair of We propose to end the Governors at St Mary’s Primary, the Headteacher of St Johns RC VA Infant School and St Thomas subsidy for denominational More RC VA Junior School, the Headteacher of St Augustines RC VA Primary. A group response was transport, and funding of also received from parents, carers, teachers, staff, governors and representatives of the Diocesan transport in exceptional Board (70 in total). circumstances.

The majority of comments disagreed with the proposal but a number were in agreement.

Respondents commented that ending the subsidy for denominational transport will remove the choice for parents to obtain a faith education for their children and as there is only one Catholic high school in the county, it will be discriminatory against Catholics not living in the Norwich area.

Concerns were raised that transport will be outside the financial scope of families and that children’s education will be disrupted where families can no longer afford transport costs. Concerns were also expressed about the environmental impact of parents taking children to school by car and safety implications of children travelling on public transport.

References were made to the Department for Education Home to School Transport and Travel Guidance, the Education Act 1996, Local Authority Duties, Human Rights and equalities legislation including the 2010 Equalities Act as well as the promises made at the time of the closure of St Edmunds School in Yarmouth in 1987.

Views have also been received in favour of increasing contributions from parents whilst retaining the current transport arrangements. Some respondents supported the proposal to end the subsidy, arguing that it is not right to continue to subsidise this transport when severe cuts are being made elsewhere that affect the whole of the Norfolk community. Those who supported the proposal felt that denominational choice should be paid for by families or the Church.

Page 27 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

Specific suggestions were:  Renegotiate prices with transport providers  Promote further services with bus operators  Request higher contributions from parents  Bus operators be allowed to collect fares from occasional users on a ‘pay as you go’ basis  Protect provision/stability for Looked After Children, including those with SEN  Free transport should not be provided to any schools chosen by parents outside of their catchment  Reduce use of private schools for Special Educational Needs and subsequent transport costs  Decision should be delayed until Michael Gove’s review on home to school transport is completed  Would rather pay more council tax than see this service removed  No support for faith schools - if parents want to send their children to non-state schools they should pay for it themselves  If parents want choice then they or the Church should pay  County Council reserves should be used to avoid cuts  Consider increasing the area for free transport from 15 to 25 miles  Do not implement changes before 2012 as parents have already made choices before this proposal was made.

B5 A number of responses were received from the public, including headteachers and governors, Review the school crossing Taverham Youth Club (young people aged 11-14), Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-21), patrol service. Youth Fix, Diss Youth Group, Parish Councils (Taverham; Hellesdon) and the Mancroft Advice Project.

We propose to review A response made at the area headteachers meeting was that schools have, in the past, tried to garner school crossing patrols community involvement in the crossing patrol service with little effect. against a set of safety criteria. This is likely to see Responses were quite evenly split between being in favour or opposed to the proposal. patrols retained at most sites, particularly at those Respondents commented on both the availability and suitability of volunteers to provide the service where there is most traffic and whether cutting road crossing patrols would lead to accidents. Those who agreed with the danger. However there may proposal felt this was a role parents/volunteers could adequately perform. be sites where there is

Page 28 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views considered to be less danger and pedestrian Specific suggestions were: traffic controls are in place.  Vital to retain in rural areas for safety In such cases, we would  Must be retained where there are dangerous road features (eg. Aylsham Road, Buxton) consider ceasing Council  Parents could operate a rota. funding, but enable community volunteers to step in where there is felt to be a strong local need that patrols should continue. B6 A number of responses were received from the public, including: parents of children with special Re-design and re-shape needs, Special Educational Needs administrators, Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators, the special education needs Access Through Technology Team, Diss Youth Group, Sutton Infant School, Voluntary Norfolk, service, so that fewer governors, the Mancroft Advice Project, Taverham Youth Club (11-14s), Shout Youth Group (11-21s), statements of special Norfolk County Council staff, Family Voice, senior educational psychologists, and Special Educational education need are Needs caseworkers required. Group responses were received from the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Programme Board, We propose to consider Norfolk Family Voice, Norfolk Autistic Spectrum Disorder Steering Group and from the area head devolving to schools the full teachers meeting. The majority of responses were from people who disagreed with the proposal. budget for special educational needs, to meet There was agreement from a small number that the money should be given to schools; that the current their pupils’ needs in a more system needs to change and that Special Educational Needs services need reconsidering especially cost-effective way than the with regard to dyslexia and better use of research in policy making. current service, continuing our policy aim of reducing Some respondents were not clear what exactly was being proposed and how it would work in practice. the number of statements Others commented that there is a government green paper expected on this issue in 2011 so perhaps issued. the 2011/12 cuts should be delayed and taken along with the 2012/13 cuts when the national policy In the short-term, it is likely picture is clearer. that the service would focus on delivering its statutory Respondents commented on the potential loss of specialised advice and support from trained responsibilities only but we specialists in Special Educational Needs; there is concern that schools do not have this expertise will conduct a full service re-

Page 29 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views design to re-balance the themselves so rely on the Special Educational Needs support service. Special Educational Needs time that staff spend on support is seen as vital for offering early intervention and helping to ensure children with special needs statementing and advice are integrated into mainstream schooling. Equality of educational opportunity for disabled children is and support to schools. seen to be at risk.

Specific suggestions were:  A contingency fund for short term unexpected support e.g. after an accident or surgery  A flexible and responsive funding system  Ringfence the money for Special Educational Needs when devolved to schools  Keep funding a central service for all  Needs careful auditing  Schools to have in-house version of a statement with format facilitated at County Council level but managed within schools  Need a way to ensure schools are using their budget wisely  Reduce bureaucracy of the statementing process where possible  Use email to send documents around to save money  Schools to fund the remaining 40% of the psychological service  Funding directed to where need is best met e.g. maintained or special schools  Special schools to undertake outreach work  Schools to share skills and knowledge through their cluster  Some special schools could become Special Educational Needs teaching schools  Increasing governors’ knowledge on Special Educational Needs  Communicating the reason for these changes to parents.

B7 A small number of responses were received from the public, including: Taverham Youth Club (young Reduce the scale and people aged 11-14), the Mancroft Advice Project, Diss Youth Group, Norfolk Disabled Parents capacity of the attendance Alliance, Youth Fix, Boom and the Norfolk Autistic Spectrum Steering Group. Responses were service. received from the area head teachers meeting. We propose to re-design This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents; attendance was seen as a parental issue, the scaled-down service not a school one. within a smaller budget to Respondents commented that the service contributed to reducing truancy in Norfolk, the support that

Page 30 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views be more strongly focused its intervention work provides to schools and that children who are not in school are at greater risk of either on working with harm. schools to develop interventions to prevent Specific suggestions were: pupil absence or focusing  Use Sure Start employees, nursery staff and primary school staff or reintroduce the Education on prosecuting parents Attendance Assistants. whose children persistently  Devolve the budget to schools fail to attend school.

B8 Several responses were received from the public, including: staff, Diss Youth Group, Shout Youth Reduce the scale and Group (young people aged 11-21), Youth Fix, Family Voice Norfolk, Voluntary Norfolk, Taverham capacity of improvement Youth Club (young people aged 11-14) and the Mancroft Advice Project. Responses were received and intervention services for from the area headteachers meeting. The majority of respondents disagreed with the proposal. schools. A smaller, re-shaped A few respondents in agreement of this proposal commented that schools should be made service would be refocused accountable for their own performance. Much improvement work is carried out by schools in and would develop capacity collaboration with each other and the role of County Advisers should be removed. Poor-performing within schools to work heads removed from posts or to be mentored with high-achieving headteachers. collaboratively with others to improve school Respondents commented that this will impact on the ability to help struggling schools and result in a performance. This would loss of oversight of good practice across the County and the ability to share. It would result in a smaller mean fewer staff to service that would only be able to fire-fight and would not be able to identify and rectify issues before intervene early to support they grow too large. schools at risk of failing, and fewer to improve Implications for Norfolk Schools Library Service – if the school improvement budget funding for standards in core subjects. schools library service was cut completely, this would force the service to close, but a recognisable This would mean targeting and attractive service offer could continue at 50% of current school improvement budget funding work to where most levels. For many of the most rural schools where there is no access to public or mobile libraries, the difference could be made to school library service is the only opportunity for children to access a diverse range of books. Although children's learning. the public library service caters for children’s leisure reading, it can not provide multiple copies of curriculum-related materials. The service also supports literacy advisors and sensory support team in

their work.

Page 31 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

Specific suggestions were:  Use high-performing heads as mentors to raise standards  Ensure school improvement partners and governors meet regularly to discuss good practice  Perhaps it could be done more effectively via independent consultants  Remove poor performing head teachers of their posts if unable to improve performance  Make schools accountable for their own performance  Retain at least 50% of the schools improvement budget funding for the schools library service.

B9 A small number of responses were received from the public, including: the Mancroft Advice Project, Re-design and re-shape the Taverham Youth Club (young people aged 11-14), Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-21), service that helps plan the and Youth Fix. supply of school places. The majority of responses were in disagreement with the proposal and expressed concern as to how We propose to reduce and school places would be allocated under a new system. scale back this service so that it delivers its statutory No specific suggestions were received. responsibilities.

B10 A small number of responses were received from the public, including from Taverham Youth Club Reduce the Council's (young people aged 11-14), Sutton Infant School staff and governors, the Mancroft Advice Project, and contribution to the funding Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-21), governors, Norfolk Disabled People’s Alliance and of the schools music service Youth Fix. and performing arts service, The majority of respondents disagreed with the proposal, believing the services to be valuable. There and outdoor education was concern that without the provision of this service, children from less well off backgrounds would service. not have opportunities to develop their talents. Though these services Specific suggestions were: generate some of their own income, the County Council  Teach instruments in groups in schools to save money also funds some aspects of  Outsource this work completely to a specialist organisation. their work. We propose to reduce the level of our

Page 32 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views funding but re-shape and support these services to become fully self-funding. We would need to determine how to apportion the council funding reductions across the different disciplines. B11 There was a high number of responses received from the public, including: Voluntary Norfolk, a retired Cease County Council police officer, parent governors, parents of young carers, Duke of Edinburgh (DofE) award group funding for youth services. leaders and volunteers, Director DofE (East Region), professionals working with young parents, Taverham Parish Council, youth magistrate, college tutor, psychologists, Whitlingham staff, The vast majority of youth youthworkers, youth work qualification co-ordinator, trustees of Exchange2 in Harleston, young activities e.g. sports, people, South Norfolk Youth Symphonic Band, service users, parents, social workers, staff, the brownies, guides, after- Benjamin Foundation, Diss Youth Group, Norfolk Disabled Parents Alliance, Norfolk Autistic Spectrum school clubs is already Disorder Steering Group, Hellesdon Parish Council, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Shout Youth Group (11- provided by a vibrant 21s), Taverham Youth Club (11-14s), Family Voice Norfolk, Mancroft Advice Project, Youth Fix, Sutton community sector. In this Infant School, the Matthew Project and Breckland Council. proposal the county youth service, which currently has Group responses were received from the DofE award scheme leaders (15 people), Norfolk voluntary about 17,000 to 20,000 youth services (8 people), and from Whitlingham Charitable Trust. users a year, would cease as would council funding for The majority of responses disagreed with this proposal. discretionary activity programmes for young Respondents commented that the withdrawal of funding for youth services will lead to an increase in people – such as low levels of crime and anti-social behaviour, that vulnerable children – particularly those in rural areas community and assertive – will lose vital channels of support and advice. And that those young people with mental health issues outreach work and the Duke not qualifying for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services resources will lose support and advice, of Edinburgh Award as will those with problems (mental health, anger management, drug, alcohol, crime) who do not wish programmes carried out in to discuss them with parents, teachers, GPs etc. There were concerns that the special needs youth partnership with district groups which provide both social interaction for the young people as well as respite for parents and councils or the police. We carers will be affected. would also look for another

Page 33 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views provider for the County Council’s Whitlingham Respondents commented that without the funding and in particular, the support and expertise of the Activity Centre. youth work service, voluntary organisations will be forced to close. Respondents commented that many voluntary organisations rely on Norfolk County Council youth services for training such as

safeguarding of children and young people and that voluntary sector workers rely on professionals for guidance and support.

It was commented that children and young people will lose their voice in the county – youth work was seen as one of the only ways they have of making their opinions / views known.

Concerns were raised at the potential loss of the DofE award in Norfolk – this is seen as the UK’s leading youth programme for personal development and as very good value for what it costs with its valuable outcomes for all (including the vulnerable), supporting large numbers of volunteer workers across the county (who in turn support large numbers of young people) – offering a huge cost benefit for the Council. Without the central support many of the DofE schemes will fold. It currently only costs £4200 to have all the schools in Norfolk covered by one licence through the central office, whereas each award group would have to pay £1000 per year, meaning many of the 40+ groups would fold. DofE points count towards university – removing it will disadvantage Norfolk students competing for university places. Research has proved that doing DofE improves the employability of young people and delivery of this award fits with the model of Big Society.

Norfolk’s voluntary youth services commented that many larger voluntary organisations have multiple contracts with Norfolk County Council making the impact of this severe. Infrastructure organisations, such as Momentum, which provide training and support to hundreds of small voluntary youth groups, deliver excellent value for money for NCC. Nationally there is a shortfall in volunteers with scouting and guiding organisations leading to a waiting list of 30,000 unable to access these services, and volunteers are less likely to come forward if they are expected to carry the financial burdens of training etc themselves.

The Whitlingham Trust commented that they are happy with the current arrangements and wish to maintain a model that includes NCC involvement and that sees the centre run for educational and public benefit not commercial gain. They request that other management models and partnership options are explored before a decision is made to assign the lease to an alternative provider. They

Page 34 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

point out that it is unlikely that the centre would attract a large provider due to its small size and lack of residential facilities and that if the lease is assigned elsewhere, NCC would have to bear the costs of this and that the land is owned by Crown Point Estate (the Colman Family) whose permission would be required.

Specific suggestions were:  Support voluntary groups with the expertise they need – safeguarding training, training volunteers, advising trustees on young people related matters  Help groups work together efficiently on such issues as recruitment of trustees and volunteers  Young people who are in need of activities that are delivered using youth work methods are not deprived of these, either through actual youth worker support to voluntary groups or by making funding available to help third sector provision  Abandoning one sector altogether cannot be wise  Very difficult area to get volunteers for  There must be a compromise to stop the most vulnerable from losing the most  Save DofE – it costs £60,000 to run the office and the value for money is very high  Off centre counselling service to be saved  Consider the impact on other services offering targeted provision – they cannot take up the slack and become universal  More staff and services are badly needed in this area, not less  Do a fundraiser  Where will condom services (like C card) be delivered from to young people?  What safe places will there be for young people without their youth clubs?  We should prioritise protecting and supporting vulnerable children and young people – Integrated Youth Service contributes directly to child protection and is essential  We don’t know what the effects of cutting an entire service could be – if this happens and in the future NCC wants to re-establish a youth service there won’t be any expertise left.  Cut spending on roads/buildings to save the youth service – people matter more  Reduce pay for senior managers and social workers  Do a cost/benefit analysis of DofE  Need to recognise and utilise the value partnership work can bring – very cost effective way to support young people e.g. Outdoor Learning partnership and Creative Projects partnerships

Page 35 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 Make Whitlingham more efficient by restructuring roles and responsibilities, introducing a simple on-line booking system, re-introducing full public access hire of all craft, monthly open weekends and more concise public-focussed marketing strategy  Charge more for bus passes  Privatise the police  Stop providing services to children who choose not to go to school  Raising the threshold for adult care to critical could see more young children acting as primary carers – they need proper support and provision  Should be taking community based budgeting approach to find savings, not working in silos (Breckland District Council).

B12 A small number of responses were received from the public, including from Norfolk Family Voice, Efficiencies from a re- Taverham Youth Club (young people aged 11-14), Boom, the Mancroft Advice Project, Norfolk Autistic shaped connexions service. Spectrum Disorder Steering Group, Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-21), Voluntary Norfolk, the Benjamin Foundation, Youth Fix, and North Norfolk Health Consortium. The re-shaped connexions service will, like many other The majority of respondents disagreed with the proposal. services, be required to Concerns were raised about how the service would continue to support those most vulnerable young continue working more people, especially those with learning disabilities. The service is seen as a much needed service and efficiently to produce used both as a universal as well as providing a more targeted support for young people. Those who savings sufficient to cover agreed with the proposal felt one universal service to support all people of all ages who are looking for cost pressures such as work would suffice. inflation. Specific suggestions were:  Provide information on how to contact the service and what it can/will do if asked, but leave it to families/young people to decide whether to use the service or not.  Norfolk County Council should consider the recent statutory guidance (Implementing Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives) for local authorities to implement the Autism Strategy – section C is pertinent for the changes being planned to the Connexions service. Responsibility for the delivery of the transition plan will still fall to the Local Authority without Connexions in place.  Young people with autism need specialist, not general, support. Full equality impact assessment for autistic young people needed.

Page 36 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 Reshaping of Connexions service to be done in partnership with health & community bodies to ensure young people do not become more excluded, especially in rural areas.

B13 A number of responses were received from the public, including from Norwich City Football Club Study End local authority Centre; The Benjamin Foundation and Mancroft Advice Centre, Youth Fix, Taverham Youth Group, contribution to study Shout Youth Group, Diss Youth Group, Youth Fix, Sutton Infant School and teachers. The majority of support community learning respondents disagreed with the proposal. projects. Respondents commented that the end of the local authority funding would result in the loss of successful resources providing alternative environments for pupils’ learning. The impact of the study support centres having been highlighted including improving attainment and the building of pupils’ The Government funds a confidence and social skills. number of programmes and projects that help support young people with literacy Specific suggestions were: and numeracy outside  Schools clusters could consider supporting these in future from cluster grants. school. They include ‘playing for success’ (in partnership with Norwich City Football Club, North Walsham Rugby club and others) and study support. At present, the County Council provides money to help with their running and infrastructure costs. Removing this funding may see some of these programmes scaled back. If the Government grant is ended, then the programme will end. B14 A very small response was received to this proposal with just one respondent who disagreed with it.

Page 37 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

Redesign management and There was concern expressed that this proposal would have a negative impact due to the loss of support as a consequence much-valued support for schools from Norfolk County Council. Schools Human Resources is raised of the redesigning of as a valuable service, helping schools to address issues which would otherwise affect the quality of school-focussed services. teaching/learning. Concern was raised about how many of the smaller schools will be able to afford to procure services. Given the scale of changes within these proposals, and the impact on the work of No specific suggestions were received. the schools-focused teams, there would need to be a further review and re- scaling of management arrangements to align them with the changes and ensure they are fit for purpose. B15 A very small number of responses were received to this proposal and all were in disagreement with Procurement savings on the suggestions. placements for looked after children. In general it was viewed by the respondents that removing £10m from this budget without understanding the full implications seems wrong. For Norfolk County Council to deliver only the We propose to improve our minimum statutory duty to these children gives the message to looked-after children that they are only commissioning of valued at the very minimum. placements for looked after children that would reduce the unit cost per placement. No specific suggestions were received.

B16 A small number of responses were received from the public, including from Taverham Youth Club Reduce the scale and (young people aged 11-14), Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-21), Diss Youth Group, capacity of services that Voluntary Norfolk, high school governors, professionals working with looked after children, Mancroft provide support for looked Advice Project, Boom and Youth Fix. All of the respondents disagreed with the proposal. after children. Concerns were raised that the full implication of removing this money from the budget may not be

Page 38 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

This proposal would mean a understood, especially since looked after children are known to be very vulnerable and reduced level of service overrepresented in the Criminal Justice System, and need more care later in life. Others commented because of reduced that for Norfolk County Council to deliver only the minimum statutory duty to these children gives the capacity in the social work, message to looked-after children that they are only valued at the very minimum. Others mentioned that reviewing service, leaving early intervention has proven effective and actually saves money, while improving quality of life. Many care support, adoption and of the responses focussed on Norfolk County Council’s role as the parent of these children/young special guardianship people and, like any parent, should support them for as long as needed. service. We will undertake an impact assessment to There was concern regarding the leaving care service – implications for caseloads and management understand the full oversight. Concern that if the service is outsourced, other organisations may not have the appropriate implications and avoid training/standards for this task. Some respondents felt more information was needed as to the detail being in breach of our of the changes. statutory duties. Specific suggestions were:  Make foster carers pay for all transport for children/young people out of the allowance they are paid  May be difficult to reconcile these savings with the wider savings proposed in B15. B17 Only one general comment was received which stated that they would prefer this proposal to say “will not impact on service users.” Smarter, more efficient processes for conducting child death reviews and the work of the Local Children's Safeguarding Board. These are efficiency savings from reviews of process and administration and should not impact on service users. B18 A small number of responses were received from the public including from Taverham Youth Club (young people aged 11-14), Norfolk Family Voice, Norfolk Autistic Spectrum Disorder Steering Group, Reduce the scale and 21), the Benjamin Foundation, Diss Youth Group, Norfolk capacity of family support Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-

Page 39 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views services. Disabled Parents Alliance, parents and young carers, governors, Boom, Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Programme Board and Youth Fix.

This includes home care, Responses were fairly evenly split between agreeing and disagreeing with the proposal. equipment and adaptations, transport, teenage There was concern expressed that this would impact on a high number of families who benefit from pregnancy reduction work. the current levels of service, and that the work includes supporting families to improve attendance – It would require re- something which could not be provided by volunteer groups. Other concerns were raised about the designing how we deliver impact on families with disabled children who already have a high incidence of poverty, and a feeling these services with a that cuts should not be made in areas that impact on outcomes and life chances for the most reduced budget, and re- vulnerable children. There was particular concern about cuts to support for teenage parents and the prioritising what we do. We work to reduce teenage conceptions. will undertake an impact assessment to understand One respondent commented that it was not clear from the proposal if this funding include health the full implications and funding or Children’s Services funding alone. avoid being in breach of our statutory duties. Specific suggestions were:  Produce an easy read guide to the Council’s statutory duties so the public can better understand them  Cut spending on libraries and pot holes but don’t make changes that impact on the most vulnerable  Businesses could help to support by offering financial help – these issues are everybody’s business.  Norfolk County Council needs to find a way to continue the excellent work of the teenage pregnancy strategy unit

B19 A very small number of responses were received from the public and from Norfolk Family Voice. All Reduced and redesigned respondents disagreed with the proposals. management and support Concerns included that this would put additional strain on social workers and result in poorer services arrangements as for looked after children. There was a request to retain Schools Human Resources. consequence of service redesigns. Specific suggestions were: The proposals for changes

Page 40 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views in services would have a  Statutory duties to be eased by as much use of excellent IT facilities as possible. major impact on management arrangements at all tiers of children's services. These would need to be reviewed and re- scaled as necessary. B20 A small number of responses were received from the public, including governors, Diss Youth Group, End of clothing grant. Shout Youth Group (young people aged 11-21), Taverham Youth Club (young people aged 11-14), and Youth Fix. We propose to remove the discretionary policy to The responses were evenly balanced between agreeing and disagreeing with the proposal. Those provide financial support to who disagreed felt this would impact on the most vulnerable in society and that it would lead to an some families for buying increase in bullying for young people and have a negative psychological impact on them. school uniforms.

Specific suggestions were:  Adopt a countywide uniform – same for all schools which will bring down the price of uniforms and make them more affordable.

Page 41 of 129

Section C Summary of responses for budget proposals for Cultural Services

We received the most comments on:  C12 – Reduce arts grants (32 comments)  C1 – Increase admission charges for museums (26 comments)  C8 – Reduced staffing in libraries (17 comments)

And fewest responses on  C14 – Strategic Review of Adult Education Service (3 comments)  C4 – Changes to museums in King’s Lynn (4 comments)  C10 – Changes to mobile library visits (5 comments)

Theme or proposal Summary of Views C1 26 responses were received for this proposal, the majority via the Big Conversation website. They came from service users, 2 people who do voluntary work in local museums, and one child aged 6 Increase admission years. charges for museums All respondents emphasised the value of museums to the local community – for education and for Admission prices would preserving our local heritage. The most frequently raised concern (5 people) was that a rise in rise above inflation, admission fees would have the greatest impact on low-income families and other disadvantaged although there will still be groups and that they would be discouraged from visiting museums altogether. Others felt that there concessions for some was a risk that an increase in prices would deter people in general from visiting, thereby exacerbating users. the financial problem as revenues fell. 2 respondents said that if the prices rose too high in Norfolk then they would take their children to free museums in Cambridge and London. It was also suggested by one respondent that young people in particular were at risk of being disadvantaged if schools also stopped visiting due to the cost. 10 respondents agreed with the proposal, as long as the rise was at a rate that would not deter people

Page 42 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views from visiting and children could continue to visit for free. These respondents felt that the museums currently offered good value for money and could take a price increase for adults. One respondent wanted to see any concessions clearly displayed and easily applied to ensure that those who were entitled to them made use of them. Respondents also made suggestions for other options that could be considered:  All people under 25 years of age to get ‘buy one get one free’ tickets  To look at days when museums are quiet and have a free admission day – thereby increasing revenue in the café/shop on those days and enabling people on low incomes to visit  Other cities offer a residents’ price and a visitors’ price to museums – making local taxpayers feel valued  Have free entry on a Sunday once a month  Promote the savings offered by purchasing a season ticket C2 6 responses were received for this proposal. One respondent felt that there was not enough detail on the proposal to comment. The other respondents supported the proposal and made suggestions for Increase income from retail further improvements: and catering  We aim to increase the that retail outlets and cafes could be added to libraries as well as museums to generate additional turn-over of catering and income retail.  To keep the café in the Castle Museum open for longer on busy days  To update the stock in the Castle Museum shop and bring back craft events where local people can sell their goods and the museum takes a commission  To make the shop and café available to people not visiting the museum (as they do at garden centres, for example) C3 9 responses were received for this proposal – these included the minutes from a meeting with the Royal Norfolk Regiment Museum Trustees and a letter from the Costume and Textile Association for Changes to costumes, Norfolk Museums. Most of the respondents supported this proposal. textiles and regimental collections The response from the Royal Norfolk Regiment Museum Trustees was that they understood why the move was needed, and that – if handled properly – they could see that it would be potentially This proposal would see beneficial, with greater accessibility to the Regimental collections being displayed in the Castle the costumes and textiles

Page 43 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views collections and services Museum. Their concerns were that: moved from Carrow House  Communications with the museum’s supporters, including donors, veterans, supporters of the to the Shirehall. Regiment and the wider Army family, needed to be handled with care Regimental displays would transfer to the Castle –  That the Regimental Museum retained a “Regimental brand” during and after the move to the making them accessible to Castle Rotunda, and that part of the Museum’s collection should be kept on public display all Castle Museum visitors. throughout the transition The Regimental enquiry  That the research and inquiries service continued to be available service would remain in Shirehall. Similarly the Costume and Textile Association understood the rationale for the proposal, but emphasised the educational and cultural value of the costume and textile collections. They sought reassurance that suitable accommodation for the collections would be retained, as well as the appropriate staffing to preserve the collection and serve the needs of students and visitors. One respondent felt that the move of the Regimental Museum to the Rotunda in the Castle Museum would mean less space for other, more important, collections and not all visitors would be interested in the display. C4 4 responses were received for this proposal, 2 in support and 2 against. Changes to museums in 2 respondents opposed the closure of the Town House museum, concerned about the impact on King’s Lynn heritage and culture in King’s Lynn. Funding for the Town 1 respondent felt that there were possibly too many museums in Norfolk, and that what was offered at House museum in King's the Town House museum could be done in other ways and in other locations. However, they wanted Lynn would no longer be to ensure that core collections continued to be preserved and accessible. required. Alternative suggestions to this proposal were to open the museum on a part time basis or to use it as an education resource for local schools. C5 9 responses were received for this proposal, including 2 from volunteers at Gressenhall and the Ancient House museum in Thetford. Review of Museum opening hours 5 of the respondents expressed their concern that the value that museums add to communities – through education and preserving local heritage – was at risk if any changes were made to the current We propose to review service. These respondents all valued the museums for providing activities for children, families and opening hours for all pensioners – and felt that they played an important part in bringing communities together. They also museums with a view to offered opportunities for retired people and people with disabilities to volunteer. They commented on

Page 44 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views closing at less busy times. the contribution that museums make to tourism in the county, and therefore the local economy. 3 respondents supported the proposal and felt that it was a good idea to close at quieter times, for example the Castle Museum closing for one weekday per week. They also suggested that museums could generate additional revenue by offering themselves for children’s parties, catering facilities, unusual wedding venues etc, and that we should ask the public when they would like museums to be open. C6 This proposal received 14 responses, including 2 from volunteers at Gressenhall and a letter from the Aylsham Local History Society. Reduced staffing in museums service The majority of respondents commented on the value that museums bring to the local community – providing important opportunities for children’s learning and activities for families and older people. This would be through a They felt that Norfolk’s identity and heritage would be threatened by any diminution of the museum combination of reviews and service. They also commented on the role museums play in attracting tourists to the county and vacancy management. benefits this has for Norfolk’s economy. Gressenhall was noted in particular for preserving traditional countryside management skills and rare breeds. 6 of the respondents noted in particular the skills and expertise of the museums staff, not only in curating and safeguarding collections, but also in communicating with visitors and bringing history and culture to life. By way of suggestions, one respondent said that there were useful lessons that could be learnt from the success at Gressenhall in recruiting and retaining volunteers, which could be shared with other places. C7 13 responses were received for this proposal. Reduced staffing in record The majority of respondents felt that a reduction in staffing would have a detrimental effect on our office ability to continue to offer what is currently a first class service. They emphasised that the Norfolk Record Office (NRO) is an independently and nationally recognised world class facility, which attracts This would be through a many visitors from outside the county. They value the research facilities offered there, the conducive combination of reviews and environment, and the knowledgeable staff. In their view, the staff are vital to make the collections vacancy management. accessible and their expertise and knowledge was a valuable asset that should not be lost. They also commented on the risk that collections would not be properly preserved if staffing levels were reduced. One respondent felt that the savings proposed were reasonable as they appeared to correspond to a relatively small number of staff.

Page 45 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views A number of respondents made alternative suggestions of how money could be saved at the NRO:  A system of charging to use the archive could be introduced (and also for parking)  That NCC could do more to publicise the service and think of more imaginative ways to use the facility, thereby generating income  To discontinue Saturday opening for 3 hours as this was not well-used and costly in terms of staff, heating etc  Close on one weekday each week and open all day on a Saturday to improve access for users who work full time  To close the Norfolk Heritage Library at the Millennium Library and move the books to the NRO – freeing up space at the Forum and reducing staffing costs  To enhance the NRO by making newspapers and other books available there C8 We received 17 responses to this proposal, including from the St. John’s Ambulance Hospital Library Service and a group of young people from the Mancroft Advice project. Reduced staffing in libraries All respondents were opposed to this proposal, giving the following reasons: This proposal would  They valued the library service – for research, nursery rhyme groups, advice and guidance services include savings from etc reduced staffing in libraries,  That the libraries they used were always busy places and further savings from ‘self-serve’ ways of  That they offered a safe and warm place for young people to go working. We would also  That staff needed to be knowledgeable and trained in order to help users, not volunteers explore the possible use of volunteers to support the  That libraries were a major resource for disadvantaged groups, particularly in difficult economic library service. times  That more people needed to have access to the internet, and those without the internet at home would be disadvantaged  That there could be a drop in child literacy if the service was degraded However, some respondents did offer alternative suggestions:  To levy a charge for downloading e-books

Page 46 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views  To charge young people a modest fee for using computers to do anything other than schoolwork  To cut the book budget rather than the staff budget – newspapers and monthly magazines can often be accessed online  To stock fewer copies of books  To raise more income by charging for photocopying, internet and computer print outs  Not every library needs a manager – they could share. Likewise, the number of locality managers could be reduced.  Close earlier as there are few users after 6.30 p.m. and turn the heating down  Make more use of relief staff, who are cheaper but well informed about the service  Give more decisions – like ordering books – to local managers rather than managing centrally.  Reduce the number of courses that staff have to attend  Launch a campaign to attract volunteers to work in libraries C9 This proposal received 6 responses. Reduced staffing in adult All respondents felt that there were improvements that could be made to this service. 4 respondents education service noted that there had already been a staffing review, and that the service should be financially viable with charges for courses also rising. We propose to review staffing to continue to make One respondent felt that the service did not provide the courses that people wanted or at times that efficiencies and keep over- they could attend as they were mostly during the day. And one respondent felt that the management head costs down. of the service was too ‘top heavy’ and was not in proportion to the number of learners. Alternative suggestions were to:  Look at the accommodation rather than staffing – look for better venues for courses to be run from  Allow the deliverers (course tutors) to meet the funders, and reduce a layer of bureaucracy currently used to manage processes  Review the service to provide courses that people want and when, and at a price they can afford  Encourage younger people to attend – most users are retired

Page 47 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views C10 We received 5 responses to this proposal. Changes to mobile library 4 people thought this was a good idea, particularly if service users had already suggested it. They felt visits that people in rural areas already have to drive or use public transport to access other services, so why not libraries as well. One respondent questioned the need for the service to continue at all – it is useful This proposal would but not essential and alternatives are available (i.e. Books on Wheels service run by the Women’s change the frequency so Royal Voluntary Service). that people who have a visit from the mobile library However, the other respondent disagreed with the proposal. They were concerned that this service every three weeks would was relied upon by rural communities because the nearest library was too far away, or there was no have a visit every 4 weeks public transport available. They were concerned that this would have a devastating impact for some instead. Users of the people. service have already Other suggestions were: suggested this to us.  To not stop in places where only a small number of people use the service  Changes to providing the service to traveller sites to make them more efficient  To go out at more convenient times, i.e. later in day when families and working people can access them C11 There were 8 responses to this proposal. Reductions in the book Three respondents thought that this was a good suggestion, and that the budget for magazines, fund newspapers, DVDs, and CDs should also be looked at. They also suggested that spending on highly specialised text books should be appraised and the purchase of large numbers of newly published We propose to reduce fiction should be reduced. Another suggestion was to double the fee for reserving a book from another spending on the book fund branch and to increase the number of subscriptions. which would mean fewer new books are purchased The other respondents disagreed with the proposal, saying that this would “take the heart out” of a each year. popular service and that it is important that people can read new books that they can’t afford to buy. One respondent suggested delaying selling off used library books until they were in a really bad condition. C12 There were 32 responses to this proposal, including responses from the following organisations, as well as members of the public: Reduce arts grants  We propose to reduce the Norwich Arts Centre Board grants we give to arts

Page 48 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views organisations.  Sheringham Little Theatre Board of Trustees  Norfolk Arts Forum Executive Committee  Norfolk Cultural Forum Board  Norfolk and Norfolk Festival  King’s Lynn Festival  King;s Lynn Literary Festivals Committee  Breckland District Council The majority of respondents were against this proposal (only one respondent supported it), giving the following reasons:  Most understood the rationale for the cuts, but did not want to see the arts sector in the county disproportionately affected  Relatively small grants from the council can go a long way in the arts sector – particularly in providing leverage for applying for funding from other sources. The grants from NCC are important to organisations to make them sustainable going forward and a number of respondents said that their future would be at risk if the grants were cut.  The proposal therefore needs to be considered alongside other reductions in potential sources of funding for arts organisations. In particular Arts Council cuts in the West of the county are already having an impact on arts organisations there. A number of respondents noted that the cultural offer needs to be widespread, not just concentrated in Norwich.  The arts play an important role in improving the quality of life for people in Norfolk. They help to make it an attractive place to live and several respondents said that they had moved to area specifically because of the cultural life in the county. The arts can help to build a sense of pride and belonging to an area.  The arts can also improve people’s well-being by enriching people’s lives and improving people’s mental and physical health.  The arts (and sport) bring communities together and help to promote cohesion and regeneration in an area. They are a blueprint for the idea of the ‘Big Society’ – demonstrated by the number of volunteers they attract.

Page 49 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views  The arts make a valuable contribution to tourism and the economy in Norfolk. Norfolk has a reputation for having a vibrant cultural life, which attracts visitors from the UK and abroad – particularly to its arts festivals, which have an international reputation (the Norfolk and Norwich Festival generated income of £9.2m to the county during the 2010 festival)  Arts organisations offer opportunities for local talent to be nurtured and provides apprenticeships and work experience opportunities for young people wanting a career in the sector.  The Norfolk Arts Service and the expertise and knowledge of its staff was valued, and people did not want to see this disappear  That the reduction in funding by the County Council would increase pressure on district councils to fill the gap and that a co-ordinated public sector response was needed. Finally, that there was a great deal of goodwill and determination among organisations and in communities to keep centres for the arts open and organisations have and will continue to find efficiencies and work in partnership to deliver even better value for money. The response that agreed with this proposal was from Taverham Youth Club, who wanted to see youth services protected instead. C13 There were 6 responses to this proposal. 4 were against the proposal and 2 were in support. Review charging for adults The respondents against the proposal commented that it would affect the most disadvantaged people, education classes who need the service most to improve their job prospects etc. They felt that learning was an important part of community life and that the courses were already too expensive for some and would be out of We propose to increase many if the prices rose. They commented that a knock on effect would be even lower attendance and charges for some adult a consequent further drop in revenue. education courses. We would seek to make the Alternative suggestions made were: level of increase such that  To deliver computer training for older people at local primary schools as an intergenerational these courses would be programme delivered at no cost to the County Council.  Reassess the accommodation for the service and consider viable alternatives to venues such as Wensum Lodge

C14 3 responses were received for this proposal. Strategic Review of Adult One respondent was in favour of the proposal, saying that NCC should not be subsidising this service -

Page 50 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views Education Service suggesting that the budget should be removed completely and used to support the most vulnerable. This could mean a ceasing The other 2 respondents were opposed and felt that it was important that there were opportunities for of budget support for adult people to learn new skills and boost their confidence. education so that it would be fully dependent on external funding.

Page 51 of 129

Section D Summary of responses for Communication and Customer Services

Theme or proposal Summary of Views D1 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduce the customer service development budget The Council has completed the main infrastructure elements of its customer access strategy and this element of the budget that helped support major change is no longer required. Customers should not experience any adverse impact. D2 We received 1 specific response to this proposal, from Breckland District Council, which said that Breckland had a first class communications team and would be willing to enter into discussion to Reduce marketing provide this service for the County. expenditure In commenting on the general themes of the Big Conversation in Section I, there was support for fewer We propose to make publications. greater use of online options for our communications to staff and council residents and exploit more options for shared communication arrangements and for supplementing more

Page 52 of 129 marketing expenditure through income. There would be a reduction in the number and frequency of council publications and in the scale of the county council’s presence at some county events, such as the Royal Norfolk Show. D3 No responses were received for this proposal. Efficiency saving Ending of statutory requirement to conduct a Place Survey. D4 No responses were received for this proposal. Continue to roll out more widely options for residents to contact the authority and access its services through ‘council@your’ arrangements We have implemented these arrangements at all council libraries and a number of other locations – we propose that by 2014, all face to face access will be delivered through this route. As a consequence we will close all the Council Information Centres currently owned and managed by the County

Page 53 of 129 Council, and end our contributions to those managed by others. D5 No responses were received for this proposal. Change core opening hours for our Customer We propose to move the centre’s core opening hours to 9am-5pm (from 8.00am to 6pm) – this would impact on some residents and may result in a small increase in waiting times, however we would aim to mitigate these through greater marketing and promotion of the online, self-serve options which are available 24 hours a day. D6 No responses were received for this proposal. Organisational review Staffing efficiency through the redesign of its service arrangements. D7 No responses were received for this proposal. Increased income from advertising and sponsorship The authority proposes to develop and agree a more robust and targeted

Page 54 of 129 approach to its advertising and sponsorship policy that will secure increased income to help support other priorities. General comment One respondent commented that they were glad to see that there were no proposals to close tourist information centres in Norfolk. In their view they played a valuable role in supporting tourism in the county, an important part of the Norfolk economy. They commented that tourist information centres could be self-funded through sales in the shops and advertising revenue.

Page 55 of 129

Section E Summary of responses for Environment and Development Budget Proposals

For Environment and Development we have received the most responses on:  E11 - Re-focused, more targeted Public Rights of Way service (41 responses) For Environment and Development we have received fewest responses on:  E8 - Increase income from Trading Standards metrology calibration services (0 responses)  E15 - Re-shape and reduce trading standards work on farming issues (0 responses) Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

E1 Reduce closed landfill pollution treatment costs One response was received which said ‘More efficient but not reduced…’ in relation to the proposal. More efficient management of landfill pollution treatment and monitoring. E2 Business support review We aim to make savings by One response was received which commented upon the lack of information available on this proposal. reviewing levels of business support and administrative processes.

E3 Two responses were received for this proposal. Organisational review One respondent requested that delivery of nature conservation objectives and footpath and access Savings arising from Phase provision was safeguarded. 2 of the organisational review undertaken by PwC. One respondent, a member of NCC staff, questioned whether this review had already taken place.

Page 56 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

E4 More efficient Environment service Reducing legal costs by One response was received in support of this proposal and the respondent stated that expertise will be using technical experts available elsewhere. instead of barristers at enquiries, reducing management costs and overheads. E5 Three respondents commented on this proposal. Improved waste One respondent said that the join up of services should go ahead. procurement One respondent suggested that local residents could form agreements to assist with residual waste This would be through collection by sharing bin space. better procurement and joint working with district Breckland Council said that this was ‘An early example of potential cost shunting and increasing costs councils on waste services. to the tax payer.’ E6 Civil parking enforcement Five respondents commented on this proposal. Respondents were generally not supportive of this proposal. We propose to make savings in the running costs One said that it could cost the authority more as a result of enforcement of unpaid fines and would be of this service, and to make unpopular and seen as a ‘money raising venture’. it self-funding through The respondent that supported the proposal said that street parking infringements should be enforced. maximising income. Breckland Council asked what impact will this have on our market towns.

E7 Five respondents commented on this proposal. Maintain third party recycling payments at Two respondents were not supportive of the proposal. Their main area of concern was the proposal to current level and redesign reduce the level of assistance given to business in relation to recycling, which they said should not be the way we give advice to reduced.

Page 57 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views businesses about recycling A third respondent expressed concern over the potential loss of recycling credits and asked if it was We pay third party the intention to give the local authorities the power to decide whether to charge charities for collection, organisations, such as as well as disposal costs.’ voluntary and community groups, for recycling. For One respondent made a general statement about the importance of recycling in general. 2011/12 we propose to not increase the amounts for One respondent who is a member of staff who stated that the proposal was badly worded with a lack inflation. of detail. It was suggested that for this reason, it was misleading to the public. E8 Increase income from Trading Standards metrology calibration services No comments have been received to date about this proposal By improved marketing, we propose to increase the use of this service and increase income to the County Council. E9 Management savings in public protection services Through changing the way One response was received to this proposal which supported a rationalisation of management we work, we will look to numbers. make further savings on management costs and general expenditure. E10 Two respondents commented on this proposal. Streamline public protection through better joint working One response received from Hellesdon Parish Council; another respondent said that the proposal had

Page 58 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

Through improved potential to work. collaboration we aim to cut Breckland Council expressed interest in a conversation with Norfolk County Council to see how this out duplication between the proposal could be progressed in relation to Breckland. County Council and District Councils. E11 Forty responses were received for this proposal. Re-focused, more targeted Generally respondents were not supportive of this proposal. Ares of concern included; Public Rights of Way service  An inadequate and consistent number of volunteers being available We propose to re-design  The potential for NCC to fail to carry out its statutory duties access to the Countryside  Concern that some of the maintenance work required for Public Rights of Way can be undertaken around a core network with by ‘unskilled’ labour a substantial reduction in path cutting, and change  The current Public Rights of Way network is an important part of meeting the health agenda – how we respond to issues encouraging individuals to walk through the health walks scheme and adds to the appeal for including enforcement, in Tourists line with the Big Society.  Volunteers and Parish Councils may not have the capacity or ability to deal with issues requiring We would carry out limited enforcement or legal work promotional work and end funding for health walks  The level of proposed reduction in the current proposal is too high project.  Once maintenance is ceased on individual paths they will become more costly to clear.

Suggestions of how this service could be maintained included  Increasing the amount of information to Parishes/Communities so that they can where possible carry out some maintenance and look after PROWS.  One respondent felt that Parish/Communities could take over the promotion of routes.  The business community could be asked to undertake sponsorship of routes on the lines of the healthy walks which have been successful within the county (this would include the promotion and advertisement of the routes).

Page 59 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

Responses were received from Bacton and Edingthorpe , Wiggenhall St Germans, Southrepps, Antingham, Runcton Holme and Hindolveston Parish Councils;  Expressing concern at the proposal in particular in relation to funding  The availability of skilled labour  The potential detrimental affect to the community. A Parish Councillor from Antingham also responded in a personal capacity saying ‘Stop wasting time on questionnaires’. The proposal received responses from organisations including the Broads Local Access Forum (BROADSLAF), Norfolk Local Access Forum (NLAF), the 45th Norwich Scout Group, Taverham and Diss Youth Groups and the Stragglers, Walkers and Amblers of North Norfolk Walking group (Horstead SWANN'S). A response has also been from two members of the Ramblers Association. E12 Eight responses were received for this proposal. Community ownership of nature reserves and areas Respondents included Blofield District Conservation Group (BADCOG), Norwich Fringe Project, and end some grant funding Taverham and Diss Youth Groups and Breckland Council. Encourage schools and Two respondents (BADCOG and Norwich Fringe Project) expressed interest in continuing their community groups to take involvement with community projects. ownership of local nature areas and reserves,  The Norwich Fringe Project have suggested an alternative to withdrawing funding by exploring the reducing landscape work, potential for ‘joint funding’ between their current partners in order to continue their work. and withdrawing from the  BADCOG wished to register an interest in continuing to manage their existing sites (Howes Wash Estuary Management Meadow and Walsham Fen) should they be offered by NCC Group, the Norwich Fringe and the Brecks Partnership. One respondent expressed concern at the availability and ability of volunteers to assist with such projects.

E13 Four responses were received to this proposal including one from Hellesdon Parish Council and one Re-shaped planning service from Breckland Council. All responses with the exception of Breckland Council commented upon the lack of detail in the proposal

Page 60 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

We propose to review current and future Breckland Council said that they would welcome a conversation on providing planning services to the arrangements, continuing to County through their existing partnership with Capita Symonds. drive out efficiencies and looking at the scope for sharing services. E14 Integrate "Your Rubbish Your Choice" into Council magazines Nine responses were received in relation to this proposal. Previously separate Your Generally respondents were supportive of the proposal with some requesting that we review all Rubbish Your Choice magazines and publications produced by the authority. magazine would become a part of existing Council magazines including Your Norfolk. E15 Re-shape and reduce trading standards work on farming issues This proposal would see No comments were received to date about this proposal less preventive and proactive work, while maintaining capacity to deal with emergency incidents. E16 Re-shape and reduce trading standards activities One response was received in support of this proposal. for consumers and businesses

Page 61 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

This proposal would see a shift away from preventive work, to focus on compliance, enforcement and prosecution. E17 Nine responses were received for this proposal. More efficient management Respondents included Youth clubs from Taverham and Diss and the SHOUT Youth Club and of Gypsy and Traveller Breckland Council. permanent sites The SHOUT group commented that sites should either be sold to Gypsy and Traveller groups the rent We propose to explore from them should cover the cost of any maintenance as is with any other council and social housing options for managing these scheme. sites at less cost in future years. Breckland Council did not support this proposal on the basis that transferring the cost of the service to Districts would not offer a benefit to the Council Tax payer.

One respondent (a teacher with experience of the Traveller and Gypsy community) said ‘Please consult as much as possible with the communities themselves and with the services that support these families. Gypsy Romany Traveller (GRT) families are a very vulnerable section of our society and GRT children in particular need increasing support in schools to enable them to engage fully with the curriculum. Any change in circumstances which would further disadvantage these families would be to the detriment of the community as a whole and may well exacerbate existing tensions between the Traveller and Settled communities. In financial terms, increased tension costs money (police, community workers, meetings etc) so promoting harmonious relationships and the wellbeing of the GRT population is a financially prudent option.’ A response was also received from a special meeting held with Gypsy and Travellers Services which contained the following key points should be considered in relation to the proposal:  What sort of management is required  What are the thoughts of not having a resident site manager?  What would the implications be?  Discussions with the Parish Councils and Town Councils would be required to ascertain whether

Page 62 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

they could take on the management of sites. Travellers would also require further information on the prices of sites, and how this could work theoretically and practically. E18 Seventeen responses were received to this proposal. Review historic building Respondents were generally not supportive of the proposal. The main areas of concern were: work and end some grant funding  Withdrawal of funding would have a detrimental effect on maintenance leading to the eventual loss of important heritage As part of a wider review of our work for the historic  The potential detrimental effect on the Tourist Industry environment, we propose to One respondent, an employee from Historic Environment Services (HES), said ‘it is imperative that the reduce the work we do on Historic Environment Service continues to be supported in its current form, as we provide a historic buildings and phenomenal amount of archaeological data which goes towards the upkeep of the Historic review grant funding for the Environment Record database, which informs planning and mitigation, Farm Environment Plans Churches Trust and Norfolk (FEPs) and Designations, and generates income from commercial users, as well as being a vital Historic Buildings Trust. We research tool and a flagship system for other local authorities.’ also propose to review the arrangements with the Responses received from Taverham, Diss and SHOUT Youth Clubs. Norfolk Windmills Trust. The Chairman of the Norfolk Historic Buildings Trust did not supportive of the proposal with regard to the work undertaken by the Trust which currently receives an annual £40,000 grant from the Council. The Chairman said ‘The Trust is working hard for its money, and it would be enormously disappointing if its vital Grant support from the Council were to be reduced.’ The Chairman of the Windmills Trust said ‘there is already essential work planned for 2011/12 amounting to around £50,000. Without a grant from the County Council, the Trust will be in a crisis situation over the next two or three years and windmills will be lost forever.’ One respondent in favour of the proposal expressed the view that buildings in receipt of such funding should be open to the general public.

Page 63 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

E19 This proposal received 18 responses. Reduce opening hours at Respondents were generally not supportive of the proposal. recycling centres Four respondents were employees working on site for the contractor in charge of Household Waste We propose to open Recycling Centres all of whom expressed concern at the practicality of the proposal given their recycling centres one hour experience working on site. later, as part of a review of service standards. This The following were alternative proposals specifically in relation to opening times: would allow the bins to be  opening hours linked to the seasons i.e. longer in the summer, shorter in the winter with the emptied before public potential to close sites for an hour over the lunch break to allow bins to be attended. opening time which will help ease congestion.  a standard 8.00 am until 4.00 pm day all year around to avoid confusion for customers Main areas of concern from other respondents reflect individuals’ circumstances and the need to use centred around working hours. The potential for increased fly tipping was felt to be a concern. Several respondents stated the likely reduction in pay for workers on sites would be a concern. One respondent felt the proposal was a good idea. E20 Reduce contributions to Eight responses were received for this proposal. Respondents included the Norfolk Playing Fields economic development Association, Taverham, Diss and SHOUT Youth Clubs, Breckland Council, Brecks Partnership and projects Langham Parish Room. Respondents were generally not supportive of this proposal however in the case of the Norwich We propose to focus on our Playing Fields Association, Langham Parish Room and the Brecks Partnership this mainly related to strategic role and over the the potential for their own funding to cease rather than a comment about the proposal. three year period to 2013 Breckland Council asked what affect the withdrawal of funding would have on projects within their area will cease funding economic such as Moving Thetford Forward (MTF). They also responded to say that they intend ending their development projects or support for the Brecks Partnership. interventions (£570k). This The Brecks Partnership responded by saying that they were exploring new ways of financing the would allow an extended partnership independently of local councils. However in order to do this they request a ‘transitional notice period of up to 18 period’, proposing two thirds of current funding in 2011/12 and one third in 2013/13. months for those projects externally commissioned

Page 64 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views from the voluntary and community sector.

E21 Cease asbestos disposal at waste disposal sites Eight responses were received for this proposal. People can currently pay to Three respondents (including Breckland Council) did not support the proposal on the grounds of health dispose of asbestos and and safety implications should waste not be disposed of properly and the potential of increased illegal reclaim the cost from the dumping or fly-tipping. Council. This service will The remaining respondents asked questions in relation to clarity of the proposal as this wording has remain, but the Council will been interpreted as the disposal service being removed. not refund the costs.

E22 Cease ‘real nappy’ payments Seven responses were received to this proposal.

Generally respondents were not supportive of this proposal on the grounds that it will increase the We currently give a sum to amount of waste needing disposal. new parents if they buy ‘real nappies’ instead of One respondent commented that the problem of waste needed to be solved at source, not by the tax disposable nappies. We payer. propose to cease this programme.

Page 65 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

Other issues

Whilst not in response to a specific proposal, seven comments were received voicing concerns about the proposed power and recycling plant in King’s Lynn

Page 66 of 129

Section F Summary of Responses for Fire and Rescue Service Proposals

Theme or Proposal Summary of Views F1 Reducing use of resources Four comments were received in relation to this proposal. across all parts of the Fire and Rescue Service Two said they were unable to comment as insufficient details were provided, with one of these (Norfolk including energy, losses Fire Brigade Union) asking if the consultation process will be run again when further detail is available. and breakages, consumables, travel and The Norfolk Fire Brigade Union also highlighted a conflict between CLG and the County Council’s transport. proposals on what, when and where savings should be made. Their view was that Norfolk FRS is the Part of a project already lowest funded service in the country and that most of the budget is spent on frontline services, underway to make therefore any cuts will affect the frontline’s ability to maintain the current position. efficiencies across the board. A third respondent questioned if there were really any further savings that could be wrung from the service. The fourth response, said resources had been wasted on inefficient equipment for fire fighters. F2 Changing how the service No comments received. responds more effectively and efficiently to emergencies. This proposal would involve more proactive screening of calls, including automatic fire alarms - meaning that not all alarms would receive an automatic response. The consultation on this proposal has ended

Page 67 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views and the Fire Safety Plan is awaiting approval at Full Council on 29 November 2010. F3 Making changes to how Two responses were received. One wanted additional information and the other agreed that it was staff work their shift duties time to change working practices. We propose changes be made to shift working arrangements of fire fighters, but with no impact to front line service delivery.

F4 Savings from improving the No comments received. way we buy and use large and small vehicles within the whole fleet This is a procurement efficiency and would not impact on the service provided. The consultation on this proposal has ended and the Fire Safety Plan is awaiting approval at Full Council on 29 November 2010. F5 Using fire stations and Two responses were received. One suggested that this was aspirational and not a firm proposal and other resources in ways the other stated that they never understood why Police, Fire and Ambulance are not co-housed thus that ensure they are used

Page 68 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views to the full and reduce costs sharing facilities and reducing costs. to the Fire and Rescue Service This is part of an ongoing project to achieve efficiencies. F6 Savings from redesigning One comment was received. It stated that this proposal seemed to be generic with ideas bunched and transforming the way together and that to achieve £841,000 in year 2, and then year 3, there should surely be a more the service operates. concrete proposal. This will be managed by an established efficiency and policy development programme called 'Fire Ahead'. The areas of focus will include training, staffing structures, operational response, procurement, use of service resources, energy savings, sponsorship, cost reduction and income opportunities. This could mean change to current service levels. F7 Implementing the services No comments received. Safety Plan for 2011/14 This is an established plan that has been widely consulted upon and has recently received NCC Cabinet approval. The

Page 69 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views service will be reshaped to provide the right resources to manage the risks that have been assessed within the County. The consultation on this proposal has ended and the Fire Safety Plan is awaiting approval at Full Council on 29 November 2010.

Page 70 of 129 Section G Summary of responses for Resources

We received one comment for each of the following proposals: G5, G7, G8, G12, G22, G34, and two comments for proposal G29. Theme or proposal Summary of Views G1 No responses were received for this proposal. Streamlining management structures through Organisational Review project This relates to the second phase of the Organisational Review project and includes reductions in management costs within Planning, Policy and Performance, Human Resources and Finance. Review work is in progress within teams in order to deliver savings by 1 April 2011. G2 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduction in business support within Resources Directorate The Resources Directorate element of the wider business support rationalisation project. The savings relate to the Democratic Services team, which currently includes a

Page 71 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views business support function. G3 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduction in support service posts Planned changes within the service resulting in reduction in posts required within ICT and Programme Management Office. G4 No responses were received for this proposal. Human Resources – Business Process Reengineering – increased use of self service This is one element of the HR Shared Services Project, some of which has already been delivered and some of which is included within the Organisational Review figures above. G5 One response was received to this proposal, which raised the difficulty of responding when there was limited information available to comment on. Reduction in costs of Coroners Service Minor change that will not impact on the service. G6 No responses were received for this proposal. Planning Performance and Partnerships – service

Page 72 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views transformation project Savings relate to the next stages of transforming this function and its processes. The service has already been reorganised and further savings are included within the Organisational Review savings above. G7 One response was received for this proposal, from Breckland District Council, which would be willing to explore shared services with the County Council. Procurement Shared Services Review and business process reengineering Initial forecast savings for reviewing opportunities to work with and share services with other organisations. G8 One response was received for this proposal, from Breckland District Council, which would be willing to explore shared services with the County Council. Finance Shared Service Review and business process reengineering (BPR) of service functions Next stages of the Finance Shared Services Review - this reflects the estimated savings from BPR, staffing review, income generation and developing opportunities to work with/share services with other organisations.

Page 73 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views G9 No responses were received for this proposal. Rationalisation of postroom service Full year effect of change to single postroom, which are being made in 2010-11. G10 No responses were received for this proposal. Review of Democratic Services staffing structures Review of structure across the service including removal of posts within Democratic Services that are currently held vacant. G11 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduce the frequency of replacing desktop computers Change to current policy for desktop computer replacement - reducing the frequency. G12 One response was received for this proposal, from Breckland District Council, which would be willing to explore shared services with the County Council. Scrutiny Support - Shared service review Savings from shared service review of scrutiny support. G13 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduction in budget to support Private Finance

Page 74 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views Initiatives The reduction in support will be in line with the completion of current PFI funded projects. G14 No responses were received for this proposal. Adjustment to reflect previous one-off cost for Council Chamber public address system This one-off cost in 2010-11 can be removed in 2011-12. G15 No responses were received for this proposal. Adjustment to reflect previous one-off cost for outsourcing of management contract for County Farms The new County Farms Policy required that the management contract for County Farms be outsourced. The one-off costs of tendering this service in 2010-11 can be removed from the budget. G16 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduction in budget for election costs Reduced budget based upon only one by election per

Page 75 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views year. G17 No responses were received for this proposal. Savings through increased use of electronic publication of committee papers Reduced spend on committee printing though use of electronic publication. G18 No responses were received for this proposal. Efficiency savings within Democratic services Identified reduction achievable within the training budget and through a reduction in the use of outside venues for appeal panels. G19 No responses were received for this proposal. Property services efficiency savings Planned reduction in the cost of managing the Council’s property assets. G20 No responses were received for this proposal. Removal of shared Director’s post and related support costs Cessation of arrangements for the joint director with

Page 76 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views Great Yarmouth Borough Council. G21 No responses were received for this proposal. Rationalisation of printing facilities Savings from a project to streamline printing facilities across services. G22 One response was received for this proposal, from Breckland District Council, which considered whether there may be options / opportunities to work with district councils. ICT savings Reduction in spend on ICT projects. G23 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduction in Member training costs Identified efficiency for providing member training. G24 No responses were received for this proposal. Reduction in Learning and Development Reducing the learning and development provision for managers and staff. This will be mitigated as far as possible by the provision of e-learning and self help guides. G25 No responses were received for this proposal.

Page 77 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views Reduction in Human Resources Shared Services The shared service will be in place from November 2010 and the impact will be reviewed after the first 6 months of operation. This will assess and identify further opportunities for cost reductions. However, the reduction may impact on the capacity of the service to support organisational priorities. G26 No responses were received for this proposal. Further review of management structures Identification of further savings across Resources through review of management structures. G27 No responses were received for this proposal. Staffing reductions from use of electronic Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checking system Staffing reductions due to implementation of electronic CRB checking system. G28 No responses were received for this proposal.

Page 78 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views Upgrade to Office 10 This will mean that desktops are updated with Office 10 but then procurement savings can be made. G29 Two members of staff responded to this proposal. They felt that this was a relatively small amount of money that could be saved given the potentially damaging impact this could have on staff Removal of Long Service morale, and that it signalled that staff were not valued. Staff needed a token of appreciation after Awards for employees loyal service and there was already little recognition of the commitment of front line staff. Financial saving of proposal to remove the current practice of giving long service awards to Council employees. G30 No responses were received for this proposal. Savings on IT and telephone costs through improved procurement Reduced spend through new contract arrangements. G31 No responses were received for this proposal. Savings on muscular skeletal rehabilitation scheme contract Savings through changes to the contract. G32 No responses were received for this proposal. Modernisation of Registrar's service Expected increase in the

Page 79 of 129 Theme or proposal Summary of Views level of income that could be generated from registration services. G33 No responses were received for this proposal. Additional income from new Norfolk Legal shared services Net additional income to be received from the new shared legal service. G34 One response was received for this proposal. The respondent felt that the service could be managed better, but that offices should not be closed. In their experience the service is very busy Review of Registrar’s service and with charges made for most services they were surprised that it was not financially viable. provision Review of Registrars service including development of other options to access the service and review of existing offices, which could include closure of some offices.

Page 80 of 129 Section H Summary of responses for Travel and Transport budget proposals

For Travel and Transport we have received the most responses on:  H13 - Reduce subsidy for Park and Ride in Norwich (83 responses)  H15 - Close the travel information desk at Norwich Bus Station and reduce opening hours of the travel centre (145 responses) For Travel and Transport we have received the fewest responses on:  H2 - Business efficiency and general expenditure savings (1 response)  H6 - Better procurement of vehicles (1 response)

Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

H1 Organisational review Two responses have been received for this proposal. Savings arising from Phase 2 of the organisational Both respondents seek clarity on the proposal rather than expressing a view. review undertaken by PwC. H2 Business efficiency and general expenditure savings of 5% This will be through reducing general spend One response has been received for this proposal stating that good management should be expected. through the Travel and Transport group by around 5%, cutting back further on temporary staff, travel and tightening up on all

Page 81 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views purchases and activities that are not core business. H3 Additional efficiency savings with our private sector partners Two responses have been received which do not support this proposal. Through our partnership One respondent said that the budget should be reduced by a further 50%. with Mott McDonald and May Gurney, we will The second respondent asks ‘How much saving will be achieved?’ continue to make efficiency savings on top of the £1.7m existing target for savings. H4 Two responses have been received against this proposal. Business support review One respondent said ‘Why only 'aim to' when you are cutting from other services – quantify’. We aim to make savings by reviewing levels of One member of staff replied to say that there was insufficient detail in the text and the text was not in business support and accordance with what they had been told. administrative processes. H5 Better procurement of Three responses have been received for this proposal. footway surveys

By better procurement we Respondents were generally supportive of the proposal including Hellesdon Parish Council who said can reduce the cost of that they conducted their own surveys and that maybe other parish councils could do the same. surveys we have to undertake. H6 Better procurement of vehicles One response has been received for this proposal which said ‘Just do it if it saves money’. We propose to review the

Page 82 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views specification of our vehicle fleet and make savings through rationalising the number and type of vehicles, and not replacing vehicles so frequently. H7 Strategic review of Environment, Transport and Development The strategic review, led by members of the Strategic Review Board, is undertaking a Five responses have been received for this proposal. comprehensive review of Two of the respondents commented on the Northern Distributor Road which is covered in a separate the services ETD delivers. section within this paper. The scale and method of delivery are being One respondent said that road safety improvements should be protected in the proposals due to the scrutinised in detail and we wider impact on society due to accidents. anticipate the review will produce savings which are a combination of efficiencies, service redesign, procurement changes and service reductions. H8 Increased income from planning services Two responses have been received in support of this proposal. We propose to make a small charge for advice to

Page 83 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views developers seeking to make a planning application. H9 Rationalisation of highway depots and offices We are reviewing the depot and office requirements One response has been received in support of this proposal. and will make savings by reducing the overall number of buildings and offices. H10 Ten responses have been received for this proposal. Generally respondents are supportive of this Changes to street lighting proposal. We have already consulted One responder expressed concern that it would lead to more crime and agreed a changed Two respondents requested information about specific locations. approach to street lighting which sees some lights in some locations turned off during the night. These savings are as a result of the implementation of this new approach which is already underway. H11 Fifteen responses have been received for this proposal. Re-shaped public transport Two respondents were supportive of the proposal. However caveats to these included: network, with a shift towards demand  The need to support creation of local community car schemes by physically approaching responsive transport communities which would like them/need them and support them in setting up and running the services (‘dial-a-ride’) scheme.

Page 84 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

This proposal would see a  Should use school minibuses which sit idle in the day time more e.g. taking people to luncheon clubs reduced core bus network etc? remain, but with much Respondents that did not support the proposal were mainly on the grounds of a perceived reduction in greater reliance on demand service including comments such as ‘No rural buses in Norfolk, just as they are starting to get good’ responsive transport and ‘Dial-a-ride services are usually not accessible, so you would be withdrawing services from people replacing buses elsewhere. needing wheelchair access or using a pram.’ Overall, we would be spending less on Two respondents said that fares could be increased to decrease the subsidy required. However two subsidising public respondents who did not support this expressed concern about the possibility of those holding bus transport. passes being charged more. Some respondents questioned the validity of 'dial a ride' services and how they work; one respondent felt that more should be done as far as hard infrastructure, suggesting that engineers visit 'low countries' to learn how to design a more sustainable network for cyclists etc. The respondent also said that charges for concession fares should be increased to subsidise more services and that maybe NCC could obtain part of the fuel duty to assist with maintenance of the network. H12 Scaling back of safety camera partnership work and transfer of Eight responses have been received for this proposal. responsibility to the police Two respondents queried the continuation of the £50k spend, one said ‘NCC should with draw The existing government completely and save the further £50k.’ grant which funds the safety camera partnership Four respondents did not support the proposal on the grounds of safety and the potential for increased and a range of community accidents. safety work has been Hellesdon Parish Council suggested that companies could be created to deliver such Council services withdrawn by government. in the future, to make a profit in the form of dividends for the Council. We propose to redesign the safety-camera work and the community safety camera work to significantly

Page 85 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views reduce the cost and increase income, to leave a net cost to the County Council of no more than £50k. H13 This proposal received 79 responses. Responders included Taverham, Hindolveston and Hellesdon Reduce subsidy for Park Parish Councils and Taverham and Diss Youth Clubs and Larking and Gowen who have carried out a and Ride in Norwich survey with their employees with at least thirty of their staff using Park and Ride on a daily basis. One respondent has gathered 28 signature petition (however the details of the signatures are not given). We aspire to remove our subsidy to Park and Ride In general the proposal was not supported with the following being the main areas of concern: so it is run at no cost to the  Council. We will be working All of the responses from the Parish Councils expressed concern with regard to the proposal which to understand the full mirrored the general feedback. The main areas of concern include: impact of this which could  Wasted public money as a result of the investment made in Park and Ride include closure of the  The potential threat to the local economy by removing these assets or reducing their appeal. waiting areas, closure of  The potential increase in traffic congestion in the city leading to increased pollution toilet facilities, reduction in  Vandalism of the existing sites and concerns with regard to safety of patrons without staff manning frequency, increased fares, the sites and possibly the closure of  Lack of facilities (11 respondents stated the lack of toilet facilities as being a major issue) some sites. The following were suggestions taken from respondents in order to keep the sites operating:

 Creating double or triple rates of council tax for second and third homes would greatly benefit Norfolk's permanent residents.  Charging for concessionary fares (9 respondents suggested this); increasing fares (6 respondents) and three respondents suggested charging for facilities. One respondent felt that charges should be per person (including children) at all times of the day. With those using bus passes being restricted to when they can use the service.  Reduced service but generally only outside of peak times to allow individuals to get to work.

Other suggestions included: using the normal bus network to include park and ride sites rather than using a separate service

Page 86 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

 Linking sites so that the number of buses could be reduced.  Removing some late night services and asking local businesses to fund routes/sites especially as their employees may benefit.  Changes to the type of tickets available is also mentioned with one respondent asking for a 'no frills' commuter ticket which just enables them to travel during working hours Monday to Friday.  Also turning off the lights on sites is mentioned as a money saving activity. In addition a number of responders felt that NCC employees should not be able to use the sites for free. H14 Sixteen responses were received to this proposal. End funding for transport Respondents included two National Express East Anglia responses (from the Managing Director and partnerships the Stakeholder Manager), Wherry Line, Taverham and Diss Youth Clubs. We have funded the Generally the proposal was not supported. Wherry and Bittern Line Community Rail One respondent said ‘I do not drive and have been considering a permanent move to Cromer because Partnerships (£65k) but of the brilliant public transport enhancing both leisure and employment prospects. I know of many propose to look to other people who use the line for similar reasons. It is not a luxury for the area, it is an absolute necessity!’ sources and funders to The main area of concern included the ability of the rail lines to continue without funding. Respondents step in. say that this would have a detrimental effect on the local economy through a loss of tourism, the loss to volunteers and the general community. One respondent in support of the proposal felt that alternative funding sources would be available such as the tourist board. H15 145 responses have been received to this proposal

Close the travel information In addition to the information gathered through the ‘Big Conversation’, comment cards that were desk at Norwich Bus available at the Bus Station have resulted in an additional 906 responses. Station and reduce opening hours of the travel centre These response cards were split into the following categories as the main concerns of users should the This proposal would see Information Desk be closed (numbers show the number of respondents who saw the category as an the Bus Station waiting issue):

Page 87 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views area open during the day  Loss of Ticket Sales facility – 216 only – from 7 am to 6.30  Face to Face Service Local Knowledge - 533 pm. The travel information  Loss of Travel & Visitor Information - 206 desk would close.  Security - 127  Recognised demand for a service desk - 110  No computer access / experience – 231  Other - 130

From the information gathered as part of ‘Big Conversation’ three respondents agreed with the proposal with regard to the information desk. However two respondents included a caveat to say that this was only as long as it was replaced with a suitable alternative.’

Most responses did not support the proposal, and had the following concerns:  The lack of flexibility with the use of electronic services both for individuals who don’t have access to a computer or are not IT literate and also should an emergency situation arise that is outside of the normal operating system.  Reduction in safety for passengers  Damage to the image of the city for first time visitors, students and tourists.

Alternative suggestions to keep the service included:  Using volunteers to man the desk.  Charging booking fees for some tickets in order to increase income  Expanding the remit of the desk in order to become an agent for other forms of travel such as trains and the airport.  One respondent suggested that the information desk could become more like the Tourist Information Office  It could become a library.  Reducing office opening hours  Asking the local bus companies that use the station such as National Express to contribute to its funding. Many responses commented that the bus station offered a good service, vastly improved from what was there before. There was praise for the staff and a general consensus that this proposal would not

Page 88 of 129 Theme or Proposal Summary of Views

be a good idea.

H16 Savings from carrying out fewer transport studies Government grant cuts mean that we will not be Two responses have been received for this proposal. carrying out as many road and transport projects as in One respondent supported the proposal and one does not. previous years, so we will need fewer studies and strategies to support these. This will mean cost savings can be made.

The following have been received as part of the Big Conversation but do not form part of any of the specific proposals but are relevant to the areas of service delivery covered by them (please note that responses to ‘Maintaining the Street scene and Public Rights of Way – could your Council and community play a bigger part?’ at the end of this section bears relevance to Environment and Development (section E) of the proposals. Norwich Northern Distributor Route Twenty two respondents have commented on the Norwich Northern Distributor Route (NNDR) in answer to the Big Conversation (including two in response to proposal H7).  Twenty respondents are against the continuation of work towards the NNDR in favour of funding services such as public transport and two are supportive of continuing with the project. Free Bus Passes There were comments about the provision of free bus passes (see also H13 and H15 which also contain reference to bus passes).  One response suggested free bus passes should only be issued in line with the new retirement pension ages.

Page 89 of 129  One response commented that the system should be changed since currently people could park cars, bus to Kings Lynn and then on to Peterborough, Norwich and Hunstanton.  One response suggested a similar approach to rail cards should be introduced. Highways Maintenance One respondent commented that highways maintenance was currently poor value, and lessons could be learned from industry to make it more efficient . Street scene Although not a specific proposal, Breckland Council submitted a response with regard to Street Scene which said: ‘No specific mention in the consultation but we are led to believe that there will be a reduction in the standard of Street Scene maintenance e.g. the cutting of grass on highways verges. Breckland already carry out this service in part on behalf of the County and subsidise it but providing a standard above that which the County pay for. We will be under pressure to continue with the standard but may not be able to afford to do so.’ Gritting of pavements in rural areas One respondent has submitted a feedback card from an ‘Older People’s event which said that bins should be provided in strategic areas in villages to enable individuals to grit their own areas. Maintaining the Street scene and Public Rights of Way – could your Council and community play a bigger part? The Environment, Transport and Development Department wrote to all Parish and Town Councils in Norfolk in November seeking views on whether parish and town councils could take on more services. Similar expressions of interest were sought from senior officers at District and Borough Councils. The response to date has been as follows; North Area - 16 responses; Aylsham Town Council, High Kelling PC, Foulsham PC, Sculthorpe PC, Blakeney PC, Ashmanhaugh PC, Old Catton PC, North Walsham PC, Ryburgh PC, Blakeney PC, Taverham PC, Wells Town Council, Sheringham TC, Bacton and Edingthorpe PC, Old Catton PC and Melton Constable PC East Area - 4 responses; Filby PC, Barton turf and Irstead PC, Ludham Parish Council and Fritton and St Olaves PC South Area - 16 responses ; Cringleford PC, Ditchingham PC, Walpole and West Walton PC, Yaxham PC, Chedgrave PC, Hedenham PC, Hethersett PC, Dereham PC, Wicklewood PC, Harleston PC, Bunwell PC, Wacton PC, Wheatacre and Burgh St Peter PC, Loddon PC, Ashwellthorpe and Fundenhall PC, West area - 7 responses; Lt Cressingham and Threxton PC, Leziate PC, Walpole PC, Watlington PC, Hunstanton TC and

Page 90 of 129 Heacham PC Of these responses several are seeking further detailed information, eleven indicate they wish to consider taking on paid or voluntary service provision and thirteen have indicated that they wish to take on voluntary footway gritting/ clearance operations; Aylsham, Blakeney, Chedgrave, Barton Turf, Diss, Wells, Holt, South Wootton, North Wootton, Watlington, Downham Market, Wymondham and Swaffham.

Following further clarification of the insurance issues those Councils which have expressed an interest in undertaking voluntary footway gritting/ clearance have started the process so that we are able to delegate this voluntary service provision.

So far Wells and Diss Town councils have returned signed agreements and will commence operations in January 2011, we also have indications that Aylsham and Holt Town Council and others will follow suit in the coming weeks.

As detailed above so far there has still been a relatively small scale response; all enquiries have been responded to either by phone or email, some responses have indicated they will respond in more detail following January meetings.

No responses have, as yet, been received with regard to Public Right of way voluntary clearance work.

Norfolk County Council has arranged separate meetings with Parish and Town Councils to discuss opportunities to take on services. Further information can be found in Appendix 4, Section K.

Page 91 of 129

Section I Summary of responses on the general themes

The responses summarised in this section were mainly from individual members of the public and staff, via the Have Your Say Website, and letters to the Council. They cover the Council’s general approach to its future role. In all, up until 31st December there were around 130 responses on general themes, many of which commented on more than one theme or issue. Most comments were received about ways the Council could save money through efficiencies.

*(Note: The numbering is not related to any specific budget proposals, but included to help discussions) Number * Theme Summary of comments I.1 Council’s proposed Some responses commented on the overall approach of the Council. Views expressed strategy included:

 The Council should be launching a high profile public campaign to safeguard essential services. They should be focusing on the Council Tax Grant that makes it difficult for local authorities to increase council tax as an alternative to cuts. The Council Tax Grant should be part of core funding as has been agreed by the Welsh Assembly.

 The deficit does need to be reduced but the speed, scale and manner in which the reduction is taking place is not based on economics, but ideology. The Council should be challenging Government about the basis for the cuts

 Do not support the whole strategic direction of NCC. Public services should remain public. Happy to see cutting of waste in offices and buildings, pay freezes for senior managers, councillors claiming just travel expenses. Would support any economies which do not adversely affect the delivery of frontline services or impact the most needy. Would welcome increase in higher council tax band, levy on empty homes and full council tax on all second homes

 Council’s proposals represent a withdrawal of responsibilities toward residents. The case for change has not been made

Breckland District Council responded on specific budget proposals and those comments are captured under the relevant proposal. There were three general comments on the

Page 92 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments consultation:

 Breckland notes opportunities to reduce costs through other Councils providing certain services on the County Council's behalf. Examples within the document being public protection and planning although we would suggest there may be additional opportunities in culture, leisure and youth. Breckland is willing to engage in meaningful discussions as to how this transfer might operate.

 The document identifies other areas where a shared service approach might produce beneficial savings for both parties. Examples mentioned are finance and procurement. Again Breckland is willing to enter into meaningful dialogue on this.

 Breckland is most concerned that some proposals result in cost shunting between various organisations in the public sector. These are at best cost neutral to the tax payer and at worse result in higher overall costs to the tax payer and cannot be justified. At a recent "Norfolk Summit" there was general agreement that cost shunting in the public sector would be avoided, and an approach adopted similar to the place based budgeting approach which is being advocated by the Local Government Association. Breckland believes that in a number of areas including youth work, waste and supporting vulnerable people cost shunting will be a consequence of your proposals and instead an approach following community based budget principles should be adopted.

Unison Retired Members Committee wrote with detailed criticism of the proposed roles and approach of the Council, and summed up their views as:

 We do not believe that any of these five suggested future roles {for the Council} will result in better services for Norfolk people; indeed for many people such as those with sensory impairments they will be worse.

 We do not believe people will be willing to part with their council tax to fund such vaguely described functions. We do not believe people will be willing to part with their council tax to fund such vaguely described functions. We do not accept that you have made a case for change. Indeed, there is no attempt to describe what is wrong with currently [and previously] provided services. None of these proposals has a stated, measurable outcome to enable council tax payers to make a judgement on likely success or failure.

Page 93 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments

Runton Parish Council felt the Council should regard itself as a ‘facilitator’ rather than a provider of services

Aylsham Local History Society commented that the Council should give proper attention to the needs of the most vulnerable groups; we are saddened to see, for example, proposed cuts affecting the elderly and children.

I.2 Priority for essential Some people felt it would be helpful to understand what were essential services for the services county council, and what were not essential, and then the council should prioritise only the essential services. However, one respondent accepted that it was a matter of ‘fine judgment’ and that everyone responding would have their own partialities.

Aylsham Local History Society felt the consultation papers did not make clear which are statutory and which are discretionary services. Council should give appropriate priority to statutory duties I.3 Commissioning and Respondents voiced concerns about the implications of becoming a more commissioning externalisation council, and externalising more services and what they saw as privatisation. Comments made included:

 Experience in another county of the externalisation of highway services showed the importance of retaining an in-house service in order to control prices. If not, you have outside contractors who can raise prices over a short period and you have no in-house service to fall back on. It would also be a big mistake to stop training and recruiting young road workers

 Hope that no children’s services will be privatised. Concerns voiced about foster carer service, and that if the service were privatised then quality of care could drop to the detriment of vulnerable children.

 Focus of council should be on maintaining as many front-line services as possible. Some services must stay in the public sector as the council is the best provider of those services. Need a mix of both public and private services – with the council keeping some in-house

Page 94 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments  Oppose the whole strategic direction in which NCC is moving. Public services should remain public, and under the control of NCC. Support the cutting of waste in council offices and buildings, pay freezes for senior managers. Would like to see County Councillors espousing the ‘big society’ and performing their roles as unpaid volunteers, claiming only actual travel expenses.

 Council should not outsource – respondent had experience in from the Ministry of Defence where outsourcing had resulted, in the respondent’s view, in an inferior service that cost more in the long run.

 Do not outsource everything – example of the railways. In the long run it does not save money and outside agencies take short-cuts to deliver it cheaper.

 Trying to save money by privatising would lead to a worse service

 Commissioning services from external provides limits flexibility to dispense with providers who are unsatisfactory

 Outsourcing at a time when funding is being cut for service providers does not augur well

Aylsham Local History Society said when considering outsourcing - the Council should carefully consider any cuts to quality control, as it would seem that further out-sourcing will necessitate a greater level of vigilance.

One respondent said the private sector should be brought in to deliver services as cost effectively as possible – and example would be planning.

One respondent suggested having a few credited providers who were ‘licensed’ to provide certain services. This would ensure quality and value.

Alternatives - One respondent suggested the county council could expand community services by providing trained gardeners, tree surgeons for the ageing population. People would pay a reasonable price for these services and would not get exploited by rogue traders.

Page 95 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments I.4 Council Tax There were comments about Council Tax. Those that did comment suggested that they would be prepared to pay more council, if it meant more services were protected. Specific points raised were:

 Raising money by raising council tax would limit the need for cuts and redress the balance of the impact of measures to tackle the deficit  Residents should be asked to consider an increase in council tax, since the decision to freeze it was probably made before the full extent of cut back in funding was announced  An additional £60-£100 increase in council tax, spread over a year, on those that could afford it would go a long way to meeting the shortfall. The vast majority of people would grudgingly, or willingly pay this to avoid loss of services.  The freeze is a gloss which while attractive to residents, is likely to cost them more in the long run  Council should lobby for a modest increase in County tax to spread the cost of cuts evenly instead of targeting vulnerable  Double or triple the rates of council tax for second or third homes  In previous situations Norfolk people have preferred council tax increases to cuts but they are not being consulted on such an option this time. The respondent would be willing to pay 4% extra per annum for the financial planning period to avoid the need for the cuts and suggested there should be ways to arrange lower rates of increases or even freezes for Band A properties.

One respondent said whilst the council should try and be more efficient, if money was needed for important services, then council tax should be increased. This should be ‘progressive’ – which meant people should pay progressively more, the richer they were.

One respondent said council tax paid should reflect the value of services each householder receives. I.5 Charging for services Respondents suggested charges could be levied. Examples were:

 Support the principle of ‘user pays’  Charge for computer use in libraries  Charge for reserving e-books  Charge for using re-cycling centres, eg 10 visit ticket for £15, or £2 per visit

Page 96 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments  Charge more for blue badges – raise costs in line with other councils  Charge for all Occupational Therapy equipment and be more rigorous about returning equipment when it is no longer needed  Realistic charges for libraries, museums and school transport

One respondent felt the Council already charged too much for some services – any help for the elderly should not be targeted for charging.

One respondent felt the council should not charge for any, but should only provide services it had a statutory obligation to provide.

Respondents made suggestions of where the Council could charge more for some services. Specific suggestions were:

 charge householders for the amount of non-recyclable waste they produce  make a small charge for fitting equipment such as handrails in people’s homes  ask some people who receive social services to pay a more realistic charge for them  pay more for a better Park & Ride service

I.6 Services that could As well as the savings suggested above, there were services people felt the Council could be cut or scaled back reduce or stop. These included:

 Newsletters, leaflets and flyers to residents, including Your Norfolk and the staff publication (included Runton Parish Council)  Communications, media monitoring and marketing  Large-print and talking books in libraries  Heating costs  Membership of Local Government Association and saving £50,000 a year  Business managers in primary schools  Reduced street lighting – could remove every other bulb  Turning off traffic lights on roundabouts at night, for example Thickthorn  Libraries could be closed, and mobile library service ended if not well-used  Free cultural concerts and events  Funding for the arts

Page 97 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments  Some grants should be cut – although should not cut back grants to voluntary groups that will be expected to take on services  Cutting grass verges and let them be natural wildlife areas.  Providing support to faith schools  Cultural services  Investing in roads should be cut – people services are more important  Teleshopping since it is not well used  Stopping Medicines Support Service for pharmacists  Council Information Centre Service desks

One respondent said any majority future expenditure on projects should be halted until the financial position improved. Priority should be given to projects for the older generation

Runton Parish Council commented that on balance it was better to abandon an activity altogether rather than trim it until it was too small to work well.

Wymondham University of the Third Age agreed that streamlining and cutting costs needed to be put place, but suggested it was important to do this in an holistic way – working with other public services so that the whole picture could be seen.

Others wrote specifically about some services they think the Council should continue to provide, these included:

 maintaining the number of staff in libraries and the local libraries  provision of day centres for the elderly  Adults and Children’s social services  Support for people with mental health needs  Youth services supporting the most vulnerable young people  Parks and play spaces for children  Transform the collection of unwanted household goods and fly-tipping would stop  Road maintenance, including salting of roads and pavements  More car parks  More public transport for all villages  Services required by law and especially those supporting children and the old

Page 98 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments  Services for the rural environment

Wymondham University of the Third Age suggested that libraries could become central information centres for other public services. The Group said the most valued services were libraries, bus passes, winter fuel payment and the Citizens Advice Bureau

Some comments referred to services, not exclusively provided by the county council, including:

 Movement of sand around on the beach when the wind and tides change the beach on a daily basis (specific reference to Great Yarmouth beach)  Resources for the Outer Harbour  Dog warden services  Reducing duplication involved in handling planning applications

I.7 Providing subsidies Services respondents felt the Council should no longer subsidise highlighted were:

 Park and Ride services  Subsidies for the arts sector – if it was a choice between this and support for the most vulnerable  However, some respondents were worried about any reductions in subsidies for travel – particularly young people.

I.8 Re-designing One respondent commented that the council should not force elderly people to cope with services ‘modernisation’ in services – eg self-service at libraries. Take great care before alterations are made with IT technology that the public has to deal with.

One respondent commented that re-designing and modernising services invariably involved spending money which was not needed if things were already working well.

I.9 Efficiencies - pay We received comments about reducing the pay of senior staff. Specific suggestions put costs forward were:

 Instead of reducing the workforce, reduce the pay of the chief executive and other

Page 99 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments Directors  Reduce the pay of all employees earning more than £50,000  Control salary, expenses and pensions  Re-negotiate terms and conditions to make salaries more affordable  Offer to all staff to reduce their hours  Managers to offer up a small percentage of their pay to save money. This would help prevent redundancies  Ask employees to donate a week’s salary per year or have annual salary reduced by a week’s pay per year.  The proposed two year pay freeze should apply to all staff, not just some

I.10 Efficiencies – staff Respondents identified that some staff – particularly executive posts – could be cut or reductions reduced. Specific suggestions were:

 ‘non-jobs’ should be cut – for example – corporate policy, climate change, emergency planning, continuity, performance, diversity, well-being.  Executive and department head should be reduced, with some working on a ‘volunteer’ basis.  Chief executive should be cut  Chief Officers should be cut  Make cuts in staff who are paid over £45,000  Support services should be reduced – HR and finance  Political assistant posts should be cut  Uneconomic agency staff should be cut  External consultants should not be used  External solicitors should not be used, when there is already a legal team  County council should only provide direct services – not managers  Share senior staff across services, and have more co-operation between services  Share staff and facilities with neighbouring authorities

I.11 Efficiencies - We received comments about councillor allowances and expenses. Views ranged from Councillor expenses giving no expenses – but just working on a voluntary basis – to reducing expenses. Specifics were:

Page 100 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments  Reduce allowances and expenses to those who are county and district councillors  Cut the budget for the Chairman’s civic and ceremonial role  Cut the costs of Blackberry phones for councillors and the annual line rental allowance.  It is expensive to have 84 councillors agreeing a budget – have smaller less expensive meetings  Reduce the number of councillors to 50 or less for the 2013 elections  Reduce travelling, time and meal costs by using Skype conferencing  Take out a tier of councillors so that parish and county work more closely together

I.12 Efficiencies - Savings Staff members put forward suggestions for reducing costs by working differently. These from different ways included: of working  Make the most of remote working (ie from home), by allocating people cases and work in their local geographic area to save on mileage and travel costs. The respondent did acknowledge that some people do not want case work in the same area where they live  Stop providing lunches for people on training courses  Make more use of video-conferencing  Get rid of water dispensers  Stop providing diaries for staff  Stop subsidising the canteen and shop for staff and Members  Make using county-hall meeting rooms cheaper – rather than booking external rooms  Let county hall rooms at a more competitive rate  Encouraging service users to use public transport wherever possible, rather than home support staff cars  Questioning and challenging whether vacancies need to be filled  Savings on mail, print and telephone costs  Car sharing for meetings, and travel planning for home visits  Specific suggestions about improving use of, and marketing of, Great Yarmouth museums, including £1 admission at weekends, advertising cafes more widely, developing a lettings policy so the buildings are used more creatively, seeking sponsorship, developing supporters clubs on social networking sites  Some specific suggestions about savings in adult social care in the West of the county. The detailed has been forwarded to relevant head of services.

Page 101 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments  Consult staff about ways of saving money  Look for environmental savings – heating and energy

One respondent suggested savings could be made by establishing an East of England Councils central purchasing authority for all equipment and stationery.

One respondent suggested the Council should move out of County Hall into a more cost- effective, environmentally friendly building

Two comments were received suggesting that sickness absence should be reduced and more rigorously managed

One respondent questioned the level of reserves the Council kept, and asked why half of the cuts needed to be made in one year.

One respondent questioned why the Council had a holding in Norwich Airport.

One respondent suggested giving more staff at middle management the freedom to do their jobs without unnecessary bureaucracy

One respondent suggested land at County Hall should be sold off for affordable housing or ‘starter’ manufacturing units

There were a range of views about charging staff for car parking. Those who did comment (mainly staff) felt some sort of charges for car parking for staff should be introduced. Some felt everyone should pay, others felt County Hall staff should pay (£30 -£40 a month), but it should stay free for non-county hall based staff.

There was a view that County Hall staff should pay a contribution, but Park and Ride should stay free for staff

Runton Parish Council suggested the way in which finances were managed required a thorough review and suggested there was duplication of effort with similar organisations, for example other counties and other councils. I.13 Big Society and Comments reflected the view that a great number of people already volunteer in the county,

Page 102 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments Volunteering and that there were a number of issues that would need to be overcome if volunteering was to increase to take on more public services. Specific issues raised were:

 the continuing need to provide support for volunteer bureaux  volunteering is more appropriate in some sectors (such as libraries) than in others (such as adoption services)  volunteers need to be given sufficient training in risk awareness, health and safety, manual lifting etc  many volunteers will need to be CRB checked – this may become expensive if there is a high turnover of volunteers  Some people are put off volunteering due to fears about being sued if they were involved in an accident, example  Recruiting and retaining large numbers of new volunteers will be difficult and costly  Most volunteers tend to be retired people, who may also be adversely affected by reductions in services  Small voluntary services need subsidies from the Council to make them viable, if these subsidies are cut the services cannot continue

Some respondents said that a consequence of other proposed cuts in services may be an increase in volunteering to fill the gap.

Another respondent said that they would be willing to keep footpaths in their area clear on a voluntary basis if this was co-ordinated by the Parish Council.

One respondent commented that the public should not have to help, given the amount people already have to pay in council tax.

One respondent felt the Big Society was a retrograde step when only the well-off had services and other had to rely on ‘self-help’

One respondent suggested local communities are allowed to impose speeding fines and keep the revenue. This could fund some of the additional services they will be asked to provide and solve a speeding problem at the same time.

Page 103 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments Wymondham University of the Third Age saw difficulties in recruiting and co-ordinating volunteers. The group commented that given that most volunteers were themselves retired, the proposals could bring about a ‘double whammy’ – where ageing people were losing services, and then needed as volunteers to fill the gap left by service providers.

Some head teachers fed back specifically about a suggestion to use volunteers to provide cycle training in schools, as an example of an opportunity for increased volunteering. Their specific comments were:

 it has proved to be very difficult to recruit parent volunteers to help out with existing schemes in some schools – time being the most significant barrier  this is a responsible role, currently undertaken by trained professionals, and has a direct impact on children’s safety – and therefore not a role that should be taken on by parent volunteers  this is a valuable life-skill, which reduces accidents and injuries, and builds confidence and self-esteem

The Mancroft Advice Project facilitated a discussion with young people aged 16 – 25 who use MAP services. There was a unanimous feeling amongst the group that relying on communities to fill the gaps in services to vulnerable people left by the cuts (such as scrapping youth services and the sensory support team, reducing services for the elderly and day centres for adults with learning difficulties etc.) is both unrealistic and unfair.

I.14 Community One respondent said that encouraging community ownership of local issues was simply ownership of another way of saying ‘fend for yourself’. services Another resident was interested in his local community being able to use a disused school as a community centre. They saw the Big Conversation as a good opportunity for communities to voice their opinions on local matters, but needed the County Council’s support to make the project happen.

A number of respondents observed that the ‘mind set’ of communities would need to change is they were going to take on a more proactive role in dealing with issues in their area. Some respondents felt that they were alone in trying to do things in their community such as picking up litter or keeping communal areas clean and tidy.

Page 104 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments

One respondent thought that Adult Social services should consider employing trained community development personnel to work with communities to develop self-help services, as this would prevent people needing to seek assistance from social services.

The Residents Group for the Sedges and Marsh Lane in North Wootton responded with some specific examples of where local action by the Group , in liaison with council staff had got problems solved and jobs done – for example – pot holes filled, manhole covers made safe, lights fixed, hedges cut.

Runton Parish Council observed that while ‘Good neighbour schemes’ are admirable in principle, they require a ‘mixed’ community where there are reasonable proportions in each age group. Many areas are now predominantly populated by retired people who often need help themselves. Family support needs at least as much encouragement.

Runton Parish Council welcomed the proposals to enhance the part played by parish councils but were concerned that whilst the role could be increase the resources would not be I.15 Other, general There were some respondents who did not comment in detail, but put in some general views.

Kettlestone Parish Council said it was not in a position to say what should be cut, but requested that local libraries and museum services were protected from cuts. The parish council was also concerned about the provision of a sensible public transport system in rural areas. When it came to devolving services to parishes, there were difficulties for small parish councils about insurance, man power and administrative structure to implement devolved powers.

Four responses were received supporting any expansion of car clubs, and encouraging car sharing.

I.16 Big Conversation Responses were received commenting on the Big Conversation process. Issues raised were: process  Difficulty of navigating the on-line information  Lack of detail about some of the proposals, including financial detail  Document is too woolly and difficult for people with limited literacy or other vulnerable

Page 105 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments groups to understand  Concerns that the consultation is meaningful and that decisions have already been made  Language used was too vague to give a clear picture of what was proposed  Council should define exactly what it will provide for the income it receives, what it will subsidise and what it intends to privatise.

Voluntary Norfolk hosted three events to enable Norfolk’s voluntary organisations to engage with the Big Conversation consultation. At those three meetings, the following comments were made about the process:

 The lack of contextual background information on some of the proposals makes it extremely difficult to take an informed view of long-term consequences.  The absence of financial detail – especially relating to ‘whole service costs’ – hampers a proper understanding by providers and service users.  Not enough attention has been given to Impact Assessments – not just in relation to Equality Impact Assessments but the wider impact on individual service users and carers.  The consultation about and preparation for the application of cuts should ensure that unintended consequences of the proposals are minimised.  The capacity of NCC to deal effectively with all the responses in a very short frame.  The proposals will result in risk transference from local authorities to the voluntary sector.  The need to apply cost/benefit analysis to decision-making process – especially in relation to prevention services.  Targets for reductions are unrealistic and unlikely to be achieved within the timescales shown.

Wells-next-the-Sea Town Council commented that an enormous amount of money was spent on consultation, and gave three recent examples from Wells which had taken time and resources but not let to any change. Your Norfolk Your Norfolk magazine, distributed to Norfolk households in November, included an magazine responses opportunity for people to feedback comments on the general themes of the Big Conversation. At the time of writing, 97 responses (400 individual comments) had been received and the key messages emerging were:

Future role of the Council - many people saw supporting the vulnerable as a key

Page 106 of 129 Number * Theme Summary of comments responsibility citing the need to protect services to the elderly, disabled, those with learning difficulties and special educational need. Scaling back the scope of services, delivering less with the community doing more was also a common theme.

Some felt the private sector were not best placed to deliver lower cost services and that the Council should continue to be the most important delivery agent. Others saw the council playing a key role in avoiding duplication.

The responses on making efficiencies were weighted in favour of cutting costs, although there was significant support to maintain current levels of service and associated spending. A reduction of Council staffing levels and reductions to higher scale salaries were commonly cited as a way to bring costs down.

Ideas to scale back services included: reducing the number of council funded publications; increasing fees for some services including making charges at libraries, museums and increasing parking fees; and reducing verge and hedgerow cutting to promote wildlife. A number of respondents felt that the universal receipt of services was not always appropriate and the some degree of means testing was required.

On the theme of 'Smaller Council, Bigger Communities,' many respondents were supportive of the idea to reduce the scale of what the Council does presently and allow communities to do more locally. Responses were evenly weighted on whether the Council should be maintained at its current level, or be smaller. Where respondents favoured the latter, the value of communities doing more for themselves and volunteering was cited. The concept of 'Big Society' was evident in many such responses with recognition of the role of Town and Parish Councils in the coordination of activity such as verge cutting, gritting and street cleansing issues.

Page 107 of 129 Section J Big Conversation Stakeholder Events

Overview

The ‘Stakeholder Group Discussions’ were one element of the Norfolk Big Conversation an d were designed to gather the views from a range of different groups about the impact of the proposed bud get savings. They were delivered in fiv e, two-hour long events held in November and December 2010.

The following Norfolk based groups and sectors were represented:  Voluntary & Community Sector (VCS) groups  B usinesses  Healthcare sector  Education sector  Young People

A further two ev ents were organised by t he Council for Parish and Town Councils, each hosted by Norfolk Ass ociation of Loc al Councils.

Whilst key differences in opinion emerged from each group, a number of universal themes were in evidence:

The future role of NCC

In general, the County Council’s proposal for a smaller more strate gic set of core roles was supported and sta keholders recognised the rationale behind the proposal and the need to achieve this. There was s upport for ensuring tha t communities are eng aged and that service delivery should be high quality and targeted at those most in need.

Representatives in the health sector felt that this was a welcome opportunity to define the Councils ‘core / non core’ role.

A good number felt that the Counc il should encourage outsour cing of services, whilst others saw th e Council as a coordinator of activity between sectors, promoting joined up working and reducing duplication.

Many stakeholders thought the Counc il would need to play a strategic and enabling role in driving the ‘bigger communities’ conc ept forward and encouraging and enabling volunteering on the scale required to fill gaps in service provision.

Page 108 of 129 Awareness of the wider issues and communication

Many taking part wer e out of sy nc with the Counc il as to the wi der reasons for the proposed s avings. The realities of the finan cial pressures on the Council and the very challenging timescales for these were not fully understood.

A number of stakeholders were aware that the cuts in funding fr om central government would have a negative impact and that to some extent (and because of the wider economic climate) this was unavoidable and not the fault of the Council. However, fear of the unknown is driving a high level of concern and dissatisfaction, leading many to a ssume that the published list of proposals wer e in fact firm plans.

Many stakeholders welcomed the conversation and expressed a desire to maintain a dialogue with NCC and continue discussing the proposals and implications with a view to playing a continuing role where possible.

Reactions to Strategy and Proposals

1. Making efficiencies

The concept of maki ng efficiencies within the Counc il met with appr oval with good opportunities to cut waste and duplic ation, but concerns were expressed that a number of barriers may exist in the form of silos leading to duplication.

To those in the business sector, the tone of the message about making efficiencies ap peared frustrating as they felt it came ac ross as a new thing that the Council had just started doing.

2. Redesigning Services

Overall, people received well the proposals about the re-design of services, especially if they w ould allow services such as li braries to remain open. The moves to implement the waste strategy w ere widely applauded for tackling what could be a future problem. Many acknowledged t he challenge of transport in rural communities and s aw this as an area where ind ividuals and communities could play a more active role.

3. Scaling back the scope and volume of some services

The proposed savings were considered appr opriate in the context of making cost savings and though express ed as a great shame, many were seen as non-essentia l and most likely to be picked up by indiv iduals, communities or other voluntary groups. Wher e services are scaled back, for example libraries, a number of stakeholders felt volunteering could assist in plugging the gap.

Page 109 of 129 4. Smaller Council – bigger communities

The objectives around supporting comm unities to do more and for individuals to hav e more choic e over the services rece ived with Personal Budgets received a mixed response. People expressed concern that the most deprived communities wou ld find it ver y difficult to self-organise. A suggested solution was to adapt the process of implementing services within communities according to the demographic profile and need. People saw the need for a patch work set of deliver y tools as the key - that could deliv er more intensive work in communities that need it most, but see a lighter touch approach in others.

Stakeholders acknowledged the value of community leadership in helping to excite and support volunteer activity. They identified the need for cross fertilization of skills and resources across the agencies to help develop bigger communities.

A large degree of scepticism exis ted on the viability of t he ‘Big Society’ concept with some concerned that council tax payers may question what they are paying for if more services are handed over to communities . Others suggested that putting the onus on parishes or communities may make the value of services more vi sible and increase the potential to play a role, but questioned whether funding would be available to accompany these expectations.

Main Findings in summary

Business Sector

Concerns:

 Many voiced concern that spending at NCC had been increasing over the last five years and at a time when most businesses had been cutting costs and overheads  Concern about what would happen with local enterprise partnerships  Concerned about how the cuts per se would affect local businesses, and that this might be driving a reluctance to get involved  High cost services that yield the greatest savings and should be looked at more closely  cutting transport benefits to under 16s could compound the issue with low skills in the region  Red tape and associated costs still seen as excessive e.g. CRB checks

Opportunities and ideas

 Businesses getting involved with elements of children’s services;  Archaeology and Historic Buildings either delivered by voluntary sector, or sponsored by local business;  Tourism should be self-funding;

Page 110 of 129  Advice to retailers to be a paid for service;  Consumer advice delivered by the CAB;  Joining up with local business where synergies exist (waste services)  Sea-change in attitudes to paying for services people use rather than receiving universally was now possible  Outsourcing was seen as a key activity in meeting the challenge  Expansion of companies sponsorship / advertising opportunities

Voluntary and Community Sector

Concerns

 Prevention cuts could easily be counter-productive leading to greater expense in long run  Not enough notice will be provided around contract renewal / decommissioning to allow organisation to plan accordingly – communication will be key to effective reorganisation  The voluntary sector picking up the delivery of services for little or nothing as part of ‘Big Society’ is not a realistic option

Opportunities and ideas

 Sectors cutting preventative budgets should divert funds to VCS  Identify and act to reduce areas of duplication  Continue positive relationship between NCC and the voluntary sector  Good communication and reassurance to the sector will be key to maintaining positive relationships  Increased outsourcing to the voluntary sector for example, assessment of social care needs; recovery services for mental health; looked after children services; assessments of carers needs; youth services  Businesses could provide incentives to volunteer, especially for young people  Make use of capital property that might freed up  Centralising services around information and advice  Reviewing sheltered housing stock  Improving the working relationship between the NHS / PCT  Place the voluntary sector in the heart of the restructuring / re-design process  Allow libraries to deliver a greater volume of services with the Millennium Library becoming a volunteer hub  Encourage volunteer help for example grandparents in schools  Deliver services from locations that people visit for example Mecca Bingo and services for older people

Page 111 of 129 Health Sector

Concerns

 High level of ‘gate keeping’ that goes on with the different public sector organisations will be barrier to achieving cost effect assessments of service user needs  Personal budgets may not deliver the required savings and knock on impact on hospital care budgets. Loss of cost efficiencies may result  Predicting outcomes of making cuts to frontline services is difficult

Opportunities and ideas

 Reduce overlap between NCC and other organisations, and to work ‘smarter’  The budget reductions give an opportunity to sift and prioritise which are the most essential services - to re-define ‘core and non-core’ services  Health sector has opportunity to work alongside other agencies in a more coherent way for example: coordination over hospital discharge process; integration of health / social care commissioning at GP group level  Cuts may be the only way to truly gauge the need for some services by observing if and how they are taken up in other ways – this is potentially an opportunity to reset the baseline allowing innovation to come through  Reduce more minor services and see where communities can pick these for example road gritting or grass verge cutting  Day care services could be joined up with local amenities e.g. pubs, community halls  Meals on wheels joined up with hospital food provision  GPs, health visitors, Sure Start visitors could take on responsibility for giving parent information / advice on childcare  Reduce number of buildings in Norfolk’s health sector  Charging for non-critical services to reduce spending and drive the sense of value for these services

Education sector

Concerns

 Cuts in funding to transport of over 16s

Opportunities and ideas

 More services can be outsourced and placed in private sector

Page 112 of 129  Engage with end users to produce more cost effective services  Improved targeting of services for those who need them e.g. free bus travel only for those on low incomes  Join up adult education / guidance with existing education institutions  Schools providing vital services e.g. post office  Bolster NCCs strategic role by encouraging schools to become academies  Join up school dinners and meals on wheels provision  Schools delivering early years, attendance and truancy, and youth services  Cutting staff and encouraging volunteers to run libraries  Youth services delivered in partnership with schools  Charging under 18s for extra education courses  Greater organisation and clarification of roles for school volunteers  Out of hours use of school premises

Young People

Concerns

 Decisions have / continue to be made without consulting young people and that communication is often not directly with young people  A desire that services for the most vulnerable should be retained  Youth workers can be vital in turning some young people’s lives around

Opportunities and ideas

 Outsource services to the commercial sector e.g. park and ride, tourist services  Young people may be willing to volunteer more for example, in libraries  Extra education should be paid for  Voluntary apprenticeship opportunities could be increased by use of Face Book  More schools could become academies / be freed up to secure other funding sources  Schools grouping together to provide paid for services such as pre-school / after-school clubs  Use school / college buildings to supply other services for example libraries, GP surgeries  Increased use of volunteers  Scrap professional qualifications for youth workers to drive down costs  Join youth clubs together

Page 113 of 129  Provide incentives for young volunteers to help deliver basic adult social services for example older people in need

Page 114 of 129 Section K Key themes from consultation meetings

To ensure the widest possible engagement in Norfolk’s Big Conversation a series of 40 consultation meetings was held during November and December. In particular, we targeted hard to reach groups for whom other methods of consultation may be less accessible, to ensure that they had an opportunity to have their say. 20 of these meetings were organised by NCC, the remainder were organised by other bodies to which members and officers were invited to attend. This report provides an overview of the range of meetings that were held and summarises the key points that were made at each meeting. Full notes or minutes taken at the meetings are included in the full set of responses in the members’ room. (Please note that this report does not reflect meetings arranged by departments as part of the consultation with stakeholders and users on specific budget proposals.)

1. Norfolk’s Big Conversation roundtable discussions To facilitate an in-depth discussion on the key themes of Norfolk’s Big Conversation, we held a series of roundtable discussions with small groups of key stakeholders:  Voluntary organisations  Local businesses  Healthcare sector  Education sector  Young People A planned meeting with community groups was cancelled due to poor weather however 2 invitees were interviewed by phone. The discussions were independently facilitated and allowed participants to think in new and more complex ways about public services and explore ideas for how to respond to the substantial cuts NCC will need to make. A full report of these discussions has been produced by Discovery East, who facilitated the groups and a summary is included elsewhere in Section J of this Appendix.

2. Older people Consultation meetings were held with Older People’s Forums in Norfolk, the attendance at which was as follows:  Norwich (19 November) – 100 people

Page 115 of 129  Great Yarmouth (15 December) – 70 people  King’s Lynn (14 December) – 30 people  North Norfolk (10 December) – 13 people  South Norfolk (13 December) – 50 people  Broadland (3 December) – 20 people In addition, a meeting was held with the Council for Ageing, which was attended by a further 50 people. NB. Breckland does not currently have a Forum. The Forum discussions were wide ranging and the following is a summary of the common issues that were raised: NCC providing less services directly  There is an ongoing role for the Council to help people to access the services they need  People were concerned that the burden of care was being transferred to friends and family members, and that they would be left without any support  It was noted that many informal carers are older people themselves, and often receive no support  There was concern that there would not be a sufficient range of providers for day services, particularly in Great Yarmouth Quality assurance  There was concern about how NCC will quality assure service that it has outsourced to external providers, particularly as it is proposed to reduce the quality assurance team as part of the budget proposals  It was suggested that the Older People’s Forum could inform the quality assurance of services  It was noted that there should be a clear and responsive complaints procedure in place for complaints about tendered services to be handled Role of the voluntary sector  A commonly expressed view was that the voluntary sector were already stretched and their own budgets were under pressure  Other concerns were that: o There would be inconsistent levels of service

Page 116 of 129 o That voluntary organisations didn’t have the capacity to tender for these services without support o That volunteers cost money (in support and training) o That there are some practical limits to what volunteers are able to do (i.e. lifting, emptying commodes etc)  There was some interest in older people taking on roles as volunteers, but needed greater understanding of the what these roles could be and how they would be supported by NCC, e.g. gritting footpaths, providing meals, libraries etc  There was a sense that people / community activists needed low-level support to enable local volunteering and action to take place. For example, a low cost venue (public sector owned), minimal start up funding and some officer support would enable luncheon clubs and many other community resources to be developed. Personal budgets  There was concern that older people would be forded to use personalised budgets as NCC gradually withdrew from direct service provision  A frequently raised issue was that older people had difficulty in understanding personal budgets, and there was a need for the Council to provide additional support to explain them  There were concerns raised that there would be a sufficient range of services available to purchase Eligibility criteria  It was questioned how this proposal linked to the proposal re prevention services – in both cases it was felt that the impact would be to create more need as people’s conditions deteriorated faster  It was felt that this was short-sighted and there would be repercussions for many years as a result  There was concern that the burden of care would be transferred to carers  In addition, people were concerned about the charging policy for social care and the impact on older people with capital  In particular, the Swifts and Night Owls service was mentioned frequently as a much valued service that people would not want to see reduced Community meals  It was noted that older people would need support to manage the change in this service – what food would be appropriate for them etc  There was concern about quality assurance of providers and teleshopping was perceived as an expensive option and unsuitable for people on low incomes

Page 117 of 129  There was a sense that existing frozen meal providers were charging too much, were unreliable and the food of a poor standard.  A concern was raised that people on low incomes, already affected by poverty and fuel poverty, would be disproportionately affected by this change  It was noted that luncheon clubs were a vital source of social contact for older people and people did not want to see these services diminished  It was suggested that volunteers or social enterprises could use existing kitchens around the county in schools, hospitals and other public sector organisations to cook and distribute hot meals in the immediate locality Transport  There were concerns expressed about the proposals for the Norwich Bus Station and the proposed limits to times when bus passes can be used (a national policy)  Some older people have found the dial-a-ride service difficult to access (always engaged etc) and they were concerned about the quality of service provided by First Bus  It was suggested that NCC could to more to publicise it’s services and the options available, and some older people also said that they would be willing to pay something to use the service rather than have it free of charge Council Tax  The issue of Council Tax was raised at all of the Forum discussions, however views differed: o Some felt that the Council should be raising taxes rather than cutting services o Others wanted to see Council Tax reduced to reflect a lower level of service o And others felt that it was already too high for many pensioners (25% of their income on average) Finally, some other comments made were:  That the council should be planning its budget jointly with the NHS. The changes being proposed to NHS and GP services will impact on social care and vice versa.  That the impact of these proposals would be greater in rural areas  That NCC should use its reserves to plug the gap in finances  That it had been difficult to understand some of the terminology used in the consultation and the level of detail had made it difficult to understand and comment.

Page 118 of 129  That sheltered housing provision in Norfolk was becoming increasingly restricted and a general issue was raised about the need for good quality, secure, suitable housing for older people – particularly in the West of the County

3. Voluntar y organisations Four meetings were held with voluntary organisations:  Norwich (60 people)  King’s Lynn (19 people)  Great Yarmouth (80 people)  A further meeting was held at the Mid-Norfolk Mencap Centre in Dereham, which was attended by carers and trustees of Norfolk Mencap (18 people). Attendees represented a wide range of community and voluntary organisations, including:  Voluntary sector infrastructure organisations  Community transport associations  Organisations working with disabled people and young people with disabilities  Organisations working with older people  Organisations working with young people  Carers support organisations  Organisations providing advice and advocacy services  Faith organisations (e.g. Salvation Army, Diocese of Norwich)  Organisations proving support to victims of domestic abuse Proposals that were highlighted as being of particular concern to the organisations represented at these meetings, and in their view potentially the most damaging to the people they work with, were those that would:  Reduce the scale and capacity of sensory support services (A15)  Raise the eligibility criteria from ‘substantial’ to ‘critical’ only (A14)  Reduce the social care budget for people with mental health problems (A13)  Reduce spending on preventative services

Page 119 of 129  Reduce early intervention to support schools at risk of failing (B8)  Produce fewer statements of Special Educational Need (B6)  Stop all funding to youth services (B11)  Increase the challenges faced by an already slimmed down Connexions Services (B12)  Reduce the scale and capacity of services for looked after children (B16) At each event participants asked questions of the members and officers who attended. Some common threads emerged from these discussions:  The lack of contextual background information on some of the proposals made it extremely difficult to take an informed view of long-term consequences  Not enough attention has been given to Impact Assessments – not just in relation to Equality Impact Assessments but the wider impact on individual service users and carers  The consultation about and preparation for the application of cuts should ensure that unintended consequences of proposals are minimised  The capacity of NCC to deal effectively with all the responses in a very short time frame  The proposals will result in risk transference from local authorities to the voluntary sector  The need to apply cost/benefit analysis to decision-making process – especially in relation to prevention services  Targets for reduction are unrealistic and unlikely to be achieved within the timescales shown. Whilst all participants in these meetings agreed that services need to be stable and sustainable for the future, issues such as those below emerged as common concerns that they would wish to see addressed:  Voluntary organisations need time to reconfigure services and delivery in response to funding cuts  The voluntary sector needs to build capacity to take on a wider service delivery role  The sector is an important partner in redesigning services, for example in ensuring the balance of the prevention budget is applied to where it will have the greatest effect  If Personal Budgets are to be a real alternative to traditional service delivery, they need to be less ‘clunky’ and much easier to use. People repeatedly reported that they do not understand the practicalities of Personal Budgets and what they will mean either for families and people who use services or for service providers

Page 120 of 129  The Dereham meeting in particular raised the question of why Council Tax cannot be increased to offset some of the necessary cuts Participants at every event wanted to have dialogue and negotiation about how the cuts should fall in order to preserve as many beneficial services as possible, even where reductions in funding were inevitable. It was noted that Norfolk’s Big Conversation engagement, the recent agreement to implement delayed contract decisions and to offer subsequent notice periods, and the swift alteration of the questionnaires sent to providers when objections were raised by Voluntary Norfolk were all to be commended.

4. Disabled people Six meetings were held for disabled people in Great Yarmouth, Norwich and King’s Lynn. They were attended by disabled people, carers, and representatives from voluntary organisations working with disabled people. We publicised these events widely, using existing networks and publications, to reach over 1000 organisations, stakeholders and individuals. Overall these meetings were attended by around 140 people. Key themes raised at the meetings were:  Concerns about proposal A14 re eligibility criteria – it was felt that this would put people at risk and that the burden of care would be transferred to families and friends as unpaid carers, and the voluntary sector  A15 re: sensory support – similar concerns were raised as for A14, plus fears that this would further exclude people with sensory impairments  There is a major lack of awareness about personal budgets (how they work / whether or not the proposals would affect individuals) from both residents and voluntary groups. Questions were raised about what service users will have to pay out of their personal budgets and whether this would result in people getting less services  Concerns that the reduction in preventative services (A22) will mean more people will fall into substantial and critical – and ultimately be more expensive  Concerns around safety due to the proposed reduction in quality assurance of services (A3)  Concerns from carers around the potential closure of day services  Concerns around what the proposed changes in transport services (including Park and Ride) will mean for disabled people  Concerns from blind and visually impaired people on their safety regarding proposals to limit path surfaces (H5)

5. Deaf and hearing impaired people

Page 121 of 129 Two meetings were held specifically for deaf and hearing impaired people at the Deaf Centre in Norwich. Each meeting was attended by approximately 15 people – both deaf and hearing impaired people and their families and/or carers. The key issue at these meetings was the proposal around sensory support (A15) and a concern that people would lose specialist support that made a real difference to their quality of life.

6. Black and minority ethnic people An event for BAME people was held in Norwich and attended by 26 people. Key themes that were raised were as follows:  Residents from different BAME communities in Norfolk identified significant concerns about the proposal to cease funding youth services in Norfolk (B11), and the impact this may have on young people. A particular issue raised was the risk of young people being more vulnerable to gang culture or anti-social behaviour without appropriate alternatives provided in communities. It was also felt that this might have an impact on community cohesion.  Consultation with residents from different BAME communities in Norfolk identified significant concerns about the proposal to end the Council’s HIV/AIDS service in Norfolk (A17), and the impact this may have on young people. A particular issue raised was the risk of young men and women with HIV not managing their illness correctly, and exposing themselves and others to serious risk.  There was big interest from BAME voluntary groups in opportunities for getting involved in service delivery.  There were concerns expressed around reduction in cultural and community opportunities is Cultural Services are reduced, e.g. Black History Month.  Concerns around ending of clothes grant (B20) as this will have the most impact on the lowest income families / asylum seekers and refugees and potential for putting the spot light on children from low income backgrounds  Concerns were raised about the proposed reduction in attendance in school services (B17)

7. Carers A consultation event was held for carers on 6 December, attended by 45 people. The key themes that were raised were:  A general feeling that carers already contribute a great deal under significant pressure. There were concerns that the proposals would increase this pressure without making clear what any additional support would be  There were general concerns about day opportunities (A10) – and that this would mean a reduction in provision and additional pressure for carers  Concerns about the quality of care in the independent sector were raised if quality assurance is reduced

Page 122 of 129  Fear around what a reduction in preventative services will mean for carers and people they care for, plus a feeling that preventative services actually save the Council money in the longer term  A lack of clarity regarding how Personal Budgets work and what this will mean Officers also attended a meeting with the Carers Agency Partnership (CAP), which was attended by 8 members of the partnership (organisations that work to support carers). The following key issues and contentions were discussed, where this relates to a specific budget proposal this has been indicated in brackets:  The third sector needs to be considered in delivering statutory services. There are specific opportunities for Carers Agency Partnership (CAP) agencies to take on carers assessments (A8)  There are concerns that money previously ring-fenced for carers – through the Carers Grant – could get used for other things now it is not ring fenced.  Members of the CAP argued that the Council does not recognise the added value that the third sector can provide in areas such as carers services – particularly accessing other kinds of funding (A6).  The group argued that prevention needs to be very targeted and locally focussed (A22).  There are strong and practical concerns that the cuts will come too quickly to allow the third sector to respond in a sustainable way (A6).  The sector would benefit from clear guidance from the Council about the kind of support and expertise is might be able to offer to third sector organisations without illegally prejudicing the tendering of contracts etc (A6).  The Council needs to target transport funding to meet the needs of the most vulnerable (A12).  The voluntary sector will need to take a different approach to charging for services – in particular when service users are charged – as this is an area they don’t have much experience in.  The voluntary sector has a lot of support to offer with GP commissioning – and needs work to make greater local connections.  The Council needs to be clearer in explaining how on one hand it is achieving economies of scale, and on the other hand being more locally focussed.

8. Parish and Town Councils In addition to other engagement with Parish and Town Councils throughout the consultation period, two meetings were arranged for Parish and Town Councils to discuss which services they felt they could deliver and what support would be

Page 123 of 129 needed from NCC to enable this to happen. The first meeting was held at the end of December and the second meeting will take place shortly, the outcomes of which will be updated verbally. The following councils attended the first meeting:  Mundford Parish  Dereham Town  Downham Market Town  Hunstanton Town  Watton Town  Shouldham Parish  Barton Bendish Parish  Bunwell Parish  Swanton Morley Parish  Hellesdon Parish At the meeting the following opportunities were identified:  councils should talk to each other / form clusters to approach the delivery of services  Footpath management  Arts development  Gritting footways  Grit bin management savings  Tree management  Grass verge management  Asset management The following were identified as enablers:  Maintain expertise in Libraries  Human Resources support required to help Town & Parish Councils with staff resource issues  Clear contract templates are required

Page 124 of 129  Clear information required on the cost / specification of services that are delivered as a bench mark for providing lower cost services by locality e.g. grass cutting, closed churchyard maintenance, salting & gritting, footway construction / maintenance, fencing, drain and dyke maintenance, local speed control signs, litter picking  Detailed asset register with maps  Help generate more interest in elections  NCC must be responsive to new ideas generated and be able to act quickly with Town and Parish Councils to expedite these  Provide an indemnity scheme thereby reducing these costs  Be a facilitator of joint / partnership working to reduce costs between councils of all levels  Assist with the contract drafting to ensure legally binding contracts  Develop a way for very small councils to work with others in order to deliver services

Page 125 of 129 Section L Online discussion threads

We received over 180 comments on the public online discussion site – many long and thoughtful, some short statements. Councillors are able to read all of these online.

These are some of the general themes that attracted comment/discussion

Council efficiency and ‘housekeeping’ – 53 comments in all

In general, all commentators saw this as being an important strand for saving which the council should be vigilant about.

Commentators endorsed the proposal to share more services with others and continue joining up and back office services with strong views that this was necessary and appropriate. Though some expressed cynicism as to whether this may happen.

Other comments/ideas included:

 Reducing pay for very senior managers and cutting senior management posts  Reducing working hours to save money and enable staff to volunteer for other community activities  Capping or restricting councillor allowances especially for people serving on more than one council  Restricting spending on consultants, meals at meetings, catering options at county hall generally  A need/impetus for fewer councils - merge councils or revisit the unitary option  Using online and media more to communicate with residents – reducing or joining up council publications  Review sick pay benefits  Do not order/print/distribute staff diaries  Introducing car park charges  Stop sending monthly pension statements to county council pensioners – send annually instead  Monitor and record staff time/outputs  Sharing office accommodation, sell off unwanted parcels of land and assets

Services for young people – 41 comments in all

The vast majority stressed the value and importance of youth workers to younger, more vulnerable people in particular and their role in preventive work.

Page 126 of 129

A couple of specific more negative comments were received about the impact of youth workers in the millennium library and the unattractiveness of specified youth options for some young people.

Ideas included the potential for greater use/securing of lottery funding

5 comments were recorded from people keen to see funding maintained to support the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, stressing its value for young peoples aspirations and ambitions

Preventive services – 15 comments in all

Most commentators wanted to see preventive services for children and older people protected where at all possible expressing the longer-term value of these services to Norfolk and in terms of VFM. This was particularly so in respect of services related to sensory support, equipment loan, family support, vulnerable children, mental health or carers

The only comment on the proposal in respect of community meals was in support of the proposal with the observation that store delivery drivers were also chatty and helpful in delivering meal options for older people.

Libraries – 12 comments in all

All the comments were from people who greatly value local libraries and want to see them protected and kept open.

Ideas and suggestions for doing so included:

 Reducing the late night hours of some libraries – especially the millennium library.  Charge for internet use – allow some free minutes per user and then levy a charge  Introduce a flat rate, economical fee for an annual library card  Widen the availability of library books – introduce a small facility at the bus station for example

Study Support centres – 8 comments in all

People praised the contribution of study support centres and lodged strong opposition to their closure.

Roads – 7 comments in all

Page 127 of 129 Those commenting wanted to stress the importance of keeping roads in good repair. Commentators suggested turning off more streetlights in less accident-prone areas could reduce costs.

Arts funding – 5 comments in all

Comments were largely from those keen to stress the wider value of the arts to Norfolk and its economy and also the contribution some arts organisations and activities make to prevention agendas for young people in particular. One commentator recognised the need for cutbacks and in particular objected to council sponsorship of theatres

Countryside access and rights of way – 5 comments in all

Those commenting wanted to stress the importance of keeping open rights of way and the value of countryside access and support for Norfolk’s environmental and historic buildings legacy. Commentators raised issues of potential additional costs caused by insufficient maintenance and potential loss of assets.

Other ideas on the site included:

 Give those communities that can organise them minibuses to provide local ‘dial a ride’ type services  Set up a timebank service for Norfolk whereby people can get rewards for the time they contribute free towards the service of their communities  Give an option to increase Council Tax

Staff Online discussion threads

We received over 50 ideas on the staff online discussion site varied and wide ranging in nature. Many were concerned about the impact of savings proposals on the services that they knew particularly well or worked with.

These are some of the general themes that attracted comment/discussion

Some staff expressed concern that the description ‘efficiencies’ was being used or interpreted in a way that could cause confusion about actual efficiencies versus what they perceived as direct service cuts.

Suggestions included the proposal that that a reduction in working hours for most staff may achieve the same level of savings as that obtained via redundancies and would still enable people to have a job and thus be preferable. For example all staff working a nine day fortnight or reducing hours to a 35 hour week.

Page 128 of 129 There were suggestions about a reduction or change in core working hours, for staff to be enabled/encouraged to use non paid time for volunteering and for NCC to ‘sell’ more of its specialist expertise including senior managers where appropriate, to other public sector organisations – for example, training and development, project management.

Other ideas included:

 Middle managers and more junior staff appearing to take most of the brunt of proposed cutbacks  Reviewing and changing reporting processes and requirements for the Care First system to save resources and effort rather than the actual system itself  Setting higher entry requirements for people on the temp register  Energy and resource saving standards as requirements for printing, stationery, power switch offs etc  Fewer councillors  Reducing travel expenditure by using technology better to support telephone and video conferencing, supporting children with special educational needs  Using pre booking specified timed saver tickets rather than ‘open tickets’  Sharing more accommodation with others and vacating and selling off old inefficient and not fit for purpose offices  One contact centre and information service for all Norfolk council services and shared back office services such as HR  A shared council publication for residents  The Council using some of its reserves to help offset some savings proposals  Use some of our own community facilities more imaginatively – e.g. libraries for some community day activities.  An appetite from some specialist staff being keen and willing to explore enterprise options that would enable them to sell and trade their services more widely, for example schools advisory staff

Savings proposals that attracted particular concern and opposition where staff were keen to spell out the value and benefits of current service arrangements were principally those associated with:

 The Youth Service proposals and the value of this service in preventive work and helping keep young people safe  The Sensory Support Service  Changes to SEN provision and the provision of support for people with SEN  Family support services, such as those provided via the Unthank Centre  Library proposals – people expressed concern about the practicalities and impact on the service of using and managing volunteers  The impact on the quality of the service received by bus travellers, in particular older people of the Norwich Bus Station proposals

Page 129 of 129

Agenda Item 8 Service and Budget Planning 2011-14

Update on responses to Norfolk’s Big Conversation for Children’s Services

1. Introduction 1.1 Appendix 4 to item 8 is a summary of the responses received in respect of the Children’s Services budget proposals in the Big Conversation up to 31st December 2010. This briefing paper updates Members of the Panel about responses and a DVD received since then up until the closing date of 10th January 2011 and should be read alongside Appendix 4, Section B. The full responses including the DVD are available in the member’s room.

1.2 Note: this update covers responses relevant to the work of this panel – it does not update about responses covering the remit of other Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

2. Overview 2.1 Since 31st December 2010, there have been over 5,000 additional comments from the public, young people, carers, Norfolk County Council staff and 50 organisations on the Children’s Services Big Conversation budget proposals including a DVD from the Benjamin Foundation.

2.2 In addition:  There have been 4 petitions regarding proposal B3 – end the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over – with a combined total of over 1700 signatures  There has been 1 petition regarding proposal B4 - end subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies - with 148 signatures  There has been 1 petition regarding proposal B11 - Cease County Council funding for youth services – with 48 signatures  We also received 328 Hands in response to the proposal to Cease County Council funding for youth services (B11)  A total of 3800 comments were received from the High Schools, youth clubs, young carer’s groups and the Area Youth Forum in the West of the County, representing the views of around 300 young people aged 11-19  We received a composite response from the Children with Disabilities fieldwork teams, Aiming High for Disabled Children team and the residential short break units for disabled children.

1 An analysis of all responses at the close of the consultation period shows that we received the most comments on:  B11 - Cease County Council funding for youth services  B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over  B4 - End the subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies  B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required  B5 - Review the school crossing patrol service.

And the fewest responses on:  B15 - Procurement savings on placements for looked after children  B19 - Reduced and redesigned management and support arrangements as consequence of service redesigns  B2 - Staff reductions as a consequence of the scaling back of capital budget for smaller building projects  B14 - Redesign management and support as a consequence of the redesigning of school-focussed services  B17 - Smarter, more efficient processes for conducting child death reviews and the work of the Local Children's Safeguarding Board.

3 Responses 3.1 Since 31st December 2010, responses have been received from the public as well as the following organisations:

Antingham Parish Council Association of Teachers & Lecturers (Norwich Branch) Autism Anglia Bacton and Edingthorpe Parish Council Broadland District Council Carers Council for Norfolk Diss Town Council East Norfolk 6th Form College Family Voice Great Yarmouth Borough Council King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Middleton Parish Council Momentum (Norfolk) NASUWT (Teachers Union) NHS Norfolk Nightingale First School Norfolk & Norwich Dyslexia Association Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health Trust Norfolk Area Youth Panel Norfolk Area Youth Panel Chairman’s Forum Norfolk Campaign for Accessible Education Norfolk Children & Adolescent Mental Health Service Norfolk Community Cohesion Network

2 Norfolk Community Health and Care Norfolk Constabulary Norfolk Disabled Parents Alliance Norfolk Governors’ Network Norfolk In-Care Council Norfolk Parent Partnership Norfolk SEN Network Norfolk Young Carers Forum North Norfolk District Council North Walsham Town Council Norwich City Council Playing For Success Roydon Parish Council Safer Thetford Action Group Schools Forum SNAPP (Schools in Norfolk at Primary Phase) South Norfolk District Council Students Union City College Norwich The Benjamin Foundation The Broads Authority The Indigo Foundation The Matthew Project Unthank Family Centre Upwell Parish Council Voluntary Norfolk Wymondham Town Council YMCA Norfolk.

4. Summary of Views 4.1 The comments received since 31st December 2010 reflect the themes highlighted in Appendix 4 Section B and should be read alongside, namely:

4.1.1 B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over Comments on the post-16 transport subsidy reflected the views expressed in Section B. New comments reflected that this would threaten the viability of some post-16 courses thereby impacting upon other students not directly affected by the removal of the subsidy and that this proposal goes against two of Norfolk County Council’s ambitions, namely that Norfolk be an Aspirational Place with Vibrant and Strong Communities.

4.1.2 B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required As in Section B, the balance of responses reflected the Local Authority’s statutory duty to issue statements, that there will be an increase in tribunals, that the most vulnerable will suffer, that the upcoming Green Paper will have to shape the future of support.

3 4.1.3 B11 – Cease County Council funding for youth services Comments reflected the views expressed in Section B. Of the new comments, one group response from several parents of young carers stated their youth group (Monday Night Youth Project) is vital for their children – giving them confidence, someone to talk to re their frustrations and respite from caring, thereby aiding family relationships. Other responses related to organisations not being able to provide training and small grants for new groups in the voluntary sector, thereby reducing the numbers of likely volunteers within the county. Particular concerns were expressed about the ceasing of support for the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme and ceasing funding for youth provisions for children with special educational needs and young carers.

4.1.4 B18 – Reduce the scale and capacity of family support services Comments received reflect the views expressed in Section B. Of the new comments one stated that the impact for disabled parents, especially in conjunction with Adults Social Services budget proposal to raise the eligibility criteria (A14) would be “huge and catastrophic” and another suggests that this will generate greater costs in the future due to poorer mental and physical health. The composite response from Children with Disabilities Teams included the following statement: “Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by section 25 of the Children & Young Person's Act 2008) imposes a duty on Local Authorities to provide breaks from caring to assist parents and others who provide care for disabled children to continue to do so, or to do so more effectively… This duty comes into effect from April 2011”. The group also stated that there is substantial research showing that short breaks for disabled children directly prevent family breakdown / requests for children to be looked after / out-of-county placements.

4.2 The following additional points, not previously reflected, were raised in the responses from organisations:

4.2.1 Response from the Benjamin Foundation  One of the justifications for the re-positioning of the Connexions service was that well-qualified and experienced youth workers would be available to provide the support that Connexions would no longer be in a position to supply. If there are to be no youth workers this assurance should not have been made.  There is an assumption the voluntary sector is in a position to pick up the slack left by the cessation of the youth service. While this may be the case in some areas, it should not be seen as a reason to cease providing a service. It should be noted that third sector organisations would need to be sufficiently funded in order to provide additional services and to meet the needs of a larger group of service users.  Existing changes to Connexions have already resulted in a lack of opportunity for young people to self-refer to a holistic Information Advice and Guidance service.

4  The cuts being proposed are likely to lead to more cost-intensive interventions being needed to prevent crisis interventions. The outcome of the proposals, if implemented, are likely to be: - Negative impact on school attendance - Increasing Not in Employment Education or Training figures - Increasing levels of anti-social behaviour - Increased offending rates - Increasing levels of teenage pregnancy - Increased self-harming and other manifestations of poor emotional well-being - Rural isolation.  Outsourcing of services must be carefully planned in order to prevent expensive spot purchasing which can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency for service users.  These proposals are ill-informed and politically driven. There is a real danger that Norfolk’s vulnerable population, including our young people, could become part of a forgotten generation.

4.2.2 Response from South Norfolk District Council  The Place Survey shows activities for teenagers are a top priority to residents. There should be some transitional arrangements in place as volunteers come forward to replace activities currently delivered.  Will have immediate impact on South Norfolk Youth Action group – a very successful partnership bringing young people and statutory bodies together.  Would like to see an impact assessment of this proposal and how the extent to which the difference between the needs of urban and rural young people have been taken into account.

4.2.3 Response from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council  There will be a cumulative impact of the total loss of the youth service and the end of the subsidy for Post-16 transportation along with proposals from other areas of Norfolk County Council business. Educational attainment in West Norfolk is declining from a base already well below the national average, and it is important these proposals do not make an already poor situation worse.  Some of the proposals impact on residents of rural Norfolk as opposed to those living in towns.  Transitional arrangements will be central to the success of whatever package of measures is finally agreed upon – particularly for the support given to those running youth groups. If the advice and guidance from the youth service stops overnight, where do volunteers go for support?

4.2.4 Response from North Norfolk District Council  Strongly oppose the intention to end the subsidy for Post-16 transport, a view shared by many Local Strategic Partnership partners in the District including town and parish councils, the skills partnership and the business forum. This would have a detrimental

5 effect on the life chances of young people. Combined with the ending of the Education Maintenance Allowance this could have an impact on the future viability of Paston College itself.  The expectation that scarce resources will be used as efficiently and effectively as possible applies to North Norfolk District Council as much as the County, therefore issues of mutual interest should be pursued together and, where appropriate, with others.

4.2.5 Response from Great Yarmouth Borough Council  Ceasing funding for the youth service will lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour levels, particularly as the service has been vital in the support and guidance provided to local youth clubs provided by the voluntary and community sector.  Removal of the post-16 transport subsidy will impact most heavily on young people in rural areas, putting them at a disadvantage to those living in urban areas.  Family Intervention Projects are holistic and save money both in the short and long term.

4.2.6 Response from Norwich City Council  Higher levels of deprivation and lower levels of attainment in the city would mean that proposals would have a disproportionately negative impact on children living there.  Norwich City Council commented that absenteeism is higher in the city than elsewhere in the county; that attainment is below the national average; that 30% of Looked After Children in the county live in Norwich; and that teenage pregnancy is 39% higher than in the rest of the county.

4.2.7 Response from Broadland District Council  Some children and young people will be unable to engage with education and training (and consequently employment) due to the cumulative impact of the ending of the subsidy for post-16 transport, the reduction in the scale and capacity of the attendance service and the further reductions in the Connexions service. A recent study by the University of York estimated the average individual life-time public service cost of Not in Employment Education and Training 16-18 year-olds at £56,300.  Reductions in the youth service will lead to an increase in anti- social behaviour as well as increased numbers of young people requiring crisis intervention services.

4.2.8 Response from Norfolk Constabulary  Withdrawal of partnership working carries a risk of skills loss and future resistance to engage.  Increasing costs for young people to attend further education will most heavily impact on the most disadvantaged families, particularly in rural areas. There is the potential for increase in the number of young people not in employment, education, or training

6 (NEET), which could lead to rises in anti-social behaviour and minor crime.  Reducing the scale and capacity of the attendance service would directly impact on the effectiveness of the safer schools partnership. This is likely to lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a general reduction in public confidence.  Ceasing funding for youth services will likely lead to an increase in unfocused youth activity – the greatest cause for reports of anti- social behaviour, which is in turn the largest factor affecting public confidence and feeling of safety.  Looked after children are already disadvantaged and require special consideration and support. Reduction in support is likely to result in higher levels of involvement in anti-social behaviour and criminal activity leading to higher resource demands for other organisations.

5. Suggestions New suggestions not already reflected in Appendix 4, Section B, include:

5.1 B1 - No new borrowing to supplement government grant for capital projects in school  Schools require more capital investment, not less  There needs to be a competitive tendering process to ensure value for money, rather than relying on Norfolk Property Services  New schools and school building projects are needed due to the new homes being built in Norfolk

5.2 B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over  This should be means tested  There should be an assessment of the number of people who will be affected by this, especially in rural areas

5.3 B4 - End subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies  End all support to denominational status of schools – churches should pay if they want these

5.4 B5 - Review the school crossing patrol service  In places where two crossing patrols operate together this could be cut to one  If a school crossing patrol is removed there should be a pelican crossing / traffic lights installed  Get parents to volunteer for this  South Norfolk District Council’s team of Neighbourhood Officers could play a vital role in establishing the crossing requirement and helping to find local volunteers to resource it

7 5.5 B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required  Maintain a universal service – this could exist at arms length from the authority as a “social co-operative” this could be funded in part by charging all schools according to their size and number of children eligible for the new pupil premium  Educational psychology and specialist support could be made more efficient by:  Reducing Specialist Support Teaching planning meetings  Providing a consultation service only at school action / school action plus  Providing a training programme to schools on how to carry out their own limited assessment and Special Educational Needs monitoring  Standardising reporting and assessment procedures  Generating income for more specialist or additional work  Review data on current activity where delays are known to be occurring  Focus on early literacy interventions and phonic based teaching as based on best evidence  Set key performance indicators on attainment  Develop help lines and interactive websites for easier access to advice and information  Build capacity and train school staff  Talk to PGCE providers to improve the Special Educational Needs element of educational courses  All of this cannot be done in haste so change needs to be managed

5.6 B7 - Reduce the scale and capacity of the attendance service  An area where the public could help out by reporting any children seen out and about during school hours  Prosecution of parents for non-attendance of pupils should be more rigorous

5.7 B11 – Cease County Council funding for youth services  The Broads Authority wishes to work with Norfolk County Council in partnership on environmental and outdoor education to see if there’s more to be done to make the Centre at Whitlingham viable.  Give Whitlingham Outdoor Education Centre a chance to reorganise through a phased reduction in the subsidy.

8

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 13 January 2011 Item no. 9

Fair Funding: Consultation Outcome

Summary

School Funding This report sets out the outcome of the recent Fair Funding consultation with schools on changes to school funding from April 2011 and seeks the comments of the Panel prior to being considered by Cabinet on 24 January 2011. The report shows details of all the proposals contained within the consultation document; views of schools on each proposal (in the appendix); the views of the Schools Forum and the subsequent recommendations for change.

Small Schools This report makes a recommendation to establish a working group to consider all the relevant issues related to small and undersized schools with the view of producing a report at the end of the summer term 2011.

Short Stay School The paper makes a recommendation to move from Pupil Referral Units to a single Short Term School from September 2011.

Mainstreamed Grants within the Schools Budget The report makes recommendation for the allocation of £72million of funding which is being mainstreamed within the Dedicated Schools Grant from April 2011.

Action Required Panel is asked to comment on the proposed changes to school funding arrangements; the proposal to set up a working group to consider issues related to small and undersized schools; the proposal to move to a single Short Stay School, and the proposals to mainstream grants from April 2011 prior to the recommendations being considered by Cabinet.

1. Background

1.1. The arrangements for funding and managing school finances are set out in two locally agreed documents. The Scheme for Financing Schools sets out, in respect of financial matters, the relative responsibilities of schools and the local authority. The distribution formula is the means by which funding available for schools within Norfolk County Council is distributed between schools. Both aspects of the system are covered by detailed Government regulations.

1.2. The Fair Funding consultation document sets out a number of proposals to change arrangements from April 2011. A copy of the consultation paper can be viewed at http://schools.norfolk.gov.uk/myportal/custom/files_uploaded/subsecti on_files/75/docs/CONSULTATION_PAPER_2010_DRAFTv3.doc. All schools were consulted on these proposals. The consultation period ended on 17 December. Cabinet will make decisions on the proposals taking into account consultation responses at the end of January 2011.

1.3. The position of the Coalition Government in respect of school funding arrangements has yet to be fully spelt out as has the level of funding schools might receive over the next funding period 2011-15.

1.4. The consultation proposals were developed taking into account the views of the Schools Forum, for changes to school funding arrangements for April 2011. The consultation paper was issued at the start of October.

1.5. Fair Funding Consultation briefing evenings were split into two sections. The first set of meetings considered the proposed changes to school catering funding and service level agreements and the second set of meetings dealt with the other consultation issues.

1.6. The three briefing meetings on catering were attended by 62 people. The six briefing meetings on the other consultation issues held in November were attended by 275 people.

1.7. Copies of consultation papers were sent to all Chairs of Governors, Headteachers, Chairs of Finance Committees and to the Diocesan Boards of Education. In addition to this the Early Years Consultation paper was sent to Private Voluntary and Independent providers.

1.8. The results of consultation meetings and feedback received so far form the basis of this report. Returns can be analysed as follows:

Primary Secondary Special Others Total

Responses 125 24 6 51 206

1.9 The School Finance Regulations made under the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 require the local authority to consult the Schools Forum on proposed changes the local authority wishes to make to the school funding formula.

2. Content of the Consultation Document

2.1 The consultation document was divided into a number of sections ie:  School Funding 2011/12:  Formula Review;  Provision and Support for Children and Young People with Additional Needs;  Early Years;  School Catering;  School Balances, and  Services to Schools.

School Funding 2011/12 2.2 The Coalition Government consulted on funding changes for 2011/12. Unlike the previous Government they are not making proposals for fundamental change from April 2011, the consultation was primarily about introducing a pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils. The Government says it recognises the school funding system could be more reflective of pupil characteristics and intends to review school funding for beyond 2011/12.

2.3 The objective of the pupil premium proposals are said to be about addressing the gulf in achievement between the rich and the poor by ensuring extra funding is targeted at those deprived pupils that need it most.

2.4 The Government has now indicated that the key aspects of the pupil premium will be:-  To be implemented from April 2011;  To be paid by specific grant;  To be funded outside the Schools Budget;  To be phased in by top up to existing deprivation funding;  Not to be ring fenced within a schools budget;  The level of funding to be increase to £2.5 billion by 2014/15;  To cover disadvantaged pupils identified by deprivation, Looked After Children, and maybe Service children;

 Eligibility criteria likely to be free school meals.

Formula Review – Primary and Secondary Schools 2.5 A fundamental review of most aspects of the primary and secondary school funding allocation model has been undertaken over the last twelve months. The review has been overseen by a project board comprising of Children’s Services officers and representative of mainstream schools. All the proposals in the consultation paper had the support of the Schools Forum.

2.6 The review was undertaken to answer a number of specific concerns that had previously been expressed about the fairness or otherwise of relative funding allocations.

2.7 The consultation paper set out 49 proposals for change.

2.8 The proposals would, if implemented, not only result in changes to the way the funding allocation operates but also to actual funding allocations to individual schools. Recognising that changes to school allocations could not be fully implemented immediately; transitional arrangements propose that whilst all the changes to the formula should be implemented from April 2011 the impact on individual school allocations should be gradually introduced over a five year period starting in April 2011.

Provision and Support for Children and Young People with Additional Needs 2.9 This section of the consultation paper outlined a range of proposals for the funding of provision and support for children and young people who have Additional Needs; including special educational needs (SEN).

2.10 Five sets of proposals for change were included in the consultation document covering the following areas:-

Special Educational Needs School Specific Allocation 2.11 To consider alternative ways of allocating the special educational needs school specific funding for prior attainment in years R,1 & 2 and 7-11 and deprivation across all years. The alternative being considered is to use the Foundation Stage Profile instead of the Bury Infant Check as a prior attainment indicator in primary schools. Whilst in secondary schools it is proposed to use the previous years Key Stage 2 results as the prior attainment indicator.

Short Stay Schools and Behaviour Support Funding 2.12 To consider the funding implications of the proposed move from the current Pupil Referral Unit model to a Short Stay Schools model and to clarify funding arrangements for early intervention / prevention. The proposal is to provide lump sum funding for one Short Stay School with three satellites plus one Hard to Place setting.

Sensory Support 2.13 To consider a proposal to revise the funding arrangements for the delivery of sensory support service in light of the proposed change to the current Norwich based Visual Impairment and Hearing Impairment unit provision hosted by four mainstream schools and the reallocation of funds to sensory support service for developing the peripatetic service. The proposal will see two Hearing Impairment units being funded within Norwich but no fixed bases for Visual Impairment with all available funding being reinvested in the peripatetic provision of a Visual Impairment service.

Specialist Resource Bases 2.14 To consider a proposal to examine alternatives for the allocation of funding for the eleven Specialist Resource Base developments which have not yet progressed. The consultation paper highlights the difficulty in delivering the initial strategy in respect of Specialist Resource Bases and seeks views on the alternative use of the funding.

Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy 2.15 To consider a proposal to continue to commission a Speech and Language Therapy from Norfolk health service and a proposal to establish a discrete Occupational Therapy service to serve all Norfolk schools.

Early Years 2.16 Norfolk implemented a common funding formula for early years provision as a pathfinder in April 2010. The current Government is proposing that such arrangements should be implemented in all local authorities from April 2011. One of the issues that were highlighted during the consultation on Norfolk’s early years funding formula last year was the basis on which quality of provision was measured and funded. It was agreed as an outcome from that consultation that further consideration would be given to how quality would be measured and funded.

2.17 The consultation paper proposes retaining qualification as the measure of quality but introducing another funding level to take account of further qualification level.

School Catering 2.18 A review of school catering arrangement has been undertaken over the last two years. Apart for an initial period, the review was overseen by a project board including school, Children’s Services and NORSE representatives.

2.19 The review has recommended a revised strategic direction for the service; a significant number of service improvements many of which are being implemented; a draft School Food policy which is being consider by members; a revised school catering funding allocation

model, and a Service Level Agreement to clarify relative responsibilities in respect of the primary school group meals contract.

2.20 This consultation contains proposals for the revised school catering funding allocation model and the Service Level Agreement.

School Balances 2.21 This section confirms that the proposals made in early 2010 to restrict the size of end of year school balances were not implemented.

2.22 In response to requests from schools proposals are now being made to increase schools ability to hold balances to enable more flexibility in planning budgets over three years.

Services to Schools 2.23 This section of the consultation papers sets a number of changes that are being made to Services to Schools. It is not subject to consultation as it is a set of proposed changes which are being implemented in response to the local authority’s changing budgetary situation but is included in the consultation paper for information.

The changes relate to:- Norfolk Schools Broadband Network 2.24 The current subsidy is being withdrawn and schools will be charged the full cost of this service. However funding will be reallocated within the Schools Budget to ensure the specific funding allocation still covers the full charge.

Norfolk Schools ICT Services 2.25 To implement a single ICT Service in Norfolk and transfer schools ICT service to ICT Services from 1 April 2011.

Small Schools Package of Services 2.26 The withdrawal of the package and a move to full cost recovery of service from all types of schools

School Meals Group Contract 2.27 To implement a formal Service Level Agreement between NORSE and individual schools for the delivery of a school meals service under the School Meals Group Contract for a three year period from 1 April 2011.

Services to Schools Pricing 2.28 To implement pricing structures for Services for Schools that reflects full cost recovery by the local authority from 1 April 2011.

3. Structure of the Report

The structure of the report follows the structure of the consultation paper. For each section in the consultation paper each of the proposals are set out followed by a table showing the number of respondents in favour

(Yes), against (No) or indicating the proposal is not applicable to them (N/A). The comments of the Schools Forum follow together with the recommendation of the Director of Children’s Services. A summary of the comments received from respondents is set out in proposal number order in Appendix A.

4. Formula Review – Primary and Secondary Schools (Proposals 1-49)

Introduction This section of the consultation paper sets out the findings of the Formula Review Project Board. The result of the review is 49 proposals to change elements of the mainstream schools funding formula. All the proposals had the support of the Schools Forum.

The comprehensive review resulted in proposals to change the follow aspects of the formula:-  Age Weighted Pupil Allocations (AWPAs) – 2 proposals  School specific factors – 33 proposals  Site specific factors – 6 proposals  Threshold and performance pay – 1 proposal  Salary cost adjustment – 1 proposal  Social deprivation – 1 proposal  New schools funding – 1 proposal  Time limited elements – 1 proposal  Transitional arrangements – 3 proposals

The review was undertaken to answer a number of specific concerns that had previously been expressed about the fairness or otherwise of relative funding allocations.

The proposals in this document would, if implemented, not only result in changes to the way the funding allocation operates but also to funding allocations to individual schools. Recognising that changes to school allocations could not be fully implemented immediately the transitional arrangements propose that whilst all the changes to the formula should be implemented from April 2011 the impact on individual school allocations should be gradually introduced over a five year period.

Proposal 1 New AWPA weightings and fixed sums should be implemented as set out in tables 1 and 3 of the consultation document.

Yes 101 No 25 N/A 16

Proposal 2 To introduce key stage AWPA values, using a simple average of the individual AWPA within each key stage.

Yes 82 No 40 N/A 19

Proposal 3 The Workforce Reform Fixed Sum should be removed from the funding formula and the funding delegated via AWPA.

Yes 93 No 17 N/A 30

Proposal 4 To reduce the current level of swimming pool fixed sum funding.

Yes 41 No 19 N/A 80

Proposal 5 The current fuel allowance for school swimming pools should be increased.

Yes 43 No 16 N/A 80

Proposal 6 An allowance for pool chemicals should be introduced based on pool surface area.

Yes 39 No 19 N/A 82

Proposal 7 To increase the funding for Swimming Instructors.

Yes 43 No 19 N/A 80

Proposal 8 To reduce the funding bands for Swimming Instructors from 20% bands to bands of 10% with a minimum level of funding of 20%.

Yes 48 No 9 N/A 85

Proposal 9 Funding for travel to swimming should be reduced from £14.68 per-pupil to £12.13 per-pupil, with the remaining funding delegated to all schools via AWPA.

Yes 42 No 45 N/A 58

Proposal 10 Funding for travel to swimming should be delegated through the KS2 AWPA.

Yes 50 No 38 N/A 54

Proposal 11 Funding for Travel to PE should be reduced from £35.77 per-pupil to £30.78 per-pupil, with the remaining funding delegated to all schools via AWPA.

Yes 53 No 16 N/A 68

Proposal 12 Funding for Travel to Games should be reduced from £47.57 per-pupil to £35.88 per-pupil, with the remaining funding delegated to all schools via AWPA.

Yes 52 No 13 N/A 74

Proposal 13 To introduce a ‘partnership model’ to calculate the expected costs/savings of each partnership, and to provide additional funding only to partnerships with expected additional costs.

Yes 49 No 27 N/A 47

OR

Proposal 14 To introduce a ‘partnership scale’, based on the results of the partnership model, for simplicity within the formula.

Yes 35 No 33 N/A 45

Comment:  These proposals attracted a considerable level of concern from small schools benefiting from partnership arrangements and the Diocesan Board of Education.  Concerns were expressed that this change could result in additional problems for the operation of small schools.  The contrary view was also expressed that the funding of these partnerships had resulted in significant additional allocation of funding to a few schools at the expensive most schools.  The consultation exercise identified proposal 13 as the preferred option.  To address concerns that the additional costs are being funded following the creation of partnerships it is proposed to review the operation of the preferred option.

Proposal 15 The income clawback for hire of facilities should cease.

Yes 64 No 6 N/A 66

Proposal 16 All turbulence factors should be removed from the funding formula, and schools with service families’ children should be supported in accordance with the Government’s criteria.

Yes 71 No 15 N/A 54

Comment – under current arrangement Norfolk funds four schools £34,514. The new Pupil Premium will provide £200 per service pupil as specific grant. Based on January 2010 pupil returns this is estimated to provide 72 schools £148,000. Each of the four schools funded by Norfolk would receive significantly more by the Pupil Premium than the previous funding arrangement. It is therefore proposed not to add an additional factor into Norfolk’s school funding formula for service children.

Proposal 17 Cluster funding should be allocated based on the actual number of schools in each cluster at an equal rate for all schools.

Yes 105 No 17 N/A 19

Proposal 18 The £250 FMSiS allocation should be included within the general fixed sum of all schools.

Yes 90 No 9 N/A 40

Comment: FMSiS has been discontinued by the Government and therefore this funding allocation is no longer required.

Proposal 19 A Teacher-based protection calculation should be applied to the ceiling protection allocation of individual schools to determine whether the protection is necessary to maintain theoretical class sizes.

Yes 100 No 11 N/A 27

Proposal 20 The Local Authority should be granted discretionary powers within the funding formula to support schools requiring a temporary staff decrease.

Yes 115 No 7 N/A 19

Proposal 21 To amend the funding for all-electric heating to £999 fixed plus £15.49 per- pupil.

Yes 36 No 5 N/A 95

Proposal 22 To remove the extra allowance for mechanical ventilation from the funding formula.

Yes 40 No 6 N/A 92

Proposal 23 To remove funding for kitchen heaters from ‘extra allowances’, and to recognise the additional fuel costs within the catering sub-formula.

Yes 60 No 3 N/A 75

Proposal 24 To reduce the allocation for a large number of foul waste collections to £2,978.

Yes 47 No 8 N/A 83

Proposal 25 The achievement element of personalised learning should be based on a per-pupil methodology for all schools.

Yes 95 No 20 N/A 23

Proposal 26 The achievement element of personalised learning should use the data set that is agreed through consultation for SEN.

Yes 100 No 9 N/A 23

Proposal 27 Subsidiary registered children should not be included for the purpose of calculating Infant Class Size funding.

Yes 56 No 18 N/A 59

Proposal 28 Where children are accepted into a school that would otherwise have received no Infant Class Size funding, in order to meet the criteria for maximum Infant Class Size funding, this must be sanctioned by Admissions if Infant Class Size is to be allocated.

Yes 76 No 3 N/A 53

Proposal 29 To change the Infant Class Size funding formula, based on the average cost of a Teacher (including on-costs and PPA adjustment) minus the AWPA contribution from pupils within the class.

Yes 67 No 23 N/A 48

Proposal 30 To maintain a stable per-pupil amount for children with English as an Additional Language.

Yes 104 No 3 N/A 35

Proposal 31 Looked After Children funding should follow pupils on a pro-rata basis.

Yes 122 No 4 N/A 16

Proposal 32 In the initial budget share, Looked After Children should only be funded at the last school they are recorded at prior to the financial year.

Yes 76 No 40 N/A 20

Proposal 33 The LAC allocation for Looked After Children that are in transfer years should be funded pro-rata (5/12ths) on the initial budget share.

Yes 117 No 3 N/A 18

Proposal 34 Funding for Gifted & Talented children should be capped to 10% of pupils on roll.

Yes 41 No 42 N/A 13

OR

Proposal 35 All schools should receive Gifted & Talented funding for 10% of pupils on roll.

Yes 87 No 28 N/A 12

Comment: Proposal 35 is therefore the preferred option.

Proposal 36 The split-site allowance should apply only to schools with school buildings on separate sites which are separated by a distance of one-third of a mile or more.

Yes 55 No 4 N/A 78

Proposal 37 The sixth form element of split-site funding should be removed from the formula.

Yes 37 No 5 N/A 94

Proposal 38 To provide additional maintenance funding based on a formula calculation for schools that require a Multi-Use Games Area in order to meet statutory requirements.

Yes 42 No 11 N/A 84

Proposal 39 To increase the Grounds (Field) allocation from £646.32 to £698.04 per hectare.

Yes 111 No 5 N/A 21

Proposal 40 To increase the Grounds (Lawn) allocation from £0.74 to £0.78 per sqm.

Yes 111 No 5 N/A 21

Proposal 41 To update the funded amount for staff houses from £439 to £453.60 to reflect reviewed maintenance costs and average income.

Yes 38 No 11 N/A 87

Proposal 42 Threshold and Performance Pay should be delegated via the AWPA.

Yes 79 No 45 N/A 13

Proposal 43 The Salary Cost Adjustment should include Upper Pay Spine salaries.

Yes 88 No 15 N/A 33

Proposal 44 To use Education Acorn data as the sole indicator for calculating social deprivation funding.

Yes 84 No 37 N/A 16

Proposal 45 The principles shown should be used for funding new schools.

Yes 75 No 3 N/A 52

Proposal 46 Amounts funded for ceiling protection, small schools supplement, and partnership allowance should be reviewed after a school has received them for a continuous period of 3 years.

Yes 102 No 6 N/A 26

Proposal 47 To implement a transitional adjustment, based on the difference between the old and new formulae for each school, over a five year period.

Yes 104 No 9 N/A 18

Proposal 48 To use a straight-line approach to transition over the period.

Yes 48 No 39 N/A 18

OR

Proposal 49 To use a tapered approach to transition over the period.

Yes 70 No 18 N/A 17

Comment: Proposal 49 is therefore the preferred option.

Schools Forum View The Schools Forum made the following comments about this Formula Review section of the consultation paper.  Section produced by a very transparent process which involved schools representatives and all proposals had initial Schools Forum support prior to wider consultation;  General concerns about the overall impact of the school funding settlement on school activity;  Concern that the 1% transfer of resources from the secondary sector as a result of this review will exacerbate the impact of the Government funding settlement;

 Concern was expressed about the criteria to be used in allocating bridging protection (proposal 20). It was agreed further details would be taken back to Schools Forum to define the criteria for the allocation of this funding.  The Schools Forum supported all the proposals with the exception of proposals 9, 14, 34, and 48.  Proposal 9 was not supported by schools as a whole and Schools Forum agreed with view;  The Schools Forum supported proposal 13 rather than alternative proposal 14.  The Schools Forum supported proposal 35 rather than alternative proposal 34.  The Schools forum supported proposal 49 rather than the alternative proposal 48.

Norwich Diocesan Board of Education View The Norwich Diocesan Director of Education has expressed concerns about the impact partnership funding changes and implementing full cost recovery for services provided to schools will have on small and undersized schools. In the consultation response-  He refers to conversations that have begun with NCC, its strategic educational partner, about the future of small or undersized schools in the county; their viability and solvency and the quality of education they are able to provide to their respective pupils.  He indicates the Norwich Diocesan Board of Education would prefer a genuine debate – transparent and conducted openly and fairly - about the future of small schools.  He says some schools are wondering if the current financial moves will have the effect of making them unviable and insolvent anyway, and thus wither on the vine – as opposed to a full debate about their strategic future.

Comment It is clear that the cumulative effect of changes in funding will put pressure on small schools to access services on the same basis as all schools and the removal of subsidies will be difficult to manage.  We are keen to support governing bodies in exploring greater collaboration, joint management approaches, federation or amalgamation of schools and a greater role for school clusters in driving greater efficiency in school procurement.  However, as the Diocesan Director rightly points out we want to avoid unintended consequences of several decisions impacting one after the other.  The last Government had a policy of relative inertia in relation to small schools and we agree with the responses to consultation which suggest that this is the right time for Norfolk to have a clear, strategic plan for small schools, schools in rural areas, access to good quality and viable schools for all communities and effective collaborative systems for schools.

 We recommend setting up a working group to look at these issues to report by the end of the summer term 2011.

Recommendation  That all the proposals for Formula Review (ie proposals 1 – 19) be implemented with the exception of proposals 9, 14, 34 and 35.  That no additional factor be added to Norfolk’s school funding formula for service children (proposal 16);  That the revised arrangements for the funding of partnership, ie to fund additional costs arising from the creation of a partnership (proposal 13), be reviewed to ensure all additional costs are funded. This work to be undertaken in conjunction with the Norwich Diocesan Board of Education to ensure the arrangements pick up the concerns they have expressed about covering extra costs of partnerships.  That a working group be established to consider all the relevant issues related to small and undersized schools with a view of producing a report by the end of the summer term 2011.

5. Provision and Support for Children and Young People with Additional Needs (Proposals 50-65)

Introduction This section of the consultation paper outlined a range of proposals for the funding of provision and support for children and young people who have Additional Needs; including special educational needs (SEN).

In summary these are:

Special Educational Needs School Specific Allocation To consider alternative ways of allocating the special educational needs school specific funding for prior attainment in years R,1 & 2 and 7-11 and deprivation across all years.

Short Stay School and Behaviour Support Funding To consider the funding implications of the proposed move from the current Pupil Referral Unit model to a Short Stay School model and to clarify funding arrangements for early intervention / prevention.

Sensory Support To consider a proposal to revise the funding arrangements for the delivery of sensory support service in light of the proposed change to the current Norwich based Visual Impairment and Hearing Impairment unit provision hosted by four mainstream schools and the reallocation of funds to sensory support service for developing the peripatetic service.

Specialist Resource Bases To consider a proposal to examine alternatives for the allocation of funding for the eleven Specialist Resource Base developments which have not yet progressed.

Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy To consider a proposal to continue to commission a Speech and Language Therapy from Norfolk health service and a proposal to establish a discrete Occupational Therapy service to serve all Norfolk schools.

School Specific Allocation - Prior Attainment Years R, 1 and 2

Proposal 50 To change the Prior Attainment indicator to the Foundation Stage Profile using the number of pupils scoring under 36 at the end of year R in PSE and CLL categories.

Yes 57 No 14 N/A 39

OR

Proposal 51 To change the Prior Attainment indicator to the Foundation Stage Profile using the number of pupils scoring under 3 at the end of year R in PSE and CLL categories.

Yes 13 No 37 N/A 39

OR

Proposal 52 To retain the Bury Infant Check as the Prior Attainment indicator.

Yes 26 No 37 N/A 33

Comment: Proposal 50 is therefore the preferred option.

Proposal 53 To use last years Key Stage 2 results (academic year 2008/09) as the Prior Attainment indicator for secondary schools.

Yes 34 No 10 N/A 75

Schools Forum View The Schools Forum supported the option favoured by schools in respect of measuring prior attainment in primary schools (ie Option 50) and proposal 53 in respect of measuring prior attainment in secondary schools.

Recommendation That proposals 50 and 53 related to the funding of School Specific Allocation - Prior Attainment be implemented.

Short Stay School and Behaviour Support Funding

Proposal 54 To devolve a fixed sum of funding based on costs of the proposed Short Stay School operation model which includes funding for behavioural support.

Yes 56 No 22 N/A 55

Schools Forum View The Schools Forum supported this option

Comment Paragraph 10 of this report provides further details on the proposed move from the Pupil Referral Units model to a Short Stay School model of support for pupils requiring intensive short term behavioural support.

Recommendation That proposal 54 related to the funding of Short Stay School and Behaviour Support be implemented.

Sensory Support

Proposal 55 To close the Visual Impairment units at Bignold Primary Schools and City of Norwich School – to merge the Colman Infant and Colman Junior Hearing Impairment units and formalise the establishment of a unit at City of Norwich School

Yes 76 No 5 N/A 47

Proposal 56 To transfer savings from the reduction in funded fixed units to enhance the peripatetic provision from the County Sensory Support Service to all Norfolk schools.

Yes 99 No 3 N/A 27

Proposal 57 To establish a virtual school via a governing body with devolved responsibility for this Service.

Yes 77 No 20 N/A 28

Schools Forum View The Schools Forum supported proposals 55 – 57.

Recommendation That all the proposals relating to Sensory Support (ie proposals 55-57) be implemented.

Funding Levels for Specialist Resource Bases

Proposal 58 Advertise and/or target the approximate eleven Specialist Resource Bases vacancies via alternative schools.

Yes 18 No 31 N/A 32

OR

Proposal 59 Devolve one Specialist Resource Bases vacancy via the proposed Short Stay School model to enable further commissioning of behaviour support to maintained schools for early intervention / prevention. The ten remaining Specialist Resource Bases vacancies to be progressed via alternative schools with a focus on Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Learning Specialist Resource Bases.

Yes 23 No 31 N/A 29

OR

Proposal 60 Allocate one Specialist Resource Bases vacancy, via a Service Level Agreement with Norfolk Health Service, to provide a discrete Occupational Therapy service to all Norfolk schools for therapies that assist access to the curriculum. The ten remaining Specialist Resource Bases vacancies to be progressed via alternative schools (schools that would not require significant capital development to establish the provision) with a focus on Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Learning Specialist Resource Bases.

Yes 13 No 34 N/A 29

OR

Proposal 61 Ring-fence the equivalent of the funding for six Specialist Resource Bases ie £509,000 (within the financial year 2012/13) for the possible future funding of an Outreach service provided by Special Schools. The five remaining Specialist Resource Bases vacancies to be progressed via alternative schools (schools that would not require significant capital development to establish the provision) with a focus on Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Learning Specialist Resource Bases.

Yes 23 No 30 N/A 27

OR

Proposal 62 Cease implementation of further Specialist Resource Bases (beyond the 48 planned Specialist Resource Bases that are operational / will be operational by Easter 2011), thereby removing the requirement to fund a further allocation of £933,000 required to cover the cost of the remaining eleven Specialist Resource Bases.

Yes 31 No 26 N/A 26

Comment: Proposal 62 is therefore the preferred option.

Schools Forum View Supported proposal 62.

Comment The implication of option 62 is that the number of Specialist Resource Basis will not increase to 59 as originally set out in the SEN Strategy.

Recommendation That proposal 62 is implemented and as a consequence no additional funding for Specialist Resource Bases be allocated from the 2011/12 Schools Budget.

Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy

Proposal 63 To continue to provide this level of funding and commission Norfolk Community Health and Care, Great Yarmouth and Waveney Community Services and Suffolk PCT to provide this service for a further 3 year period.

Yes 76 No 15 N/A 24

Proposal 64 To commission Norfolk Health services to provide a discrete Occupational Therapy service to all Norfolk schools for therapies that assist access to the curriculum.

Yes 73 No 9 N/A 20

OR

Proposal 65 To cease the service and individual schools commission Occupational Therapy on a needs basis.

Yes 27 No 34 N/A 22

Comment Both alternative options for the provision of occupational therapy services received support but proposal 64 received greater support from schools.

Schools Forum View  The Schools Forum supported options 63 and 64.  The Schools Forum were concerned that proposal 64 was focussing in low level occupational therapy needs which as a desirable service should be left to individual schools to purchase rather than being a centrally funded service.

Recommendation That proposal 63 relating to Speech and Language Therapy be implemented but that schools continue to commission Occupational Therapy directly (ie option 64).

6. Early Years (Proposal 66)

Introduction Norfolk implemented a common funding formula for early years provision as a pathfinder in April 2010. The current Government is proposing that such arrangements should be implemented in all local authorities from April 2011. One of the issues that were highlighted during the consultation on Norfolk’s early years funding formula last year was the basis on which quality of provision was measured and funded. It was agreed as an outcome from that consultation that further consideration would be given to how quality would be measured and funded.

The consultation paper proposes retaining qualification as the measure of quality but introducing another funding level to take account of further qualification level.

Proposal 66 To pay an additional premium to settings who do not have an Early Years Professional but who do have a practitioner holding an Early Years Foundation Degree at level 5 or equivalent. (The qualification would need to be on the Child Workforce Development Council qualifications list.)

The premium per child would be £0.09 for groups over 17 places, £0.14 for groups 9-16 places and £0.29 for groups under 8. This would give rates of £3.53, £3.79 and £5.24 respectively at 2010/11 prices.

Yes 60 No 31 N/A 56

Schools Forum View Supported the proposal

Recommendation That proposal 66 relating to Early Year Common Funding Formula be implemented.

7. School Balances (Proposals 67-69)

Introduction This section confirms that the proposals made in early 2010 to restrict the size of end of year school balances were not implemented.

In response to requests from schools proposals are now being made to increase schools ability to hold balances to enable more flexibility in planning budgets over three years.

Proposal 67 Include an additional exception based on a school by school justification for exceeding the threshold.

Yes 62 No 17 N/A 11

OR

Proposal 68 Increase the contingency threshold.

Yes 50 No 30 N/A 10

OR

Proposal 69 To retain the status quo.

Yes 12 No 53 N/A 10

Comment: Proposal 62 is the preferred option but proposal 68 also received significant support..

Schools Forum View  The School Forum wished to see a balances exceptional item added and also the general contingency threshold increased to 8% for all schools (ie options 67 and 68).  The change should be implemented for March 2011 and thus apply to school year end balances for the financial 2010/11.

Comment  The Government has indicated that from 2011/12 it will no longer be a requirement for local scheme to have a balance control mechanism. The requirement is now discretionary. The Government advice is that in future “such a mechanism should be focussed on schools which have built up significant excessive uncommitted balances and/or where some level of redistribution would support improved provision across a local area”  The mainstreaming of grants from April 2011 will reduce the level of funding a school can carry forward between years under the current arrangements.  The Schools Forum option would seem to be consistent with the Government’s advice for 2011/12.

Recommendation That  an additional exception based on a school by schools justification for and exception (proposal 67);  the School Balance arrangements be revised by the introduction of a standard 8% contingency threshold for all schools (proposal 68); and  the changes be implemented for year end 31 March 2011.

8. School Catering – Funding Formula (Proposals A-D)

Introduction This section of the consultation paper sets out two proposals relating to the funding and delivery of schools catering.

In summary the proposals relate to:

Schools Catering – Funding Formula To consider a review of the school catering funding formula.

Primary School Group Catering Contract To consider a new set of formal arrangements between NORSE and individual schools covered by the primary schools group catering contract.

Proposal A To introduce a revised funding allocation for school catering based on

 A fixed sum allocation for kitchens of £6,814 for kitchens preparing fewer than 100 meals per day and £9,434 for kitchen preparing over 100 meals per day.

 A fixed sum allocation for dining centres of £4,730 for centres with fewer than 50 meals per day and £5,370 for centres serving more than 50 meals per day.

 Paid meals are allocated £0.06/£0.11 per meal and free meals £2.11

 Schools with kitchens are allocated £0.134 per cooked meal to cover energy, water and refuse.

 Schools with dining centres are allocated £0.3178 per meal to cover energy, water, refuse and additional labour.

 Costs of batteries for electric/gas heaters are included as extras at the rate of £1,404 for electric heaters and £451 for gas heaters.

Yes 67 No 22 N/A 28

Proposal B Dining centres should make a contribution to exceptional capital costs incurred by a sending kitchen in proportion to the number of meals produced for each school in the previous year.

Yes 45 No 25 N/A 47

Proposal C Where NORSE uses the school kitchen for non maintained schools or other customers they will pay the school the cost of energy plus water and refuse £0.134 per meal.

Yes 56 No 4 N/A 55

Proposal D To consider the details of the proposed Service Level Agreement for the primary school group school meals contract.

Yes 60 No 8 N/A 40

Schools Forum View Schools Forum supported all four proposals.

Recommendation That the School Catering – Funding Formula proposals (ie proposals A – D) be implemented.

9. Services to Schools

Introduction This section of the consultation papers sets out changes that are being made to Services to Schools. It was subject to consultation as it is a set of proposed changes which are being implemented in response to local authorities changing budgetary situation and is only included in the consultation paper for information and comment.

The changes relate to:-

Norfolk Schools Broadband Network The current subsidy is being withdrawn and schools will be charged the full cost of this service. However funding will be reallocated within the Schools Budget to ensure the specific funding allocation still equates to the charge.

Norfolk Schools ICT Services To implement a single ICT Service in Norfolk and transfer schools ICT service to ICT Services from 1 April 2011.

Small Schools Package of Services The withdrawal of the package and a move to full cost recovery of service from all types of schools.

School Meals Group Contract To implement from 1 April 2011 a formal Service Level Agreement between NORSE and individual schools for the delivery of a school meals service under the School Meals Group Contract for a three year period as outlined in Section G of this consultation paper.

Services to Schools Pricing To implement pricing structures for Services for Schools that reflects full cost recovery from 1 April 2011.

Schools Forum View  Concern was expressed about the impact of the charging changes to small schools;  Concern was expressed about the viability of County Council services if schools chose not to buy services from the County Council and the impact this would have on prices and the subsequent on those schools that are more dependent on County Council services:

Recommendation To note the comment of schools and the Schools Forum and implement all the proposed changes (ie changes 1 -7) from April 2011.

10. Short Stay Schools

10.1 In parallel to consulting on the funding arrangements for Short Stay Schools a separate consultation was undertaken on the details of a new model operational for delivering Norfolk’s Behaviour and Attendance Strategy.

10.2 The proposal is to move from the current Pupil Referral Unit model of five separately managed Pupil Referral Units to a single Short Stay School model of three satellite Short Stay School sites under one governance structure plus a Hard to Place unit.

Format of the staff consultation 10.3 The formal consultation ran from Monday 15th November – Friday 17th December 2010. Following feedback from staff and union representatives, the period for submitting responses has been extended to 10th January 2011 to enable more detailed proposals on the structure and specimen job descriptions to be considered.

10.4 Face-to-face briefing sessions were held for each PRU staff group in their school bases where possible, along with their management committees, union representatives and key business partners. Additionally, an open drop-in session was held. 113 staff attended a briefing, out of a staff establishment total of 208. Verbal feedback was summarised in a set of Frequently Asked Questions which was then circulated. Written feedback was received via a response sheet which asked respondents for their views on three key issues and invited further comments.

Responses to the consultation 10.5 The response rate from individual staff at 17th December was 39 of a total staff establishment of 208, representing an 18.75 % response rate. Additionally, three management committees submitted views on behalf of their Pupil Referral Units and one Pupil Referral Units submitted a whole-staff response. The consultation produced the following response.

Consultation Questions Agree Broadly Broadly Disagree agree disagree The proposed outline structure for 1 0 2 3 33 Short Stay school comprising 3 satellite schools and 1 ‘Hard to Place’ school will enable Norfolk Children’s Services to meet its stated aims and statutory duties with regard to pupils who are excluded, have medical needs or are Hard to Place. It will also deliver the necessary budgetary efficiencies’ The internal staffing structures 0 0 3 46 outlined in the proposal will allow staff to fulfil their specialist roles effectively and efficiently’ Locating the 3 satellite Short Stay 0 3 4 30 Schools in King’s Lynn, Norwich and Gt. Yarmouth, with the Hard to Place school in Norwich would enable the best fit of provision, access and staffing across the county, bearing in mind the current locations of the centres and the unlikelihood of any new capital expenditure becoming available’

10.6 Additionally, feedback on behalf of the NASH executive proposed that a federated approach without an executive Headteacher would be a more robust model which would be responsive to local context and also that reducing to 3 Pupil Referral Units would increase costs in the longer term because of accessibility, therefore retention of 4 bases would be more efficient.

10.7 Main themes from additional comments where 5 or more written responses were received

Main comments No. Teams and working partnerships would be disrupted 28 Greater distances to travel increases costs and decreases parental 27 engagement Fewer staff to service the same number of pupil needs, leading to 18 ineffective or unsafe provision Difficult and inefficient for 1 head to manage several sites 17 There is no recognition of the specialised nature of the work in the 11 indicative grades Staff wellbeing and morale could be adversely affected by the 10 changes

Main comments No. Likelihood of increase in exclusions with reduced capacity for 9 outreach There is no recognition of successful and good practice 8 Some of the current provision is cost effective 7 Closing centres would waste resources which have been put in to 5 improve sites The proposal is not in line with the govt white paper re self 5 governance for Pupil Referral Units A reduction in support hours will make the admin and reception load 5 difficult to manage

10.8 It should be noted that although the feedback appears largely negative, some of it is based on misconstruing the proposals. In particular:  There is no intention to reduce front line staff and in fact it is envisaged that outreach support work in schools will increase over time. However, a reduction in management and support staffing costs is necessary to eliminate the current £650,000 Pupil Referral Units overspend;  The number of satellites need not equate to the number of buildings in use;  Pupils will in future travel to their nearest Pupil Referral Unit rather than an area-based centre, and  The commissioning of alternative provision is aiming to reduce pressure on Pupil Referral Units.

10.8 Comments The recommendations have been amended from the original proposals, reflecting feedback received whilst adhering to the principles of consistency and cost-effectiveness. The main changes are:  The 4 Short Stay School satellites will all cover the range of Pupil Referral Units functions, removing the need for a Hard to Place setting and increasing geographical coverage and access for pupils;  The Executive Headteacher will also be in charge of one satellite, thus reducing management costs and enabling more funding to be channelled to the front line;  A federated approach to governance will be established, to enable local representation whilst preserving overall consistency;  The grades for support staff will be revised to reflect the specialist nature of the work;  Earthsea will continue largely in its current format, serving the needs of Children accommodated by Childhood First, Further work will be done to align the management to the new structures;  The locations of the 4 satellites will be King’s Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Norwich and Coltishall (the latter 2 covering the central strip between them);  Education Plus will cease to operate as a standalone project but its function would be carried out by the 4 Short Stay Schools, thus sharing expertise, and

 Thetford Pupil Referral Unit will cease to operate as a standalone centre. During the transitional phase it will be managed as a satellite of one of the 4 Short Stay Schools. Further work will be done to review the use of the Elm Road site, which is not fit for purpose as a Short Stay School. As part of this, we will explore the possibility of providing a new purpose-built base in the South of the county, subject to approval to use of the capital receipt from a disposal of the Elm Road site, in accordance with the Financial Packages policy.

10.9 Recommendations That  Four Short Stay School satellites each covering the range of Pupil Referral Units existing functions;  The Executive Headteacher to be in charge of one satellite;  A federated approach to governance will be established, to enable local representation whilst preserving overall consistency;  The grades for support staff will be revised to reflect the specialist nature of the work;  Earthsea will continue largely in its current format, serving the needs of Children accommodated by Childhood First;  The sites of the 4 satellites will be King’s Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Norwich and Coltishall.  Education Plus will cease to operate as a standalone service;  Thetford Pupil Referral Unit will cease to operate as a standalone centre.  Implementation to be on 1 September 2011.

11. Mainstreaming Grants within the Schools Budget

11.1 One of the changes to school funding being made by the Government for 2011/12 is the consolidation of previously specific grants into the general schools funding allocation ie the lump sum Dedicated Schools Grant. Although funding within the Dedicated Schools Grant is not ring fenced it has been necessary to consider with the Schools Forum how the funding being added to the Dedicated Schools Grant should be allocated between Norfolk schools.

11.2 The total value added to the Dedicated Schools Grant in 2011/12 which was previously distributed as a specific grant between schools based on a national funding formula is £72.1million.

11.3 Of the total addition sum added to the Dedicated Schools Grant it is proposed to distribute £38.7million by Norfolk’s existing funding formula. The £0.8million specific grant provided to support the additional cost of diplomas will be distributed based on Year 11 students continuing with their diplomas in September 2011. A sum of £1.8million will be retained from the National Strategies grants to be targeted on schools requiring additional support. A sum of £0.4million

will also be retained for early years and extended schools development and support staff. The remaining £30.4million it is proposed to add into schools 2011/12 funding as an additional factor to enable the funding allocation to replicate the cash allocation made to individual schools in 2010/11

11.4 It is proposed to work with the Schools Forum to review this replicated funding with the aim to make proposals for this replicated funding to be distributed by an appropriate formula in 2012/13.

11.5 Recommendations  That an additional factor is added to Norfolk’s resource allocation 2011/12 formula that replicates in cash terms £30.4 million of previously specific grant funding,  That an additional distribution factor is added for 2011/12 to distribute £0.8million to schools with Year 11 diploma students in September 2011, and  That work is undertaken with the Schools Forum to produce proposals for this funding to be distributed by formula from 2012/13.

12. Resource Implications

Each proposed change to the distribution of funding will be achieved within the Schools Budget. The Schools Budget for 2011/12 will be based on the Dedicated Schools Grant allocation.

13. Other Implications

13.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

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 meet the needs of those pupils with special educational needs and also to ensure all providers of early years learning have equality of funding.

13.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

Each of the proposed changes is intended to ensure available resources are better focussed on the needs of individual pupil. In particular the proposals within the overall review of the funding formula are aimed to ensure available resources are better focussed of the needs of pupils.

14. 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 implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance.

15. Action Required

The Panel is asked to comment on the recommendations prior to this report being presented to Cabinet for approval.

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 Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help

Consultation Comments Appendix A

No Summary of Comments

1 Proposal - New AWPA weightings and fixed sums should be implemented.

Summary of comments:-  Fairer for Primary Schools – provided a REAL increase.  Fixed sum changes – disadvantage for small schools.  Unfair to Junior schools  Funding should be weighted to KS  Imbalance between primary and High Schools must be addressed.  Against national Average appears to be fairer.  Need for higher funding of years 3 – 6.  Agree in principle but the effect on our budget is substantial.  Whilst we understand the rationale for reviewing the AWPA's given the data provided over a period of time, the impact of reducing Secondary allocations to fund this 'move' particularly at this time, creates additional financial difficulties.  The governors are adamant that given the financial challenges and uncertainties that schools are facing nationally and locally this is NOT the time for new AWPA weightings to be implemented. At the very least implementation should be delayed until the full financial effects of government decisions are clear. Expenditure for High schools at KS4 is rising due to new GCSE specifications and resources, modular examinations and invigilation/access arrangements for controlled assessments. On a numerical head count there are more primary schools than secondary but governors urge that secondary ‘voices’ are heard that this proposal is not implemented in 2011/12 for the above reasons.  Secondary school rolls are falling & funding per students is already reducing, so this will create additional pressures in funding within the secondary sector. Why change now given that the Government will change the funding formula in 2012/13. This proposal may run counter to the Government's assurance that each school's funding will not fall by more than 1.5% on a per pupil basis.  Not reflective of costs of post 11 education demands  This new funding loses our school £3181, due to a much lower fixed sum. I suspect all small schools are similarly affected by this proposal; they certainly seem to be penalised by it.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 This addresses the long standing adverse differential between primary and secondary phases.  Why do AWPA weightings and fixed sum have to be together?  Not the right time to make changes  Prefer delay for 1 year.  Gains for primary in majority of cases insignificant whereas very significant for secondaries. Average increase in primary = £9282 (2%), average loss for secondaries is £65K (2.3%).  Strong support for fairer distribution of funding for Junior aged children.  Disadvantages small schools.  Overall we agree  We object to a shift of funds from secondary to other groups.  The governors are adamant that given the financial challenges and uncertainties that schools are facing nationally and locally this is NOT the time for new AWPA weightings to be implemented.

Schools Forum View  Proposal supported.  This proposal and the section on the Formula Review was produced by a very transparent process involving schools representatives and all the proposals had initial Schools Forum support prior to wider consultation;  General concerns about the overall impact of the school funding settlement on school activity;  Concern that the 1% transfer of resources from the secondary sector as a result of this review will exacerbate the impact of the Government funding settlement;

2 Proposal - To introduce key stage AWPA values, using a simple average of the individual AWPA within each key stage.

Summary of comments:-  Removes situation where certain year groups are poorly funded.  Prefer to have different values for each year group.  Fairest and simplest way forward – still concerned about high schools.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Funding will be simplified  If proposal 1 is passed then we still object to this simplification of the calculation because we will lose a further £4000  This means the distinctive nature of particular groups is lost.  Whilst it creates less money for our Partnership this year, it does seem a fairer system.  It would be better to identify spending on individual year groups.  If proposal 1 is passed then we still object to this simplification of the calculation because we will lose a further £4000

Schools Forum View Proposal supported

3 Proposal - The Workforce Reform Fixed Sum should be removed from the funding formula and the funding delegated via AWPA

Summary of comments:-  Only if added to the AWPA  Sensible tidying up of a minor element in funding formula.  Small schools are disadvantaged.  The NASUWT is opposed to the removal of the fixed sum from small schools.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported

4 Proposal - To reduce the current level of swimming pool fixed sum funding

Summary of comments:- No comments  It is important that as much encouragement as possible be given to schools with pools to ensure they remain open.  Schools with pools benefit with extra access and no transport costs.  Sensible tidying up.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Schools Forum View Proposal supported

5 Proposal - The current fuel allowance for school swimming pools should be increased

Summary of comments:-  Swimming Pools earn money from lets.  Fuel allowance should be inflation linked.  Schools could increase fees for use of pool to raise income.

Schools Forum view Proposal supported.

6 Proposal - An allowance for pool chemicals should be introduced based on pool surface area

Summary of comments:-  This seems to make complete sense - why hasn't it happened before?  Sensible tidying up of a minor element in funding formula

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

7 Proposal - To increase the funding for Swimming Instructors

Summary of comments:-  Whatever they are paid it is not enough!  I do not believe the proposal makes enough of a case to increase this funding.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Sensible tidying up of a minor element in funding formula.  So long as the primary schools get an opportunity for use of the instructors.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

8 Proposal - To reduce the funding bands for Swimming Instructors from 20% bands to bands of 10% with a minimum level of funding of 20%

Summary of comments:-  Sensible tidying up of a minor element in funding formula. Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

9 Proposal - Funding for travel to swimming should be reduced from £14.68 per-pupil to £12.13 per-pupil, with the remaining funding delegated to all schools via AWPA

Summary of comments:-  Small school travelling over 10 miles to nearest appropriate pool so already pay well over allowance for transport.  This disadvantages very small schools with low numbers travelling long distances the most.  If funding is added to the AWPA.  Retain the current system of funding.  The wording of these proposals 9 & 10 is extremely confusing.  Not ALL schools i.e. Infants swim.  We have to travel more than ten miles and longer than an hour and a half so we already receive less than we need.  Again we are penalised by this - we already make a significant contribution to the cost of hiring coaches for swimming and this would have to increase under this proposal  Never covered the actual cost.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Sensible tidying up of a minor element in funding formula.  Disgraceful this is not funded  No calculation made for actual travel distance

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

10 Proposal - Funding for travel to swimming should be delegated through the KS2 AWPA

Summary of comments:-  If funding is added to the AWPA.  This element needs to be identified rather than lost in AWPA.  The wording of these proposals is extremely confusing.  This will reduce the swimming lessons as a further reduction will not allow additional support from budget on top of support already given  It is important that the amounts are clear particularly to Governors who may have to explain to parents  Not all schools need to spend money on transport to the pool. Some schools won't have to pay anything. It would be fairer to look at which schools need money and pay for actual usage; like hire of PE facilities.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

11 Proposal - Funding for Travel to PE should be reduced from £35.77 per-pupil to £30.78 per-pupil, with the remaining funding delegated to all schools via AWPA

Summary of comments:-  Some schools get this money who do not need it.  Although we are affected by this, it still covers our costs.  Reluctant to take any reduction to the school budget at this stage but appreciate that the reduction is in line with lower

Consultation Comments Appendix A

costs.  Much fairer - we travel off site for PE for 2/3 terms but do not claim.  Costs too high.  Unfair to schools without basic PE facilities  Schools need to cover the costs for statutory provision.  As we do not have a hall and are a small school ... we should have travel costs delegated in full to cover disadvantage.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

12 Proposal - Funding for Travel to Games should be reduced from £47.57 per-pupil to £35.88 per-pupil, with the remaining funding delegated to all schools via AWPA

Summary of comments:-  Schools need to cover cost of statutory provision.  Sensible tidying up of minor element of funding formula  Should be targeted to actual usage.  We are a restricted secondary school site - we are concerned about the impact of this decision to reduce future funding as we have site specific restrictions that other schools do not have.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

13 Proposal - To introduce a ‘partnership model’ to calculate the expected costs/savings of each partnership, and to provide additional funding only to partnerships with expected additional costs

Summary of comments:-  This seems the fairest option to all Partnership schools.  This proposal disadvantages schools like ours (NOR 163) who are partnered with a very small school (NOR 36). If two

Consultation Comments Appendix A

very small schools are together the funding for the partnership will be £14500 under this model. If there is one small school then they should still get half of this (i.e. £7250) otherwise the larger school would have to give away some of their AWPA to support and this is not fair. Your model says that 'it funds schools who incur additional costs under a partnership model' so it must consider the case of schools under 60 on roll partnered with those over, say, 100. Any changes must have tapered relief for 5 years.  Rocklands CP strongly suggest that this funding model disadvantages very small schools partnered with schools over 100 the most. We understand the model for funding but this needs half of the £14500 to be allocated to schools if they are fewer than 60. Otherwise the funding model cannot work without the larger school gifting some of their AWPA which they would not be prepared to do. We propose that Rocklands should be funded with half of the £14500 even though their larger partner would not get any. Your model says that it 'provides additional funding to partnerships with additional costs' and Rocklands would have additional costs not funded under your proposal. The tapering relief is better than straight line relief.  It is ridiculous that partnerships currently receive £21Kpa when they already accrue savings by losing a HT post. It is also grossly unfair!! By all means have some pump priming money to get the partnership started but thereafter only fund additional cost of which there should be none.  This is a fairer model but it does not fully account for the sustainability of a partnership. Partnerships DO NOT save money and the Norfolk model was NEVER set up to do this. A great shame that Partnerships are being hit in this way when they provide more advantages to the LA.  The original proposals for schools to become partnership schools was not as a cost cutting exercise but based on keeping schools local and within communities. The Governors of schools that have entered into partnerships already were not led to expect this change, and it is possible that the governors would not have seconded their Head without assurances that leadership within their school would be secured by the funding given.  Better to reflect the real situation which an over simplified model may miss.  Individual circumstances need to be taken into account.  As the longest standing partnership it would be very difficult after 10 years to establish this. The original amount was based on the calculations needed to back fill made by myself and the LEA officer  Important there is flexibility.  For our partnership it is clear that this proposal needs a heavy deficit. The governors are extremely upset as the

Consultation Comments Appendix A

partnership way of working was sold to us on the basis that it was not a budget exercise or cost saving exercise. It was originally sold to the governors on the basis of enhancing opportunities for children to reflect more of what was on offer at larger schools. The Norfolk Policy was, we understood, to follow the national policy of trying to keep communities alive with the Primary school as the heart of the community. To keep communities alive there is a cost! Recruitment and retention of staff, in particular Headteachers will be affected by the reduction of partnership funding. As governors we would like to pose the question as to what is the cost to communities for ending partnerships in this way? Two small schools joining together NEED the extra money to survive. Staff at small schools are disadvantaged in terms of career development when compared to larger school counterparts. The partnership model was supposed to help address that problem.  Our schools were part of the initial model and have been established for over 10 years. Staffing structures are based on this model and either proposal (13 or 14) will have a significant impact.  The original proposals for schools to become partnership schools was not as a cost cutting exercise but based on keeping schools local and within communities. The Governors of schools that have entered into partnerships already were not led to expect this change, and it is possible that the governors would not have seconded their Head without assurances that leadership within their school would be secured by the funding given.  The NASUWT makes the point that under both proposals the funding for partnership schools in reduced. The reduction of funding for the smallest schools is of concern.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

14 Proposal - To introduce a ‘partnership scale’, based on the results of the partnership model, for simplicity within the formula

Summary of comments:-  Too simplistic and not fair.  The sliding scale isn't sliding enough.  The partnership scale combines unit score is not workable. Schools with a score of up to 1000 need the higher level of funding if partnerships are not going to be unpicked and schools having to make many redundancies. In addition to this

Consultation Comments Appendix A

where does the county expect to get 30 extra Headteachers from if all the partnerships go because of funding. Headteachers teach a considerable amount of the time in schools with up to 100 pupils.  Transparency of funding is always helpful  The proposed scale is too drastic and does not take account of the sizes and situations that schools find themselves in over time.  Better of two evils.  The partnership scale combines unit score is not workable. Schools with a score of up to 1000 need the higher level of funding if partnerships are not going to be unpicked and schools having to make many redundancies. In addition to this where does the county expect to get 30 extra Headteachers from if all the partnerships go because of funding? Headteachers teach a considerable amount of the time in schools with up to 100 pupils.  The Diocesan Director of Education has made a number of comments on the proposals to change the funding of partnerships- o I am aware of how controversial a subject this is. A fairer more even distribution of financial support for all schools and the sum allocated per pupil can surely only be supported, in principle. The Diocesan Board of Education would agree with that. And one cannot ignore what I know has been an ever increasing sum the Schools Budget: at last count half a million pounds – and rising. Again the Diocesan Board of Education would understand why this has become a particular focus. o Executive Heads have explained to me that the proposed bandings for the formula allocation are flawed. The banding proposed penalise those partnerships where there happens to be one large-ish school and, critically, a much smaller school. The smaller school would therefore end up being penalised because it is in partnership with a larger school. o Clearly there are instances on partnerships where it is difficult to justify continued rant support. But smaller schools still need certain levels of support and resourcing irrespective of their partnership school. Nence the partnership. o Partnerships were created in order to enable smaller schools to continue to operate and serving their communities. Norfolk was quite right, in my view, to incentivise the initiative and policy direction. It would be unfortunate if withdrawal of this grant jeopardises a partnership, creates additional problems in recruiting school leaders and, in itself, risk a schools survival.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

15 Proposal - The income clawback for hire of facilities should cease

Summary of comments:-  We have no Hall so have no choice but to go elsewhere for indoor P.E. which costs.  Income clawed back is not worth the cost of administering.  Yes as this is quite de-motivating for some schools.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

16 Proposal - All turbulence factors should be removed from the funding formula, and schools with service families’ children should be supported in accordance with the Government’s criteria

Summary of comments:-  We had twelve pupils arrive or leave in the last year and still it made no difference as we were not eligible for turbulence allowance.  it makes a significant difference to our budget.  As a small school even the movement of a small number of children has a significant effect on our budget.  This does not just affect service families children. In Great Yarmouth the turbulence has increased significantly over the past 10 years.  Marham Infant’s School has express serious reservation about the Government’s proposals and the likelihood that Government funding via the Pupil Premium would not be adequate to maintain the current level of funding for service children. The response also included a response by the Service Children in State Schools National Executive to the Government’s recent national consultation on the introduction of a Pupil Premium.

Schools Forum View

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Proposal supported.

17 Proposal - Cluster funding should be allocated based on the actual number of schools in each cluster at an equal rate for all schools

Summary of comments:-  Should be based on overall pupil numbers.  Clarifies the situation.  Would avoid large school/small school inequality discussions at Cluster Heads meetings.  We believe the current cluster funding should be delegated.  Being a big cluster we feel that we miss out in so many ways ie. PSA etc so this a small step in the right direction.  Smaller clusters have smaller potentially pooled resources already, with lesser possibility for economies of scale, unless perhaps inter-cluster collaboration became a way forward.  Requirement to institute cluster governance has increased costs to the cluster (e.g. clerking of meetings, HT release) with no sustained increase in income.  The technical papers only show the mainstream schools in our cluster. Does this mean the cluster funding is only for mainstream Schools?  On pupil numbers instead.  Absolutely  Needed addressing  Should be higher  Could this be allocated on a per school basis and then an allowance per head to balance the large/small schools.  At present the allocation of funding to clusters does not take the size of the cluster into account at all which means that large clusters are not as well funded as small clusters.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

18 Proposal - The £250 FMSiS allocation should be included within the general fixed sum of all schools

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Summary of comments:-  FMSiS is bureaucratic and failed to prevent high school financial irregularity therefore serves no real purpose.  This is fine as long as it is made clear to schools - otherwise it will be assumed that funding has been taken.  away.  keep it outside.  Could it be held centrally then allocated as and when FMSIS is due?  Whatever replaces FMSIS should not cost more than it does currently  Sensible tidying up of a minor element in funding formula.  Shame if FMSIS didn't stop the high school financial irregularities that all schools had to pay for.

Schools Forum View Proposal withdrawn following Government decision to end the FMSiS process.

19 Proposal - A Teacher-based protection calculation should be applied to the ceiling protection allocation of individual schools to determine whether the protection is necessary to maintain theoretical class sizes

Summary of comments:-  Taper relief is necessary.  I am surprised this is not already the current position.  In the real world of Junior school education a PTR is never going to be as low as 27.  Seems fair.  Proposal too vague.  Schools should be looked at on a school by school basis.  We think that consideration should be made as to the actual teaching staff required when there is a fall in numbers or budget reduction, however we would like the LA to be given discretionary powers to look at individual cases where without the ceiling protection, class sizes would rise to an unacceptable level (as could happen in our case) or the headteacher of a larger school teaching well beyond what should be expected.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

20 Proposal - The Local Authority should be granted discretionary powers within the funding formula to support schools requiring a temporary staff decrease

Summary of comments:-  Smaller primaries suffer from great fluctuations in pupil numbers and impact on budgets year after year.  Can't see how one school will be more important than another - we have a small Y6 but may need to lose before re- gaining. Why should this be protected?  There is a great need for the authority to be responsive for changes in pupil numbers.  Fair  There needs to be an element of flexibility especially for small schools if the policy is to keep a school in the community  The three year budget cycle provides the mechanism to balance out these types of issues  The LA should not receive extra powers.  NASUWT is in favour of this proposal as it protects schools facing temporary reductions in staff – it would help with avoiding unnecessary staffing adjustments.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

21 Proposal -To amend the funding for all-electric heating to £999 fixed plus £15.49 per-pupil Summary of comments:-  Very expensive to run all electric schools.  Could there be some consideration for schools that are heated solely by oil.  Should all electrically heated schools be supported to seek more sustainable energy heating by the council?

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

22 Proposal - To remove the extra allowance for mechanical ventilation from the funding formula.

Summary of comments:- No comments

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

23 Proposal - To remove funding for kitchen heaters from ‘extra allowances’, and to recognise the additional fuel costs within the catering sub-formula

Summary of comments:  Can the additional sum be clearly identified  We support if NORSE funds heating costs.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

24 Proposal - To reduce the allocation for a large number of foul waste collections to £2,978

Summary of comments:  No comments.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

25 Proposal - The achievement element of personalised learning should be based on a per-pupil methodology for all schools

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Summary of comments:-  More expensive to manage for very small schools  Yes but with the following reservations: Until there is more checking and moderation of teacher assessment from KS1 this is never going to be a fair way to fund personalised learning. At KS2 we take in large numbers of children every year who have 'achieved' then correct level who actually haven't and need much support which is not funded!  Level of need affects cost to provide personalised learning  Percentage seems fairer.  Penalises small schools.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

26 Proposal - The achievement element of personalised learning should use the data set that is agreed through consultation for SEN

Summary of comments:-  What about higher achievers? They need personalisation too.  It is *CRITICAL* that the assessment is based on the pupil's achievement during the *FIRST* half term.  Not all needs are addressed through SEN.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

27 Proposal - Subsidiary registered children should not be included for the purpose of calculating Infant Class Size funding

Summary of comments:-

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 It avoids using these situations to manipulate the rules.  Otherwise it leads to unfair manipulation of system.  Difficult to understand implication of this.  This needs to take account of the fact that in some areas of the county there are significant numbers of families who do not engage with the normal admission process and may come into the system late.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

28 Proposal - Where children are accepted into a school that would otherwise have received no Infant Class Size funding, in order to meet the criteria for maximum ICS funding, this must be sanctioned by Admissions if ICS is to be allocated

Summary of comments:-  Provided admissions listen to genuine house move cases.  Difficult to understand implication of this.  How will this affect VA schools?

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

29 Proposal - To change the Infant Class Size funding formula, based on the average cost of a Teacher (including on- costs and PPA adjustment) minus the AWPA contribution from pupils within the class

Summary of comments:-  Unsure of implication so keep the same  Fairer  This is fine for KS1 but needs to be reflected in KS2  Should reflect actual teacher costs.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 This makes the difference of 30 pupils at KS1 and 31 pupils at KS1 EVEN GREATER for small schools who regulary straddle this border it leads to huge variations in budget from year to year  Unfair to small schools  All phantom pupils should be funded

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

30 Proposal - To maintain a stable per-pupil amount for children with English as an Additional Language

Summary of comments:-  The actual cost of supporting children with EAL is far above the funding that is allocated.  This allocation needs to be significantly increaed for school experiencing significant intakes of EAL pupils. The current county provision is inadequate.  Present methodology should be retained.  Fairer system.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

31 Proposal - Looked After Children funding should follow pupils on a pro-rata basis

Summary of comments:-  No- LAC funding is ludicrous. Some children just don't need it.  This will stop potential doubling costs  Does this go across county boundaries?  LAC funding should also follow pupils into a Pupil Referral Unit

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

32 Proposal - In the initial budget share, Looked After Children should only be funded at the last school they are recorded at prior to the financial year

Summary of comments:- No Comments  Does this contradict proposal 31?

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

33 Proposal -The LAC allocation for Looked After Children that are in transfer years should be funded pro-rata (5/12ths) on the initial budget share

Summary of comments:- No Comments  While this maybe transparent it is a paper exercise which does not take into account the actual needs of the child - LAC children often demonstrate anxiety in the term before they move school.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

34 Proposal - Funding for Gifted & Talented children should be capped to 10% of pupils on roll

Summary of comments:  This proposal, rather than 35, maintains the incentive to correctly identify and cater for gifted and talented, whilst removing the temptation to identify 40% (!!! Was this investigated in any way??)

Consultation Comments Appendix A

It would also not fund those 8% that have not identified any pupils as gifted and talented.  G & T is defined as one or more abilities developed to a level significantly ahead of their year group. Since there is a broad curriculum covering a range of subjects, and children who excel in mathematics are often different children to those who excel in English, or in PE, or Music. Thus it is likely (especially in schools with small numbers of SEN and low deprivation) that significantly more than 10% of pupils will be included in the G&T register in some area of learning.  All schools have different catchments of children. G & T provision should be made available to all children who are identified as such, not just a percentage. Schools with high numbers of G & T are expected to make provision for these children - if you cap at 10% they can't.  Schools should be registering pupils in same form.  How some schools report 40% of their children as G&T is beyond me and clearly not complying with central govt advice.  Clear criteria needs to be established.  Every Child Matters we thought was a policy that Norfolk county Council promoted. Governors believe that this porposal goes against this in a small school.  If the school has a higher proportion of children who are genuinely g & t they should receive funding for each child

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

35 Proposal - All schools should receive Gifted & Talented funding for 10% of pupils on roll

Summary of comments:-  I think this is fair.  10% is too high for genuine Gifted and Talented.  Not sure - but every school will have some G&T pupils and we should be making it clear that schools are expected to meet the pupils needs.  Proposal goes against Every Child Matters  If the school has a higher proportion of children who are genuinely g & t they should receive funding for each child.  Less open to abuse.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 No accountability to ensure that schools are focussing curriculum requirements around their student population.  Fairer

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

36 Proposal - The split-site allowance should apply only to schools with separate school buildings on separate sites which are separated by a distance of one-third of a mile or more

Summary of comments:-  I think the distance should be shorter.  Good idea.  Whilst accepting the need to review/reduce this aspect, we consider that there should remain some funding to recognise potential areas of duplication.  Whilst accepting the need to review/reduce this aspect, we consider that there should remain some funding to recognise potential areas of duplication.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

37 Proposal - The sixth form element of split-site funding should be removed from the formula

Summary of comments:-  Definitely  It was interesting to note that the cost of a split site arrangement for the sixth form was double the previous partnership funding allowance.  We feel that funding should be made available to cover the remainder of this academic year, before removal entirely the next year. The school is already committed to providing the teaching and did so (in part) on the expectation of this funding

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

38 Proposal - To provide additional maintenance funding based on a formula calculation for schools that require a Multi- Use Games Area in order to meet statutory requirements

Summary of comments:  I did not understand from the consultation document why future schools might potentially be built that meet the MUGA funding criteria. Does this mean future schools may be built with inadequate space to meet statutory requirements for PE/games?  Really important to properly maintain these since long term repair/replacement costs will be exorbitant.  wish we had one! Perhaps the expense should have been thought about before the schools purchased such high maintenance provision.  I haven't even got a PE hall, so I object to paying additional maintenance for other schools with considerably better facilities than mine.  If it is necessary to meet statutory requirements, all schools in that position should receive funding, especially ALL those who do not even have a school hall!!

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

39 Proposal - To increase the Grounds (Field) allocation from £646.32 to £698.04 per hectare

Summary of comments:-  How does this support schools who by no fault of their own have no grass?  Cost of grounds maintenance is significantly more that the allowance received for a small school this is yet another drain of resources.

Schools Forum View

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Proposal supported.

40 Proposal - To increase the Grounds (Lawn) allocation from £0.74 to £0.78 per sqm.

Summary of comments:-  My smaller school has greater costs due to lawns.  Cost of grounds maintenance is significantly more that the allowance received for a small school this is yet another drain of resources.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

41 Proposal - To update the funded amount for staff houses from £439 to £453.60 to reflect reviewed maintenance costs and average income

Summary of comments:-  Please.  Sell them off  Staff houses should be phased out.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

42 Proposal - Threshold and Performance Pay should be delegated via the AWPA

Summary of comments:-  Fairer.  Although again disadvantages very small schools.  The % of UPS teachers in my two small schools is greater than in larger schools.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Penalises small schools who have an experienced staff as the cost is outside of the schools control as staff remain in post.  If funding is added to the AWPA.  We do not see how this will work. AWPA is not linked to Teachers Salary.  These are now protected which is essential.  Linked to actuals would be fairer.  While we can see the merit in making the money "safer" under minimum funding guarantee, the basis of the funding should be the staffing profile not the number of students on roll. So put under AWPA but only on the basis of maintaining the funding for those schools that actually need it. It this isn't possible then keep out of AWPA.  Provided it is shown as a break down.  Think it might make the budget more difficult to administer in school.  Cost strain on small schools.  For small schools important to receive the actual amount needed.  Schools with long-term serving, senior teachers will be severely penalised. This will have a major impact on our primary budget.  This will have a major impact on schools and is beyond the control of leadership. Staff profiles are very different and require flexible funding.  The AWPA within a small school will not give enough to support many upper pay scale teachers.  Penalises schools with stable and experienced staff – expensive.  While we can see the merit in making the money "safer" under minimum funding guarantee, the basis of the funding should be the staffing profile not the number of students on roll. So put under AWPA but only on the basis of maintaining the funding for thiose schools that actually need it. It this isn't possible then keep out of AWPA.  Linked to actuals would be fairer.  NASUWT object strongly to this proposal. They believe that it may well give rise to unscrupulous school leaders denying pay progress because of the impact on the school budget.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

43 Proposal - The Salary Cost Adjustment should include Upper Pay Spine salaries

Summary of comments:-  Definitely then schools can be encouraged to appoint UPS teachers where there is a need to without worrying about grants being cut further.  Definitely fairer.  We think this SCA is totally unfair and discriminates against schools with less experienced staff and instructors.(ie our swimming teacher)  Small schools are not encouraged to take on NQTs as they are penalised by having funds removed from their budget.  Fairer to small schools.  Why are assistant heads not included in the salary cost adjustment?  NASUWT agree with the idea of salary cost adjustment but believe the only truly fair system would be for schools to be funded on the basis of actual costs.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

44 Proposal - To use Education Acorn data as the sole indicator for calculating social deprivation funding

Summary of comments:-  Do not want Education Acorn to be the sole indicator.  I would like to see more trials of the data etc before making a view.  Although this is not the governments pupil premium it does show us what to expect and this is exactly what we as a school feared - a drop in funding because we are in a rural village and hence obviously then not deprived. Children in urban areas classed as deprived have all sorts of social projects set up in their neighbourhoods to enhance their opportunities but we have nothing. We have 88% of our children in Group E - Educationally hesitant and this presents its own challenges and losing a quarter of our teaching assistant time - which is where cuts will have to be made - will not help our children.  Concerned for special schools.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Is this something that has to be paid for?  This gives a much fairer indication of the level of social deprivation.  Rural deprivation does not show up in the acorn data categories  Education acorn does not recognise rural deprivation.  Fairer and more accurate.  Education Acorn does not reflect he pressures within certain schools of a high proportion of disadvantaged students. If introduced we would prefer the "per school methodology".  Far more precise.  School should be able to provide the evidence for this.  The data is a great improvement.  Does not take into account rural deprivation.  It's fairer to base the funding on the children you actually have - including out of catchment pupils.  Do not have confidence in the accuracy of the data - there are certainly more than just 2 pupils from deprived households at this school [which currently has 40% FSM]  Reservations that still a true indicator has not been found for rural deprivation. Social housing in villages is beginning to change the nature of villages but postcode identification doesn't seem to have caught up with this yet. From the meeting we attended it would appear that is perhaps because Education Acorn is based on out of date census material.  This should be based on per pupil not on per school.  Flawed evidence, need an Impact analysis, no consultation on the use of Education Acorn. Should be calculated on Free School Meals, as per Central Government.  Our school is significantly affected by these proposals losing more than £82,000 over 5 years. The governors feel very strongly that this proposal is unfair and ill thought through. The data is 9 years out of date and does not reflect the current school population. There is a great poverty of aspiration among our parents and whilst there are short comings in the allocation through FSM and IMD this information is recent and relevant and is the best available. No other LA is using this system to distribute funding. The Government is likely to use FSM as the basis to distribute pupil premium funding. Why does Norfolk want to stick its neck out on this one? Why has such a significant amount of money been paid for use of the Education Acorn package in a time of economic recession when the current formula was acceptable and the net gain of a change for all schools was so small. This proposal also affects SEN funding as they will use the same data. The argument that Education Acorn identifies pockets of rural deprivation means most school is Norfolk gain some money

Consultation Comments Appendix A

whilst schools such as ours in areas of recognized areas of social deprivation lose huge amounts of funding. There is little hope of us being able to 'narrow the gap' if money is taken from us such as this. This is a short sighted and popularist proposal. There were no alternatives given in the Fair Funding or presented to Schools Forum. No alternative data showing what the figures would be for 11/12 under the current formula have been given.  We have concerns that the new data may not reflect the true catchment of a school like NDHS that takes catchment from many areas across Norfolk

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

45 Proposal - The principles shown should be used for funding new schools

Summary of comments:-  Seems reasonable.  It would be good is this applied to existing schools, particularly the resources suggested for office staff!  Looking at the list I would think consideration should be given to additional funding providing these transitional opportunities to all new heads.  But only if setting up a new school in an area short of school places - eg a new estate. However, not if a new school is setting up in 'competition' with an existing school

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

46 Proposal - Amounts funded for ceiling protection, small schools supplement, and partnership allowance should be reviewed after a school has received them for a continuous period of 3 years

Summary of comments:-  Provided some consideration of individual circumstances are given. We don't think partnership allowances are the same as other two categories.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Partnership funding vital to schools under 60 NOR for all the reasons given in above proposals.  Current situation- continuous protection of non viable schools must be considered.  Excellent idea.  Is there negotiation regarding the length of the continuous period?  Partnerships, if following a model should not become CHEAPER after any period of time - complete RUBBISH, we are not a cost saving exercise.  Fair  If we are to experience significant cutbacks, then the economic viability of all schools needs to be kept under constant review.  It has always been tricky to explain the needs of small schools to officers so a very experienced team would be needed to look carefully at each school  Happy that a review takes place BUT NOT if it simply means after three years, removing the funding. If following the review it can be shown that the allowance is no longer required then that is fair. But equally if it can be proved that the funding is necessary it should remain. One concern would be if schools are left wondering what will happen to them after three years, it will do nothing for recruitment of Headteachers nor will it help the schools recruit the children.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

47 Proposal - To implement a transitional adjustment, based on the difference between the old and new formulae for each school, over a five year period

Summary of comments:-  With reservations.  Essential.  Fairer.  not enough time to allow this given current financial constraints.  The agenda for small schools needs to be looked at in the bigger picture otherwise this will end up being a war of attrition  Without a transitional adjustment the partnership would simply finish and the existence of both schools brought into

Consultation Comments Appendix A

question.  As we are expected to produce a three year school budget I feel that this money should be within school budgets in three years so that we have a very clear idea of funding available to us for that period and can plan accordingly.  The extra costs will hit us straight away but the additional funding will not fully manifest itself for five years. We are already faced with staffing adjustments. If you are passing on costs to us then we need the money up front. However those schools which lose out should be supported through a transitional phase.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

48 Proposal - To use a straight-line approach to transition over the period

Summary of comments:-  Year 5 could be a big shock at least with straight line it is slightly easier to project.  Too severe an impact in Year 1  Easier to manage  Only if transitional arrangements go ahead.  Year 5 could be a big shock at least with straight line it is slightly easier to project.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

49 Proposal - To use a tapered approach to transition over the period.

Summary of comments:-  Essential to cushion change.  Tapered approach is better.  Helps small schools to adjust as you are increasing fixed cost with the withdrawal of small schools package. A back door method of crippling the small school of Norfolk.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Easier to plan.  Better method for budget purposes as savings made each year will be cumulative.  In the current uncertain funding climate every effort should be made where possible to minimise the impact of material funding adjustments.  Essential for the reasons above small schools need help to survive, especially when the county council is applying full cost recovery to services and removing the small schools package. These proposals are actual a double whammy for a small school.  Likely to ease any current budget problems caused by the spending review.  How can this be fairer if the reduction is less than the straight ling proposal?  We have concerns over the impact of the straight line approach on a staffing adjustment basis in a climate when secondary schools are also facing more cuts via specialism etc possibly. A tapered transition enables more strategic planning

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

Additional Comments from survey to Formula Review proposals

 Proposal 44 - I question the need to change the methodology at a period of uncertainty about school funding.  I think these proposals are a fair and measured approach to ensuring that schools get fair funding in the light of the cuts from the Autumn Comprehensive Spending Review. I am aware of the time this has taken and appreciate the efforts to preserve as far as possible the impact of the cuts to front line services and schools.  Overall: There needs to be more consideration of the individual cumulative impact on specific school budgets to acknowledge the 2.5% and 5% impacts as well. Tightly run school budgets operating at a better than average benchmark has less room to make the necessary savings.  Without wishing to be repetitive. The small school issue in Norfolk should not really be decided by default as using a finance model they become unviable. The County needs to decide if they want to continue to have small schools and then to decide how they want to make them work.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Overall our view is - tidy up small elements within the formula to make it simpler but do not make major shifts which might themselves have to be undone in the light of Government funding decisions.  In line with Best Value principles schools should be free to 'shop around' for best energy prices particularly as prices are rising significantly while school budgets are being slashed.  Small schools should buy services on a pro-rata basis.  Complicated document.  School Catering Funding - we would like further clarification of when a school is defined as a 'dining' centre. School Balances - Option Two (proposal 68) - we wish to increase the contingency threshold WITH the possibility of additional exception circumstances if required.  Do not pass on extra costs to us but delay the passing on of extra income.  Overall: There needs to be more consideration of the individual cumulative impact on specific school budgets to acknowledge the 2.5% and 5% impacts as well. Tightly run school budgets operating at a better than average benchmarks have less room to make the necessary savings.  The governing body of Wymondham High School think the Council is on the verge of making a bad mistake in regards to funding allocations for all secondary schools in Norfolk and specifically Wymondham High School.

50 Proposal - To change the Prior Attainment indicator to the Foundation Stage Profile using the number of pupils scoring under 36 at the end of year R in PSE and CLL categories

Summary of comments:-  Unsure  This fits with SEN and expected levels.  Very wide scoring 4s and 5s. Large number of children involved  This measures attainment at the end of the child's first year of schooling - after much input by school staff.  A score of 36 is extremely low. Many children with SEN would have higher scores than this. If 6+ across 13 strands is expected attainment, then around 4+ would be low. This would give a total score of 52 or less as a prior attainment indicator.

Schools Forum View

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Proposal supported.

51 Proposal - To change the Prior Attainment indicator to the Foundation Stage Profile using the number of pupils scoring under 3 at the end of year R in PSE and CLL categories

Summary of comments:-  3 is too low and will not include enough children.  Children should be at this level on entry. If we do our job right, even SEN children should achieve this at end of year so no one would be in this category  This is a better reflection of children’s abilities.  Would only include a very small number of children most likely at school action or statement.  This is an exceptionally low level

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

52 Proposal - To retain the Bury Infant Check as the Prior Attainment indicator

Summary of comments:-  This is a consistent check as a baseline assessment that can also be compared to previous years.  For year R, using FSP for Y1 & 2 thereafter seems appropriate.  I have always found the Bury check a useful one. No, it doesn't correlate exactly with newer versions of FS practice, but it is an effective general picture of a pupil-visual discrimination, development of vocabulary etc and it is less likely to be subject to the vagaries of teacher assessment than the other mechanism.  Bury is hopeless as an indicator!! Proposal 50/51 is better!!  Or an alternative assessment to take place during the *FIRST* half term.  The use of BIC has required changing for sometime.  Lots of children score 45 or below at present.  We would be happy to carry on using the Bury Infant Check.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 It is standardised and LA should start using BIC data to give an attainment on entry indicator.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

53 Proposal - To use last years Key Stage 2 results (academic year 2008/09) as the Prior Attainment indicator for secondary schools

Summary of comments:  This is a consistent check as a baseline assessment that can also be compared to previous years.  For year R, using FSP for Y1 & 2 thereafter seems appropriate.  I have always found the Bury check a useful one. No, it doesn't correlate exactly with newer versions of FS practice, but it is an effective general picture of a pupil-visual discrimination, development of vocabulary etc and it is less likely to be subject to the vagaries of teacher assessment than the other mechanism.  Bury is hopeless as an indicator!! Proposal 50/51 is better!!  Or an alternative assessment to take place during the *FIRST* half term.  Please include teacher assessment not just SATs  Data for Aylsham Cluster solid and 08/09 - very prior attainment would show picture.  Our concern is that there is no recognition of the actual year group being assessed. Could teacher assessments not be used instead?  Although we would wish to assure standardisation.  More accurate than Teacher Assessment.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

54 Proposal - To devolve a fixed sum of funding based on costs of the proposed Short Stay School operation model which includes funding for behavioural support

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Summary of comments:-  Concerned about proposals for the future of PRU provision in short stay schools. The PRU has been successful in the east! o It is a proposal that does not put children first – particularly vulnerable children and their families and communities. • It is advocated as a money saving exercise (£ 230,000 pa). In fact it will cost the schools budget much more because of increased transport costs for pupils and staff, increased costs to schools through more permanent exclusions because of decrease in preventative work currently undertaken by the five Norfolk PRUs. • The environmental impact of transporting pupils over longer distances and increased travel times will be significant. • The local authority invested significantly in building development for the 5 PRUs. In the North over the past five years approximately £ 250,000 has been invested in Douglas Bader School. What is the financial logic in taking away this huge investment? • The impact on pupils, staff and governors in mainstream schools that PRUs support will be significant as the capacity to support challenging behaviour is reduced. • The present Governments education focus is on the most vulnerable children. This is reflected in the pupil premium and the protection of schools budgets (from where PRUs are funded) Where does this proposal fit into this agenda? • At Douglas Bader School in a school year around 60 pupils would be on roll or dual registered and a further 200 supported. How could this happen if this proposal is approved? • An executive Headteacher managing 3 schools across a large geographical area simply does not make sense particularly as children services has recently appointed a senior officer to oversee the work of the PRUs. • The proposal implies that PRUs are overspent and not able to work within budget. This is not the case. Through good financial management PRUs are now fallen within or near their allocated budgets. For example at DBS savings of £ 290,000 have been made over 2 years. • There is excellent practice across Norfolk PRUs that is reflected in the high Ofsted grades achieved and national recognition. The simple question is why not use this good practice to improve and develop support to vulnerable children rather than destroy and reorganise?  Concerns re level of consultation with respect to the short stay schools model. Not sure about the funding.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 I do not want to see the number of SSS reducing. I strongly disagree. 3 SSSs will be insufficient to meet the increasing needs of pupils. o The proposal stated will not enable Norfolk Children’s services to meet its stated aims for the following reasons:- • There will be a reduced service to Norfolk’s most vulnerable pupils. • There will be a reduced service to Norfolk’s Schools in providing a service for their most vulnerable pupils. • There will be a reduced service to parents and carers. • There will be a reduced service to 6+ day provision in Northern Area • There will not be budgetary efficiencies – by creating a post of one executive Headteacher is not cost effective – why have this post when there is already HT posts in the proposed establishments – The removal of Area Directors was made to save money but already Children’s Services are creating another layer of management that is not needed – it has been proven in most PRUs that HT in post are managing teams and budgets – any spare schools money should be spent on improving services to existing provision, not creating new posts. • There is already a new senior post within CS Management team that has responsibility for PRUs • The above then poses the question – where will this one Exec Headteacher be based? How much time/travel will be involved in overseeing all the new establishments? Realistically, whoever takes this post, will have tremendous time management issues to deliver strategic direction that will be effective. • Children’s Services have, historically, not funded PRUs correctly to deliver a service. PRUs have been instrumental in achieving their goals and reduced deficits by their own merit – why stop this good work now? • If all PRUs took out 2 posts within their middle management staffing structure then potential savings of £ 100,000 per annum could be achieved. • There will be reduced outreach work across the County – by reducing establishments will create smaller staff teams and higher classes – there will be no spare staff time for outreach, thus higher risk of PEX pupils across the County – then where will all these pupils go? This will increase pressure on schools, pupils, governors and families • This proposal is not taking into account the hard work that many of the PRUs have progressed to in terms of building teams due to reorganisation 5 years ago. This proposal will undo all the hard work that has slowly been building up – note Ofsted reports of PRUs. • The impact of Pupil learning will be immense – it has been proven, higher classes of PRU pupils = higher behaviour incidents = higher staff well being issues = higher level of absences = increased budget supply costs –

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Not cost effective or best value at all! • The impact of staffing levels will be immense – staff will not cope with higher class numbers and increased behaviour incidents – this will cause staff to leave, thus another impact on the establishment and increased recruitment costs to budget. • The proposal gives the impression that PRUs are hugely in debt – this is not true – some PRUs – with good financial management and correct Leadership Teams in place – have started to reduce their deficit budgets enormously- Children’s Services are NOT taking into account the strategic development and plans that PRUs are steering towards. • This proposal seems a short term ‘fix’ for a money saving exercise – where is the 5 year strategic plan? Long term this proposal is not cost effective at all. • There is reduced staffing – again, this leads to high behaviour incidents = higher staff absence = high budget implications • Staffing will be reduced and therefore morale low, there will be an increase in staff turnover and recruitment costs – the local authority risk losing experienced professionals in a specialised role just because of a short term ‘fix’ to a budget crisis. • This proposal will involve re-organising teams – why do this again? Teams in place are working well and efficiently. It takes years to build effective teams that work well with vulnerable children. This proposal will destroy teams. • HLTA Specialist Support Assistants are not within this new structure – the training and experience that these ‘teams’ offer is exceptional – this needs to be thought through – behaviour incidents with PRU pupils is a specialised area! • There will be a greater need – i.e. pupil number increase due to reduction of 2 establishments – therefore, less people to deliver so cannot deliver the service. • Will not be able to provide effective support for vulnerable pupils. • The documentation supplied within this pack indicates that current grades/post will not alter therefore no recognition has been made for correctly graded Business Managers in each establishment. It has been proven that Business Managers have the necessary skills for financial management and thus the ability to improve facilities and services to pupils/parents and staff and also have the skills for seeking alternative streams of funding. The Northern PRU has received various alternative streams of funding, one example being Lottery Funding which has enabled the creation of Forest Schools site which has been able to provide nurture sessions

Consultation Comments Appendix A

for all pupils and the local community – the whole Forest School project has been reliant on external funding which has been achieved. o Governors believe that proposed move away from 5 PRU’s is ill considered, of negligible financial benefit, does not deal with the existing demand in existing PRU’s and would be to the clear detriment of students in this and other schools in North Norfolk and other parts of Norfolk. It appears that this proposal has not involved the full consultation of Heads and governors of existing PRU’s, which is highly regrettable. With the recent government White Paper there is now even more compelling reasons why this change should not go through. We urge the rejection of this proposal. In the Douglas Bader Centre we have a PRU that is highly thought of by all Heads in North Norfolk.  Travel costs/ reduced capacity against increased demand/ loss of expertise / are all units in over spend? / feasibility of executive head / saving insignificant against cost impact elsewhere / loss of good practice/ the fixed sum concept is woolly / an academy opt out would be unhelpful for an authority wide service.  It is important to ensure that if the funding is delegated, there are services available for schools to then acces professional support.  Very concerned at the expertise and accessibility of support in this area. Current system offers local high level of service which suits school and students. This is relevant and managed in conjunction with schools. Good level of partnership which must not be lost.  It would appear that this is an attempt to provide funds for a bail out of the PRU  Short stay school funding needed to be put on a more equitable and transparent basis across the county. This propsal appears to address the problems of funding which have been experienced over the last few years.  The Short Stay Model does not have to be adopted (p73 local discretion regarding these proposals) A local PRU is able to respond quickly to these needs. The shortfall appears to be £704,000 - (£7,760,000 - £1,847,000) minus £5,209,000. Lower the AWPA to close the gap - a small charge per school. . We do not want to lose highly effective and regarded PRU in our area.  Governors believe that proposed move away from 5 PRU’s is ill considered, of negligible financial benefit, does not deal with the existing demand in existing PRU’s and would be to the clear detriment of students in this and other schools in North Norfolk and other parts of Norfolk.  NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to develop the short stay school model.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

55 Proposal - To close the Visual Impairment units at Bignold Primary Schools and City of Norwich High School – to merge the Colman Infant and Colman Junior Hearing Impairment units and formalise the establishment of a unit at City of Norwich High School

Summary of comments:-  Understand that insufficient use is being made of these units.  Does not seem to cater for young children.  Yes to close visual impairment unit. Merging of HI Units needs more discussion. If bases are to be retained in each school how can costs be reduced?  Merge of the hearing impaired units to result in a single unit but in a primary school. Can't have infants in a junior or vice versa.  logical

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

56 Proposal - To transfer savings from the reduction in funded fixed units to enhance the peripatetic provision from the County Sensory Support Service to all Norfolk schools

Summary of comments:-  As long as the provision does reach across Norfolk and impact is evaluated regularly.  Important to improve mainstream support so this is a welcome proposal. review after 12 months what the impact has been would be helpful.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

57 Proposal - To establish a virtual school via a governing body with devolved responsibility for this Service

Summary of comments:-  Waste of money  An interesting idea but how practical is it in terms of meeting specific school/pupil needs?  The virtual school for Looked after children seems to have worked well so we already have a model  A simple explanation of how this will work should be conveyed to all schools.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

58 Proposal - Advertise and/or target the approximate eleven Specialist Resource Bases vacancies via alternative schools

Summary of comments:-  The proposed model I understand was not the recommended option by the current Heads of PRUs who recommended that the existing five PRUs should become Short Stay Schools, each led by a Headteacher with delegated budget. The underlying reason for this favoured proposal I understand was that it was viewed as supporting value for money and partnership arrangements. I understand that a proposed plan of achieving financial balance using financial recovery plans with the use of financial management tools provided by the Local Authority and utilising the Locality Authority strategic lead for Short Stay Schools will help realise this.  The rates of behavioural problems and need for behavioural support I understand is increasing and the maintenance of children in mainstream schools with the support from the local PRU where there are established responsive collaborative arrangements is important to retain. A child being managed by a Short Stay School miles away from their mainstream school, family and community is not in their best interests of the child and the importance of having a local provision which is responsive at an early stage and is preventative in its approach has obvious advantages. From experience in our School the family of one of the children supported by our local PRU would find travelling a number of miles not only difficult but

Consultation Comments Appendix A

may well not engage therefore potentially undermining the effectiveness of the work with the PRU (which I think would be a significant concern for many).  Necessary foresight is needed to ensure that short-term financial savings are not resulting in a potential negative impact on this group of already struggling children. If appropriate help is not put in place for the child and family involved this may lead to longer term exclusion and adverse outcomes if they are not meaningfully engaged in education at a critical time in their life.  I would be grateful if this could be taken into account and thorough consideration given to the proposed model recommended by the existing Heads of the Norfolk PRUs and supported by NASH with a the proposed financial recovery plans.  Then there should be one near all schools rather than travel having to be a key issue.  All these proposals need to be kept on the table, so that the best provision can be identified on an individual basis. Having a blanket proposal may not lead to the best resource.  We need more specialist resource bases with outreach work into schools not watered down versions where experienced and specialist staff may be at risk. The PRU model as it stands has been a lifesaver for our school on several occasions, either in house or outreach and the expertise of the staff is needed more and more given the growing numbers of children arriving in Reception classes with a range of behavioural difficulties.  SRBs should be placed where there is a need, not on the basis of "Who wants one?” That’s why we have a SRB in Cromer where 50% of its catchment area is the North Sea.

Schools Forum View Proposal not supported.

59 Proposal - Devolve one Specialist Resource Bases vacancy via the proposed Short Stay School model to enable further commissioning of behaviour support to maintained schools for early intervention / prevention. The ten remaining Specialist Resource Bases vacancies to be progressed via alternative schools with a focus on Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Learning Specialist Resource Bases

Summary of comments:-  Maintained school require early intervention options.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 The review of SEN provision and closure of existing SRB's shows the lack of objectivity and strategic planning in implementing these changes.  This is thin on the ground and comes at a cost.  Devolve one to assist behaviour support and then suspend other options.  This is thin on the ground and comes at a cost.

Schools Forum View Proposal not supported.

60 Proposal - Allocate one Specialist Resource Bases vacancy, via a Service Level Agreement with Norfolk Health Service, to provide a discrete Occupational Therapy service to all Norfolk schools for therapies that assist access to the curriculum. The ten remaining Specialist Resource Bases vacancies to be progressed via alternative schools (schools that would not require significant capital development to establish the provision) with a focus on Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Learning Specialist Resource Bases

Summary of comments:- No comments

Schools Forum View Proposal not supported.  OT services are not accountable enough presently for us to have any confidence in this being an acceptable proposal.

61 Proposal - Ring-fence the equivalent of the funding for six Specialist Resource Bases ie £509,000 (within the financial year 2012/13) for the possible future funding of an Outreach service provided by Special Schools. The five remaining Specialist Resource Bases vacancies to be progressed via alternative schools (schools that would not require significant capital development to establish the provision) with a focus on Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Learning Specialist Resource Bases

Summary of comments:-

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Early intervention and prevention should be the main focus for the SRBs.  A sustainable Outreach service delivered to mainstream schools is essential to ensure pupils with SEN learn effectively and remain in their local schools. Without reliable funding specials schools can not deliver Outreach.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

62 Proposal - Cease implementation of further Specialist Resource Bases (beyond the 48 planned Specialist Resource Bases that are operational / will be operational by Easter 2011), thereby removing the requirement to fund a further allocation of £933,000 required to cover the cost of the remaining eleven Specialist Resource Bases

Summary of comments:-  The current bases need to be in use. If spaces are needed then this not the correct response!  Re-think the overall direction.  Can the money saved then be used to provide more effective behaviour support on a peripatetic basis?  Utilise the SEN funding thereby made available to properly resource the existing and planned bases to prevent cross subsidy from mainstream school funding.  Since there is no money for other areas of the service it seems logical to cease implementation of further specialist resource bases.  With the obvious increase in young people needing support in the LA this must be maintained to provide the specialist support they need.  And reinstate the funding TAKEN AWAY from existing SRBs who now find themselves subsidising the provision resulting in staffing adjustments needing to be made.  NASUWT suggest that this funding should be set aside for future SRBs and allocated once development work on the overall strategy for behavioural support/short stay schools has been fully worked through.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

63 Proposal - To continue to provide this level of funding and commission Norfolk Community Health and Care, Great Yarmouth and Waveney Community Services and Suffolk PCT to provide this service for a further 3 year period

Summary of comments:-  Why is physiotherapy not included here? Also missing is nursing support to schools to meet increasing needs of pupils.  We pay for a service that is difficult to access. Could pressure be put on the PCTs to deliver?  This service needs to be more accountable to Children's Services. Visits to statemented children have to be chased. Children referred non statemented are discharged too soon due to lack of personnel resources. Therefore children continue to struggle in their school life unable to access literacy skills because they are prevented from developing their speech to an acceptable basic standard. This affects their success and confidence throughout life.  This works well within school.  But if children need this level of support why is it not routinely provided anyway as part of the NHS?

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

64 Proposal - To commission Norfolk Health services to provide a discrete Occupational Therapy service to all Norfolk schools for therapies that assist access to the curriculum

Summary of comments:  The proposals re speech & language & occupational therapy we felt were a little confusing. Schools do need support with this service but some school require much more than others through no fault of their own. It may be appropriate to review what has been offer and how the delivery has taken place. Schools experiences will probably vary considerably !  Reservations on standards of service.  If charged under service to schools.

Schools Forum View Proposal not supported.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

65 Proposal - To cease the service and individual schools commission Occupational Therapy on a needs basis.

 Provided it does not occur an extra cost.  Reservations on standard of service.

Summary of comments: No comments

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

Additional Comments to this section  Appropriate and effective nursing support (commission NHS) needs serious consideration to ensure pupils' increasing medical needs are met.  We were offered funding to support the implementation of the outreach model (which was to come from the uncommitted SRB funding for dyslexia) and this does not appear on this list. Why not?

66 Proposal - To pay an additional premium to settings who do not have an Early Years Professional but who do have a practitioner holding an Early Years Foundation Degree at level 5 or equivalent. (The qualification would need to be on the Child Workforce Development Council qualifications list.)

Summary of comments:- The premium per child would be £0.09 for groups over 17 places, £0.14 for groups 9-16 places and £0.29 for groups under 8. This would give rates of £3.53, £3.79 and £5.24 respectively at 2010/11 prices.

 The government have insisted they are qualified to this level so you must be able to pay them more.  Qualification does not equate to quality - Ofsted would be a fairer way to assess quality.  Status quo is working.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 We would like to see some evidence that a level 5 qualification makes a real difference to a setting before making an informed decision. Surely having all staff at level 3 or above is just as important as one at level 5 or 6!!!  At least this new proposal would give some weighting to QTS although I do not feel it goes far enough.  Yes.  Funding for this should be additional not transferred from others in the sector.  A premium should be paid on the basis of proven quality. An Outstanding grading from Ofsted and the successful completion of Norfolk's Quality improvement scheme. It is not true to say that settings will not have had time to complete this for it to be used as a quality measure for funding.  This de-values the EYPS and the need for settings to complete this qualification.  Why have the different rates for over 12 places, it makes larger settings disadvantaged.  As a Company ltd by Guarantee it will be financially impossible to employ an EYPS. 99% of my staff are qualified to level 3, I having a level 4, two commencing foundation degree next year. Therefore I do not agree that settings with EYPs or foundation degree should receive additional funding. We have a Good Ofsted and are promoting professional development of all staff. We work in an area of deprivation. Our Nursery places are full. The quality of the setting should be considered, particularly in the private and voluntary sector.  this discriminates against practitioners who are quality providers but have not had the opportunity to obtain these qualifications.  This would provide greater flexibility to settings to provide quality staff.  But would funding be given to train an Early Practitioners to take the Foundation Degree if they did not have it at present and would like to achieve it?  This increase would help nurseries to fund the wages of these higher qualified staff and therefore would increase the likelihood of such staff staying in their positions as currently staff who gain these qualifications are unlikely to stay in the same positions on the same wage and small settings are unable to afford an appropriate increase in their wage.  We feel that all pre schools should be Nurseries attached to schools and taught by a qualified teacher and assisted by a qualified Nursery Nurse or equivalent, under the direction of a Headteacher. There should be an emphasis on teaching and not on child care, thus taking away the capacity for opportunist businesses operating for profit rather than the long term benefits of children.

Schools Forum View

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Proposal supported.

67 Proposal - Include an additional exception based on a school by school justification for exceeding the threshold

Summary of comments:-  Leaves LA open to persuasion by those who can make the best argument (or employ the best people to do it for them).  More flexibility and allows more forward planning.  The problem I see is that if you are hoping to be able to carry forward more and then it is refused you are forced to spend in a hurry to meet budgets.  Is this in addition to the status quo?  We believe that there should be an option to say yes to both proposals as each school has their own special circumstances  in some cases there is a real need for holding balances over for something specific.  Only if exceptional circumstances.  And the contingency threshold should be raised.  Justifications reasons are limited.  Would like to increase the overall contingency for the 2010 year due to MRS creditor impact within schools - however, would like to combine this with the possibility of exception based justification if required (therefore supporting 67 & 68 proposals).

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

68 Proposal - Increase the contingency threshold

Summary of comments:-  In this climate there is a great need to build up some reserve to protect against further cuts without a sudden negative impact. This is conditional to schools being able to justify why they are keeping extra funds.  Uncertainties about future funding mean the ability to carry forward surpluses is essential to enable stable staffing

Consultation Comments Appendix A

structures.  This allows more flexibility in the budget.  Makes much more sense and is cheap/easy to implement.  Given prospective budgets, we would consider it highly unlikely that this will be needed after this year. (Even if needed at all). Would suggest puts responsibility back on Schools to justify if questioned, why 5%+ held.  Enable an additional exception based allowance on top.  We believe that there should be an option to say yes to both proposals as each school has their own special circumstances.  The ability for a school to justifiably maintain a contingency budget is likely to increase in the immediate future. Individual schools should be in a position to budget beyond the current financial year.  But schools should need to record a justification for carrying forward funds.  Still allow exceptional circumstances to be considered.  Budgetary problems and the negative impact on standards has been largely due to clawback since it was introduced. The whole notion was completely flawed and should never have been agreed at the level it was. The knock on is that now cuts are having to be made due to the current financial crisis schools are having a double dose. We would have been in a much stronger position to cope with the current crisis if we hadn't had to endure clawback.  And enable an additional exception based allowance on top.  However, given prospective budgets, we would consider it highly unlikely that this will be needed after this year. (Even if needed at all). Would suggest puts responsibility back on Schools to justify if questioned, why 5%+ held.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

69 Proposal - To retain the status quo

Summary of comments:-  Too inflexible.

Schools Forum View

Consultation Comments Appendix A

Proposal not supported.

Additional comment on School Balances:  Having had to spend to prevent clawback now means CJS is losing staff which could have been protected if schools were allowed to judge their own contingency this would have covered the one really hard year coming up. Our own personal money would not be spent 'just to spend' it, justification can be beyond reasons provided on LA format.  I really despair that schools have had to spend their carry over funds over the past few years when they are needed now to keep schools viable and ensure good levels of provision for the children and the money has gone!  If exceptions are allowed on case-by-case basis, surely the cost of such a system increases? At this time, it would be sensible to allow an increased % of funding to be carried over, although in common with many small schools, we have very little.  Difficult for small schools – carry forward balances keep them going.  I really despair that schools have had to spend their carry over funds over the past few years when they are needed now to keep schools viable and ensure good levels of provision for the children and the money has gone!

School Catering – Funding Formula

A Proposal – to introduce a revised funding allocation for school catering.

Summary of comments:-  The 100 meals/50 meals is too broad and should be on a sliding or smaller scale.  Don’t know how fair this is.  Norse catering should not cost the school anything. We should not have to count and bank, or set up for school meals. There is no benefit to the school currently for using Norse.  Basically we will now be doing a lot of what the catering services did before but receiving no money for doing so - and paying more for what we are getting  This needs to be looked at on an individual basis at least initially so that small schools are not put in an impossible position.  We don't see how cooking 101 meals per day warrants an extra £3k - our school fluctuates between 90 to 110 per day so

Consultation Comments Appendix A

what funding would we get?  Norse should pay for kitchen energy costs in full.  Significant impact for small schools  Schools will be worse off with the new NORSE contract.  There is no element of fixed cost to cover heating, electricity, gas charges etc. It is irrelevant if you cook 1 meal or 100 you would still have a certain amount of energy costs associated with this. Current proposals would mean we would have to find an extra £3k to continue to buy from Norse!!  The school will be almost £2000 worse off on last year's figures, and will have to spend more according to the proposed new service level agreement.  School should not be worse off. Is £9.38 really expected to cover our daily costs for energy, water and refuse? School meal costs should be age appropriate, not fait that infants pay the same but need significantly smaller portions. Norse seriously underestimates the time taken by secretaries to administer school meals.  Set up costs should be included as part of the SLA contract as Norse responsibility. Who is responsible for supply of uniforms? Will temperatures still be recorded by receiving dining centres? Child Protection initial training should still be responsibility of Norse as these people are not employed directly by the school. It should be an essential component of initial training. Then all schools have a duty to pass on particular procedures and names at their level. Certificates of food hygiene and other training should be displayed in dining centres in frames. Who insures the kitchen staff?

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

B Proposal – Dining centres should make a contribution to exceptional capital costs incurred by a sending kitchen

Summary of comments:-  Provided in proportion.  Yes since the cost of producing their meals re: wear and tear etc on kitchen isn't currently covered.  Kitchen should receive its own funding.  This is reasonable only if there can be some time allowed if schools do not have the means of paying  Needs to be related to age / wear & tear of existing kitchen equipment or some schools my have huge bills simply due to

Consultation Comments Appendix A

obsolete equipment being in place.  Should face the costs themselves  Clarification needed on 'exceptional' - examples would have been useful. However, if we are buying a service, it should not have any additional costs.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

C Proposal – Where NORSE use the school kitchen for non maintained schools or other customers they should pay the school a stand amount

Summary of comments:-  Not enough with the profits they make.  Would this be sufficient most schools lose money on this?  Norse should pay whatever they are charging the non-maintained school or other customer.

Schools Forum View Proposal supported.

D Proposal – To consider details of the proposed Service Level Agreement for the primary school group meals contract

Summary of comments:-  A must!  5.4 This will have a cost implication for school (need to pay an additional 1/2 hour minimum) Can we alter MSAs contracts to say they must do this? NORSE have not consulted with HR. Implications for staff training if school is responsible for first aid for kitchen staff. They will require a higher level of training as potentially injuries could be much more severe in a kitchen ie serious burns, cuts, scalds etc.  Our meal numbers are on the decline and this will not help.  Basically we will now be doing a lot of what the catering services did before but receiving no money for doing so - and

Consultation Comments Appendix A

paying more for what we are getting.  There are issues around maintenance costs.  This needs to be considered, however there are certain items the school will not be able to sign up to, and the school will be struggling financially as more is required will less allocation.

Schools Forum View: Proposal supported.

Additional Comments to Fair funding Consultation:

 As mentioned earlier, I believe these proposals are a measured way of reviewing spending and savings. I think schools understand the situation and hopefully the proposals regarding AWPA and threshold allowances etc will help smaller schools maintain high quality teachers and potential middle leaders. This will contribute to Succession Planning for future School Leaders.  From a small school perspective it would appear the non negotiable changes have a significant effect on budgets that have relatively limited flexibility.  The abolition of the small school package is very disappointing.  We feel that Norse should be involved in improving the environment for the children at lunch times.  Funding should not be moved away from KS4 at this time because of the current curriculum developments and escalating exam costs. Smaller schools have to "buy in" appropriate courses for KS4 students, and taking funding away from this Key Stage will be particularly damaging for KS4 students in small schools.  I own two nursery schools, one attached to my Primary at Stow Bardolph, Downham Montessori Nursery and the second, which opened in September 2009 in Downham Market, Downham Nursery School. I have attended many meetings and consultations about Early Years Funding. Many nursery owners are talking about pulling out of the scheme altogether as they can not continue to subsidise the government's scheme for 'free' places. The cost of setting up and running a high quality nursery with excellent resources is very high. We purchased a large derelict house. This had to be gutted and completely renovated. We had to create and landscape a car park for parents and staff. We then fitted the nursery out with top of the range resources inside and out. We pay, bank loans, rates, electricity, gas, water rates etc. All our staff are employed permanently, not on a sessional/termly need basis to comply with ratios, this gives children and carers a sense

Consultation Comments Appendix A

of security and a better opportunity to build a meaningful relationship with the same key worker whenever a child attends. It also ensures job stability for the staff, which in turn leads to staff remaining with us for many years. All of these measures result in a high quality setting. How can we be expected to provide this level of quality when we receive the same grant as a setting that hires the village hall and therefore cannot provide a purpose made facility with all the resources we have, and whose expenditure consists of a minimal rent and none of the other overheads incurred by a specially built nursery.  I continue to have concerns at what I consider the differential finding for church schools. Particularly during difficult times it seems unfair that these are largely paid for from the public purse, but can access funding that places them at an advantage over state schools.  As 2 small schools in a partnership arrangement, not only will we see our funding reduce in each school by £15,000, we will also see our costs possible rise by £5000 for contract services, without inflation or salaries, resources, utilities etc. In real terms placing the schools in a position of £25,000+ shortfall in funding to last years. So do I remove staff and low the standard of education children receive or not pay for services at full cost and go out of county? Wouldn't this have an even bigger effect on the services you currently find hard to offer and deliver? Why should small schools in partnerships suffer when larger schools/secondaries seem to gain from the proposals? Partnerships have served the LA in many ways; to raise standards, fill recruitment issues and provide stability to over 1/8th schools in the county. Surely this is not the way to support or thank these schools for doing it OR recommend more to do so in the future!  Given that there are many aspects where additional information/funding levels etc are awaited including local proposals for how Specialist Schools Grant will be allocated, we consider it will be more of an ongoing consultation exercise this time round.  This consultation seems to imply a lessening of support for small schools from the LA if there is an agenda for closure than we need to know.  We strongly disagree with the adjustment in funding between secondary and other years given the current financial constraints. Of al the times to do this, you have picked the most difficult - for secondary schools. Please reconsider.  Understand cuts have to be made and if we object to one cut then another will have to be made elsewhere but I genuinely can't see our school surviving with some of these proposals.  Small schools suffer under these changes. Any loss of funding is damaging, but it seems to be the smallest that are affected the most; larger schools are more able to absorb financial losses. We restructured our staff for September and

Consultation Comments Appendix A

now have such tight staffing structure that threre is simply no more 'fat' to cut. At our most recent budget review we discussed reducing (further) the TA hours in one of our mixed age classes; this is perverse - we should not be cutting in the classroom, but making real progress in developing new leadership models which are effective. Both in terms of leading schools and education forward and in terms of finance. The current system simply is not.  There were far too many proposals here. It has been very difficult to consult with all relevant stake holders in the time frame this year because of the volume of proposals. Some mechanism to save options input into this on line response during the process would have been good - so the schools response could have been entered on different occasions with time to consider the different sections in turn.  Please find an alternative way for schools to hold Cluster Funding - it is a nightmare having it mixed in with a school's budget. This needs urgent attention!!  Regarding Early Years funding - the main problem for quality settings is that the funding does not cover the cost of the place and therefore places are being subsidised by providers. This suggestion is just a drop in the ocean. What about all the other highly qualified staff, the cost of maintaining and keeping a large building and garden spik and span, the cost of the cook providing healthy, locally sourced meals, which we also have to subsidise, the cost of our higher than average staff to child ratio? What about recognition for our Outstanding in every element of every section at our Ofsted inspection? We cannot keep these standards up unless you pay us an appropriate level of funding or allow us to charge our parents a small amount to compensate for the shortfall.  The governors of Tivetshall and Burston Partnership were disappointed by the proposals. We feel they are not supportive of the small schools within Norfolk. The parent governors were particularly disappointed with the funding changes suggested by the Gifted and Talented Funding as we feel it is discriminatory against small schools and does not follow the ECM agenda, using percentages in a small school environment is not practical. The consultation with the Norfolk Schools Forum does not appear to be representative as all members involved in the primary sector education appear to be involved with large primary schools, so cannot understand the challenges of budgeting for small schools, maybe a better forum for discussion of small schools issues would be with those schools themselves. The removal of the small schools funding package is another area where we feel as governors the work has not been done to model the impact of this for small schools. Whilst all schools will be paying more because of the full cost recovery for services, for many of those services, small schools will not require the same amount of time e.g. 10 staff on payroll compared to 50+ staff must mean much less work for those services. However the small school will be paying exactly the same as a large primary school. As governors we feel that some level of pro-rata would be fairer.

Consultation Comments Appendix A

 Although we as Governors are dismayed at any reduction in funding we have concluded that the answers we have given are fair outcomes for our setting. The consultation was very difficult to understand, several areas seem to cross over and there is a need for more clarity so that Governors can understand better. Paul Cooper  I am not a financial wizard therefore I am concerned about making decision that seem to benefit my school but may not be beneficial in the long term. I would appreciate a little professional time maybe from my Finance Officer - bring back the Headteacher 'critical friend'. I found the technical papers difficult to select - they should have the proposal numbers for easy location as they didn't follow the same sequence as the response form.  Just to reiterate - please don't pass on the extra costs to school without also passing on the extra income. If you are going for transition, this should apply to both eg. what about a 5% discount on the support package this year then phase it out if that is what you intend.  We strongly disagree with the adjustment in funding between secondary and other years given the current financial constraints. Of al the times to do this, you have picked the most difficult - for secondary schools. Please reconsider.  This consultation seems to imply a lessening of support for small schools from the LA if there is an agenda for closure than we need to know.  Given that there are many aspects where additional information/funding levels etc are awaited including local proposals for how Specialist Schools Grant will be allocated, we consider it will be more of an ongoing consultation exercise this time round. Small Schools The Norwich Diocesan Director of Education has raised issues about the impact of funding proposals on small schools:  One accepts the financial realities of the current economic situation. I also appreciate the decision to remove all elements of subsidy for local authority services and to charge the full cost has already been taken and isn’t part of the formal consultation. Nonetheless, on top of the funding reduction proposed for schools in partnership, this is bound to have an impact on school budgets  The Norwich Diocesan Board of Education has been proactive in rekindling conversation with NCC, its strategic educational partner, about the future of small or undersized schools in the county; their viability and solvency and, of course, the quality of education they are able to provide for their respective pupils. Many such schools are church schools, so it is a conversation not without discomfort and potential implication for the Diocese.  The Norwich Diocesan Board of Education would prefer a genuine debate about the future of such schools – accepting the inevitable and quite proper political dimension regarding the impact on local communities, travel

Consultation Comments Appendix A

costs and the environment of schools close. But it is better that such a debate were to be transparent and conducted openly and fairly.  Some schools have wondered if these financial moves will have the effect of making them unviable and insolvent anyway, and thus wither on the vine – as opposed to a full debate about their strategic future.

SERVICES TO SCHOOLS - Changes

1. Change - To withdraw the current level of subsidy for Norfolk Schools Broadband Network.

Summary of comments:-  Negative Impact  Must Stay  Things are tight enough for small schools  We rely on a subsidised service  Inevitable  Given importance of Broadband now, would have preferred to have seen kept separate with full subsidy rather than funding via overall pot, which will be subject to so many other changes. . How else are schools to pay for what is now an essential way of school life . Keep subsidy  Yes to provide a level playing field reflective of true costs.  The proposed changes make no difference this year; however the money for broadband this year comes from capital funding - what will happen next year? WIll there be any funding or will the cost have to be met my schools at 'full cost' with no further funding for it? If this is the case, will schools then be given the option of looking for other suppliers of broadband?  Schools should be able to withdraw from the county service and have the equivalent funding to commission own broadband service.  It is important that all children have access to new technology , small schools will suffer disproportionately again if we

Consultation Comments Appendix A

are not careful  For small schools, this may amount to an unequal access to the internet as budgets would be reduced and Broadband unaffordable.  Leave as it is.  These three proposals cancel each other out.  This needs to be identified in the delegated budget 2. Change - To increase charges o Secondary schools £43,840 o Primary and Special schools £3,680

Summary of comments:-  Unfair to small schools  Why are corporate costs increasing  As a remote school essential we get support  Yes  Inevitable  Does not seem good value for money  To only increase if the delegated is increased. County ask for various returns via the internet, so we have to have Broadband  Should be reflective of school size.  The charge should remain competitive.  Increase in charges realistically but with realistic improvement in speed and quality  Funding to be delegated to schools to commission service for schools or cluster  Will encourage schools to resource elsewhere.  As above the extra amount is a larger proportion of a small budget than it is for a larger one

Consultation Comments Appendix A

3. Change - To increase delegated funding for Norfolk Schools Broadband Network o Secondary schools £43,840 o Primary and Special schools £3,680

Summary of comments:-  Is there any advantage to be had by increasing delegated funding and then increasing the charge ?  Majority of comments were ‘yes’  Seems sensible if the charge is increased as in proposal 2. Why is broadband so expensive?  Does this mean we would get back what we are paying out? If so, our budget could cope. If not, our school will no longer be viable!!  Yes  If cost is increased delegation to schools should also increase  This is a core service and we would prefer to have delegated funding.

4. Change - To implement a single ICT Service in Norfolk and transfer schools ICT service to ICT Service from 1 April 2011.

Summary of comments:-  Majority of comments were ‘yes’ some said provided the excellent ICT Solutions remain.  Seems a sensible way forward  Schools should have a choice  It seems unlikely that such a service can provide the ICT expertise required going forward there should be a focus on facilitation and not provision  The service should be commissioned  Only if small schools would not lose out.  Assume schools do not have to opt in individually but can go elsewhere for their ICT support.  Must be no deterioration.  Schools will need clear lines of communication

Consultation Comments Appendix A

5. Change - To withdraw the Small Schools Package of Service.

Summary of comments:-  This is a County Councillors back door method of saving face and putting small schools at risk of closure  Number of ‘yes’ and ‘No’ comments  Detrimental effect  Impact on partnerships  Unfair and harm education is small schools  I think you will lose out because small schools will have to pick the services they can not afford to be without and some services will receive less take up e.g. advisory services, caretaking and cleaning, library service.

6. Change - To implement a three year Service Level Agreement from April 2011 between NORSE and each school within the School Meals Group Contract.

Summary of comments:-  Number of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ comments  One year is enough  Contract does not meet or improve on existing service  As a dining centre I am concerned about affordability in a very small school.  yes - as it provides unsustainable prices for services, and requires others to subsidise the remainder  Small schools should be able to pick and choose.  Damaging to small schools  Small schools struggle to balance the budget

Consultation Comments Appendix A

7. Change - To implement full cost recovery pricing for all Services to Schools from April 2011.

Summary of comments:-  Mainly comments were not in agreement  Hard again for small schools  Difficult for schools to maintain parental relationships  Reducing management time for headteachers  Would wish to see the effect that this has on prices and have some concern how Schools would then judge VFM across some areas of Package.  The charges proposed need to be made known so that schools can exercise their procurement options with alternative providers before the decision to buy NCC services or not has to be made.  Again we don't mind what is recovered as long as it is delegated in the first place.  We accept this but do not accept being tied into a long term agreement.  I cannot see how our budget would cover full cost recovery but in the guidance it says the impact will not yet be known which doesn't help us a lot!!  In the current climate this is sensible  Needs to remain competitive  Yes, but more schools will look outside the County Council or these services. Services must also meet the quality standards outlined. Currently this is not the case.  Schools need to know what the full costs will be.  Could result in schools struggling to purchase services.  YES - in principle, our concerns are notification of the full cost of services will need to be made in a very quick timescale in order for schools to consider contracting out of expensive services - therefore, it may be appropriate to introduce this change in April 2012 with a publication of the costs in Feb/March 2010

Appendix B Consultation comments on the separate staff consultation exercise on the development of the Short Stay model.

Summary of comments

Proposal To restructure the existing 5 Pupil Referral Units into one Short Stay School with three satellite schools plus a Hard to Place Setting operating under one governance structure

Comments  Teams and working partnerships with schools would be disrupted  Greater distances for pupils to travel would increase costs and decrease parental engagement  It is unnecessary and inefficient to create a further layer of management  Staff wellbeing and morale could be adversely affected by the changes  The likelihood of increasing exclusions would reduce the capacity for outreach work  Vulnerable children could be further disadvantaged  Budgetary needs appear more important than pupil needs  Reduced behaviour support for schools would impact negatively on the learning of other children  The role of a Hard to Place school is unclear  The role of an executive headteacher could be replaced by a federated management committee approach  Attending the nearest PRU may reduce travel time for some pupils  A delegated budget would be best to enable budgetary efficiencies  The necessary savings could be found by each centre losing two middle management posts  It is unclear whether a discrete outreach function will be preserved  The proposal is not in line with the government white paper with respect to self governance for PRUs  There will be fewer staff to service the needs of the same number of pupils, which could lead to ineffective or unsafe practice  There is no recognition of the specialised nature of the work in the indicative grades  There is no recognition of successful and good / outstanding practice  Some current roles are not reflected in the new structure

Appendix B Consultation comments on the separate staff consultation exercise on the development of the Short Stay model.

 There will be a potential loss of good and outstanding practice if centres are closed  It is difficult to respond effectively without job descriptions  A reduction in business support hours would make it difficult to carry out the required work  The management of out-of-hours lettings needs all year round staffing  Bigger class sizes would lead to an increase in incidents of challenging behaviour  Current project work would stall  Site management needs to be all year round  The indicative number of teachers would be insufficient to cover the entire key stage 3 and 4 curriculum  Recognition of the senco role is welcome  There would be a loss of local decision making with a centralised management committee

Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 13 January 2011 Item no. 10

Schools Budget 2011/12

Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary This report sets out details of the Dedicated Schools Grant for 2011/12; the Schools Budget for 2011/12; budget planning guidance for schools for 2012/12 and 2013/14, and the pupil premium for 2011/12.

The Dedicated Schools Grant will be an estimated £512.8 million in 2011/12 an estimated like for like reduc tion in funding of £1.9 million.

The Dedicated Schools Grant funds the Schools Budget which is faced with £5.3 million additional pressures in 2011/12 off set by savings and funding reductions of £4.3 million; a net increase in costs of £1 million.

The report indicates that this £2.9 million overall funding deficit will be met by school budget shares being reduced whilst still achieving the minus 1.5% per pupil Minimum Funding Guarantee.

It is proposed that budget planning guidance issued to schools for 2012/13 and 2013/14 be based on the assumption of a 2% reduction in school funding in each of the two years.

The report also explains that the pupil premium to be introduced in April 2011 is estimated to provide an additional £6.5 million to Norfolk schools.

Action Required

The Panel is asked to consider and comment on the proposed 2011/12 Schools Budget and the proposed guideline for budget construction in 2012/13 and 2013/14.

1. Introductions

1.1 The Dedicated Schools Grant was introduced for the 2006/07 financial year. The purpose of the grant is to provide funding for all Schools Budget related activities. The two Schools Budget categories are funding for schools and funding for a limited number of centrally managed pupil related activities, in particular special education needs and private/voluntary/independent fees for education of children under 5.

1.2 The previous Government launched a consultation on the future of the Dedicated Schools Grant in March 2010. The Coalition Government accepted the principle put forward that specific grants should be mainstreamed within the Dedicated Schools Grant but did not accept the main proposals for simplification of the whole of the school funding systems.

1.3 The Coalition Government did however indicate the introduction of a pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils as a new stream of school funding.

1.4 The Spending Review 2010 clarified the national approach to school funding during the 2011/15 funding period as,

 School funding to remain “cash flat” per pupil during the period;  Additional funding of 0.1% per annum provided to fund increased pupils and the pupil premium;  Pupil premium to be introduced as a specific grant to schools from April 2011. The grant level to reach £2.5 billion per annum by 2014/15;  School specific grants to be consolidated within the Dedicated Schools Grant;  £1 billion of efficiency from procurement and back office charges to be achieved during the period – approximately 1% per annum;  Capital funding to be reduced by 60% - details to be announced after James Review reports, and  Local authority funding allocations will only be for 2011/12. Beyond 2012/13 a fundamental review of school funding to be undertaken.

1.5 The Schools White Paper has confirmed that local authorities will continue to be responsible for the funding of maintained schools. The Government also confirmed it would be consulting in the Spring 2011 on the desirability and timing of introducing a national schools funding formula.

2. Funding Level 2012/13

2.1 The Government has announced that Norfolk will be funded at £4,785.73 per pupil in 2011/12.

2.2 In 2010/11 Norfolk received a basic funding allocation of £4,110.85 per pupil. It also received £674.88 per pupil through other specific grant streams which have now been consolidated into the Dedicated Schools Grant.

2.3 The specific grants which have been consolidated into the Dedicated Schools Grant in 2011/12 are:-

 Funds allocated for one to one tuition  Extended schools - Sustainability  Extended schools - Subsidy  School Lunch Grant  Schools Standards Grant  Schools Standards Grant (Personalisation)  School Development Grant  Specialist Schools Grant  Ethnic Minority Achievement grant  Targeted Support for the Primary National Strategy allocated to schools  Targeted Support for the Secondary National Strategy allocated to schools  Diploma Formula Grant  London Pay Addition Grant

2.5 In total terms Norfolk will receive £512.8 million based on an estimated 107,146 pupils. This compares to £514.7 million in 2010/11. This represents a grant reduction of £1.9 million.

3. Funding Pressures

3.1 The Schools Budget is facing a number of pressures in 2011/12 which need to be funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant. The most significant of these pressures are set out in the following paragraphs.

3.2 Special Schools funding changes – special schools are funded for the number of places they provide. The funding for each place is determined by an audit of which considers curriculum, care and behaviour needs of pupils in each school. In addition places have been added at county maintained special schools. The estimated additional cost of these two factors is £450,000.

3.3 Non-maintained school placements – as reported on the regular monitoring reports, the cost of non-maintained schools placements has increased significantly in 2010/11. The estimated impact of this increase on the 2011/12 budget is £2.8 million.

3.4 Pupil Referral Unit deficits – with the proposal to introduce a single Short Stay School from September 2011 and close the existing Pupil Referral Units it will be necessary to write off the Pupil Referral Units estimated deficits of £800,000 in 2011/12.

3.5 Academies – it has been estimated that the non-delegated funding within the Schools Budget which will transfer to academies will amount to an additional £300,000 in 2011/12.

3.6 Speech and Language Therapy Fair Funding Proposals – a proposal within the Fair Funding consultation proposals to continue with the commissioning of the speech and language therapy service will cost £80,000.

3.7 Carbon Allowances – the Spending Review 2010 effectively introduced a carbon usage tax. The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme was based on allowances, to cover carbon emissions by large organisations, being recycled to participants to incentivise carbon reduction. The decision in the Spending Review 2010 was to treat the income generated by the allowances purchased as a general contribution to the public finances. Allowances need to be purchased to cover 2011/12 carbon emissions. Whilst the purchases cannot be made until 2012 budgetary provision needs to be made in the 2011/12 budget for these purchases. It is estimated the cost to schools of carbon allowances for 2011/12 will be will be £600,000. In this first year of the scheme provision is to being made centrally within the Schools Budget to cover these costs with the intention to transfer the funding responsibilities direct to schools in later years.

3.8 Total Funding Pressures – the total funding pressures amount to £5.3million.

4. Savings and Funding Reductions

4.1 A number of savings and funding reductions have also been identified; the most significant are set out in the following paragraphs.

4.2 Early Intervention and Prevention Funding - £1 million was made available in 2009/10 to enable the funding of early intervention and prevention work in schools. The funding was allocated on a bidding basis. With the increase of pressures on special educational needs pupil specific funding and the increase in non-maintained schools placement, this fund was frozen in 2010/11 and used to support these two pressures. As provision has been made in the 2011/12 budget to fund the increase in cost of non-maintained placements it is proposed to remove this budget and thereby save £1 million.

4.3 Early Years Common Funding Formula – the additional costs in 2011/12 arising from the Fair Funding consultation proposal to introduce a new quality measure of £113,000 will be offset by the loss of £250,000 of protection for primary schools. This protection was introduced as a transitional arrangement when the early years common funding formula arrangements were introduced in April 2010. A net saving of £137,000.

4.4 Age Weighted Pupil Allocations – the changing age profile of pupils in Norfolk schools results in the overall funding required for mainstream schools reducing at a greater rate that the reduction in the national funding allocation to Norfolk because of the reduction in mainstream pupil numbers. The reduced cost of funding current Age Weighted Pupil Allocations values in 2011/12 as a result of an estimated net reduction of 390 pupils in 2011/12 will be £2.48 million. 4.5 Pupil trends show increasing funding required for reception year to year 3 year groups in line with pupil number increases. Reduced funding is required for year groups 4 to 11, with the exception of year 9, which again reflects overall pupil trends. The impact of these trends on the primary sector is a reduction in overall Age Weighted Pupil Allocations funding, at current rates, of £260,000, whilst the secondary sector will experience a reduction of £2.225 million in Age Weighted Pupil Allocations funding, at current rates.

4.6 Total savings and funding reductions – the total level of savings and funding reductions amount to £4.3 million.

5. School Funding Adjustments

5.1 In order to balance school funding in 2011/12 it will be necessary to reduce school budget allocations by £2.9 million. This reduction can be managed within the Minimum Funding Guarantee of minus 1.5%

5.2 The context and background to the budget issues were discussed with the Schools Forum at their meeting on 10 December 2010. Details of the schools settlement issued on the 13 December and the proposal to balance the budget will be discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 6 January 2011.

6. Planning guidelines 2012/13 and 2013/14

6.1 The level of Government guidance on school funding levels in 2012/13 and 2013/14 is limited to the statement that school funding will be “cash flat” during the period. The pupil premium funding will however add some growth to some school budgets but clearly these allocations will be pupil specific and therefore impossible to predict at school level.

6.2 In addition to this general national guideline figure the 2011/12 Minimum Funding Guarantee of minus 1.5% provides an indication of the possible level of funding a school might expect to receive within the context of a “cash flat” funding settlement.

6.3 At this point in time there is uncertainty as to what impact a national funding formula might have on the funding levels of schools in Norfolk.

6.4 Within the context of a “cash flat” budget, schools will be faced with a number of cost pressures which will effectively reduce their spending ability in real terms.

6.5 Given these factors schools will be advised to assume a 2% reduction in funding in 2012/13 and a further reduction of 2% in 2013/14. This guidance will be used to enable schools to draw up realistic three year budgets covering the three year period 2011/14. This approach will be discussed with the Schools Forum at the meeting on 6 January.

7. Conclusion

7.1 As usual school budgets will be issued as soon after the January School Census date as possible. It is expected that the budgets will be available from the website from week commencing 8 February. It is also proposed to hold budget workshops immediately after the half term week to explain how budgets have been produced.

8. Resource Implications

General Financial Implication 8.1 The proposals set out in this report enable the 2011/12 Schools Budget to be managed within the estimated 2011/12 Dedicated Schools Grant. It should however be noted that centrally retained budgets are very tight and will require very close monitoring to ensure costs are contained with the approved budgets. Any cost over runs in 2011/12 will have an impact on schools funding in 2012/13.

Pupil Premium. 8.2 In addition to the £513 million that will be received via the Dedicated Schools Grant, Norfolk Schools are estimated to receive another £6.5 million through the pupil premium.

8.3 The pupil premium is being introduced from April 2011, paid to local authorities by means of a specific grant based on January 2011 census figures for deprived pupils in years from Reception to Year 11.

8.4 The indicator used to reflect deprivation for 2011-12 will be known eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM), as at January 2011. The Government aim to extend the coverage of the pupil premium from 2012- 13 onwards, to pupils who have previously been known to be eligible for free school meals.

8.5 The pupil premium will be £430 for every deprived child in maintained schools and academies in the country in the first year. Based on January 2010 data it is estimated this grant will generate an additional £6.2 million for Norfolk schools.

8.6 In addition, deprived pupils in non-mainstream settings who are publicly funded - Special Schools, Non-Maintained Special Schools, Independent Schools, Not in School, Hospital Schools, Pupil Referral Units and 14-15 year olds in Further Education (FE) colleges - will also attract the premium.

8.7 Children who have been looked after for more than six months will also attract the pupil premium from 2011-12. Based on January 2010 data it is estimated this grant will generate an additional £148,000 for Norfolk schools.

8.8 A premium will be introduced for children whose parents are in the armed forces (service children). For 2011-12 the premium will be set at £200 for each service child. Based on January 2010 data it is estimated this grant will generate an additional £200,000 for Norfolk schools.

8.9 School by School Impact Analysis – attached as appendices to this report are two schedules showing the likely level of funding for each Norfolk school (Appendix A) and for each cluster (Appendix B). The 2011/12 figures are prior to the application of the Minimum Funding Guarantee and are based on 2010 pupil data.

9. Other Implications

9.1 Equality Impact Assessment

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.

9.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk

9.2.1 The allocation of an estimated £513 million to schools in Norfolk for 2011/12 will have a massive impact on children and young people education and learning in Norfolk. The allocation of an additional £6.5 million pupil premium will enable schools to focus additional funding on the education of disadvantaged pupils.

9.2.2 The policy focus on the most vulnerable in terms of pupils with special educational needs should result in an overall improvement in the quality and quantity of appropriate provision for this group of children.

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 The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities.

10.2 The specific funding proposals aimed at providing additional support to pupils with special educational needs, particularly the more vulnerable cases that require more intensive support, and the disadvantaged pupils as identified by the pupil premium will result in more pupils being positively engaged in education and less likely to be involved in crime and disorder.

11. Action Required

The Panel is asked to consider and comment on the proposed 2011/12 Schools Budget and the proposed guidelines for school budget construction in 2012/13 and 2013/14.

Officer Contact: Paul Fisher 01603 223464 [email protected]

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

Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

0004 Emneth Nursery School 216,925 216,925 42,739 259,664 0 259,664 0007 King's Lynn Nursery School 207,812 207,812 30,964 238,776 0 238,776 0010 Earlham Nursery School 329,975 329,975 43,545 373,520 0 373,520 0021 Acle St Edmunds VC Primary 706,640 740,387 87,410 827,797 9,030 836,827 0027 Alburgh with Denton C of E Primary School 332,357 330,971 56,601 387,572 3,010 390,582 0030 Aldborough Primary School 395,283 410,977 77,865 488,842 4,300 493,142 0036 Alpington & Bergh Apton C of E VA Primary School 348,075 357,757 53,045 410,801 4,730 415,531 0039 Antingham & Southrepps Community Primary School 409,403 413,452 56,437 469,889 3,870 473,759 0042 Ashill VC Primary 352,799 354,935 50,449 405,384 4,040 409,424 0045 Ashwicken C of E VA First School 265,318 274,122 52,259 326,381 3,440 329,821 0048 Aslacton Primary School 232,528 215,101 40,714 255,814 2,150 257,964 0051 Attleborough Infant School 762,357 814,387 104,080 918,467 14,190 932,657 0054 Attleborough Junior School 1,007,250 1,049,267 138,431 1,187,698 17,200 1,204,898 0060 John of Gaunt Infant and Nursery School 462,217 479,550 56,318 535,868 6,020 541,888 0063 St. Michael’s School, Aylsham C of E VC Nursery and Infant Schoo 415,451 435,272 57,342 492,615 1,290 493,905 0066 Bure Valley School Aylsham 644,559 668,594 93,248 761,843 9,460 771,303 0079 Bacton Community First 176,029 177,961 36,979 214,940 2,580 217,520 0083 Banham Community Primary School 363,827 370,863 50,915 421,778 1,720 423,498 0085 Barford Primary School 335,135 341,122 47,552 388,673 1,290 389,963 0087 Barnham Broom C of E VA Primary School 381,376 393,289 55,202 448,491 1,720 450,211 0092 The Bawburgh School 270,559 278,389 48,011 326,401 3,010 329,411 0095 Bawdeswell Community Primary School 336,019 341,046 62,260 403,306 4,300 407,606 0101 Beeston Primary School 264,177 262,507 49,350 311,857 1,720 313,577 0104 St. Mary's Community Primary School 588,707 608,943 68,987 677,930 4,300 682,230 0115 Moorlands C of E Primary 907,166 944,615 228,056 1,172,671 12,040 1,184,711 0119 The King George VI School, Great Bircham 179,323 165,906 30,016 195,922 4,730 200,652 0122 Blakeney C of E VA Primary School 226,031 222,614 44,523 267,136 4,300 271,436 0128 Blofield Primary School 607,463 643,188 85,084 728,272 3,440 731,712 0144 Hillside Primary School 852,995 887,808 114,293 1,002,101 9,030 1,011,131 0147 Homefield VC Primary School 625,641 651,692 93,146 744,839 3,440 748,279 0150 Woodlands Primary School 1,167,695 1,210,157 214,629 1,424,786 10,320 1,435,106 0156 Brancaster C of E VA Primary School 222,669 223,018 55,792 278,810 1,720 280,530 0165 Bressingham Primary School 387,901 375,144 54,291 429,434 3,440 432,874 0171 Brisley C of E Primary School 257,335 252,842 48,316 301,159 1,720 302,879 0177 Brockdish C of E VC Primary 164,643 151,527 35,804 187,331 2,580 189,911 0180 Brooke VC C of E Primary 402,486 403,661 57,998 461,658 2,580 464,238 0186 Brundall School 768,269 794,276 92,291 886,567 7,310 893,877 0192 Bunwell Primary School 237,424 233,201 45,123 278,324 3,010 281,334 0198 Burnham Market Primary School 385,225 385,544 54,687 440,231 11,180 451,411 0201 Burston Community Primary School 272,678 256,110 46,870 302,979 2,150 305,129 0204 Buxton Primary School 379,166 386,339 54,534 440,873 4,730 445,603 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

0210 Caister on Sea Infant & Nursery School 743,053 788,582 148,737 937,318 9,890 947,208 0216 Caister Junior School 977,292 1,004,648 223,015 1,227,663 18,920 1,246,583 0224 Cantley Primary School 296,923 299,871 56,727 356,599 6,220 362,819 0227 St. Peter & St. Paul C of E VC Primary School 506,269 528,362 81,169 609,531 14,090 623,621 0230 Carleton Rode C of E VA Primary School 249,352 238,532 48,753 287,285 7,310 294,595 0233 Castle Acre Primary 241,802 240,921 48,280 289,201 3,410 292,611 0236 Caston C of E VA Primary School 221,310 212,601 44,146 256,747 3,840 260,587 0239 Catfield VC C of E Primary School 228,164 233,559 58,766 292,325 3,010 295,335 0242 Cawston VC Primary School 475,604 498,515 76,931 575,447 6,880 582,327 0248 Clenchwarton Primary School 620,149 641,362 77,487 718,849 5,160 724,009 0257 Colby School 395,880 405,507 58,442 463,949 3,440 467,389 0260 Colkirk C of E VA Primary School 253,764 244,496 51,128 295,624 1,290 296,914 0271 Coltishall Primary 475,285 500,470 56,720 557,190 4,730 561,920 0274 Corpusty Primary 334,617 331,401 53,809 385,210 2,580 387,790 0277 Costessey Infant School 549,095 593,658 82,778 676,436 13,760 690,196 0280 Costessey Junior School 762,713 721,782 135,701 857,483 18,920 876,403 0283 Queen's Hill Primary 571,927 564,748 86,227 650,975 15,480 666,455 0285 St. Augustine's Catholic Primary School 631,641 652,131 85,302 737,433 9,030 746,463 0294 Cringleford VA Primary School 588,242 601,387 79,206 680,593 3,640 684,233 0303 Suffield Park Infant & Nursery School 666,626 704,938 81,386 786,325 11,180 797,505 0306 Cromer Junior School 733,391 767,005 115,523 882,528 12,040 894,568 0315 Denver VC Primary 359,450 363,149 53,967 417,116 430 417,546 0321 Dersingham Infant & Nursery School 360,930 373,008 48,407 421,415 8,110 429,525 0324 Dersingham St. George's C of E Junior School 429,479 408,375 56,869 465,244 9,890 475,134 0327 Dickleburgh VC Primary 322,365 328,269 50,706 378,975 3,010 381,985 0333 Diss Infants & Nursery Community School 593,570 628,867 77,907 706,775 9,030 715,805 0336 Diss Church Junior School 606,560 621,402 103,505 724,907 10,750 735,657 0342 Ditchingham C of E Primary School 427,891 436,331 57,992 494,323 10,750 505,073 0345 Docking Primary School (C of E) 328,085 336,080 65,660 401,740 6,020 407,760 0356 Clackclose Community Primary School 1,111,897 1,097,388 145,977 1,243,365 32,100 1,275,465 0362 Hillcrest Primary School 1,076,739 1,126,618 131,720 1,258,338 19,350 1,277,688 0366 Drayton Community Infant School 717,218 758,471 80,556 839,028 4,300 843,328 0367 Drayton VC Junior School 888,083 915,006 118,888 1,033,894 8,170 1,042,064 0374 Earsham C of E VA First School 296,809 305,680 52,843 358,523 3,870 362,393 0380 Dereham C of E Infant School 589,866 621,901 74,741 696,642 8,600 705,242 0383 Dereham, St. Nicholas Junior School 1,089,456 1,133,832 163,145 1,296,977 31,590 1,328,567 0386 The Grove House Nursery and Infant Community School 355,063 364,683 48,478 413,161 6,880 420,041 0392 King's Park Infant School 282,199 287,715 52,237 339,952 3,440 343,392 0395 Toftwood Infant School 783,210 833,674 92,705 926,379 14,130 940,509 0398 Toftwood Community Junior School 955,793 987,404 120,609 1,108,013 20,720 1,128,733 0407 East Harling Primary School & Nursery 584,045 608,351 74,450 682,800 5,590 688,390 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

0410 Rudham C of E Primary School 299,013 298,166 55,072 353,239 2,150 355,389 0413 East Ruston Area Community Infant School 171,661 172,598 28,451 201,049 860 201,909 0419 St. Peter's C of E VC Primary School 407,617 390,680 70,420 461,100 8,600 469,700 0422 Eccles, Hargham and Wilby C of E Primary School 178,570 173,978 37,540 211,518 1,720 213,238 0428 Ellingham VC Primary 323,747 308,694 55,677 364,371 2,150 366,521 0434 Emneth Primary School 602,524 607,682 87,139 694,821 10,750 705,571 0437 Erpingham VC Primary School 203,135 195,665 36,138 231,803 2,150 233,953 0440 Fakenham Infant & Nursery School 687,577 721,113 88,391 809,504 15,480 824,984 0443 Fakenham Junior 811,938 855,548 123,111 978,659 20,210 998,869 0453 Edmund de Moundeford VC Primary School 555,430 568,600 82,351 650,951 5,160 656,111 0462 Filby Primary School 288,289 289,845 55,942 345,787 2,580 348,367 0468 Fleggburgh C of E VC Primary School 195,081 190,367 34,165 224,532 2,150 226,682 0472 Flitcham VA C of E Primary 233,603 205,109 38,241 243,351 1,720 245,071 0475 Forncett St. Peter C of E VA Primary 340,079 343,539 56,797 400,336 2,150 402,486 0478 Foulsham Primary School 370,936 375,354 71,601 446,955 3,010 449,965 0481 Freethorpe Community Primary School 376,600 381,720 59,179 440,899 6,020 446,919 0484 Frettenham Primary Partnership School 241,720 239,849 73,026 312,875 1,690 314,565 0490 Garboldisham VC Primary 297,378 304,563 58,987 363,549 3,440 366,989 0493 Garvestone Primary 181,770 175,112 41,509 216,621 3,010 219,631 0496 Gayton C of E VC First School 269,128 277,750 50,222 327,972 1,720 329,692 0499 St. Michael's Primary School,Gillingham 172,288 179,060 37,869 216,929 0 216,929 0505 Gooderstone C of E VA Primary School 258,282 252,882 55,095 307,977 3,410 311,387 0511 Great Dunham Primary School 265,973 266,037 50,676 316,713 2,580 319,293 0514 Great Ellingham Primary 477,275 466,682 67,684 534,366 3,870 538,236 0517 Great Massingham VC Primary 211,279 201,755 39,271 241,026 3,870 244,896 0523 Stibbard, All Saints CE VA Primary 515,810 523,054 104,834 627,887 6,450 634,337 0529 The Great Witchingham C of E VA Primary School 209,789 207,556 44,892 252,448 2,580 255,028 0532 Alderman Swindell Infant School 603,959 607,341 102,735 710,076 15,910 725,986 0539 Cliff Park Infant School, Gorleston 735,274 784,382 151,271 935,653 11,610 947,263 0546 Cliff Park Community Junior 1,095,233 1,126,146 235,495 1,361,640 25,800 1,387,440 0551 Cobholm Primary School 587,051 558,724 103,631 662,355 22,790 685,145 0559 Edward Worlledge Community Junior School 789,169 775,780 176,451 952,231 36,980 989,211 0581 Greenacre Primary School 1,682,952 1,654,404 317,042 1,971,446 67,080 2,038,526 0599 Herman Primary School 1,008,181 965,984 229,686 1,195,669 46,010 1,241,679 0608 North Denes Junior School 688,114 679,352 161,207 840,560 25,800 866,360 0614 Northgate St. Andrews Infant School 779,768 789,686 152,190 941,876 29,240 971,116 0635 Peterhouse Primary 986,602 945,300 185,060 1,130,360 41,280 1,171,640 0638 St. Nicholas Priory Junior School (C of E VC) 1,214,981 1,176,943 321,053 1,497,996 49,020 1,547,016 0644 St. George’s Infant & Nursery School 795,087 750,960 141,038 891,998 30,960 922,958 0651 St. Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School 629,624 634,334 125,230 759,564 12,470 772,034 0658 Stradbroke Community Primary School 639,770 668,969 146,596 815,565 15,910 831,475 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

0664 Wroughton Infant School 790,552 806,928 123,591 930,519 32,880 963,399 0671 Wroughton Junior School 969,619 973,251 205,808 1,179,060 36,120 1,215,180 0675 Southtown Infant School 678,945 676,269 122,648 798,917 23,650 822,567 0715 Gresham Village School 335,826 342,426 45,804 388,230 3,440 391,670 0721 Church Hill School 119,966 115,376 20,591 135,967 430 136,397 0724 Pott Row First School 216,316 220,472 42,808 263,280 1,490 264,770 0727 Grimston Junior School 400,126 390,821 69,081 459,902 5,590 465,492 0733 Hainford Primary Partnership School 237,491 224,231 47,943 272,173 430 272,603 0739 Happisburgh (C of E) Primary 335,484 345,525 75,212 420,737 4,730 425,467 0742 Hapton C of E VC Primary School 173,036 161,615 34,993 196,608 1,720 198,328 0745 Harpley VC Primary 196,322 195,413 50,673 246,086 2,150 248,236 0748 Heacham Infant School & Nursery 432,171 439,202 56,141 495,343 3,840 499,183 0752 Heacham Junior School 433,254 444,811 67,888 512,699 4,300 516,999 0760 Arden Grove Infant School 599,156 630,764 65,248 696,012 7,310 703,322 0765 Firside Junior School 732,927 765,459 104,439 869,898 11,610 881,508 0771 Heather Avenue Infant School 357,618 365,193 55,617 420,810 10,320 431,130 0779 Kinsale Infant School 406,338 433,283 53,739 487,022 8,170 495,192 0786 Kinsale Junior School 669,093 689,608 93,688 783,296 14,190 797,486 0798 Hemblington Primary 441,233 458,701 66,037 524,738 860 525,598 0801 Hempnall Primary School 338,015 330,841 57,530 388,371 4,730 393,101 0804 Hemsby Primary School 502,552 518,482 84,789 603,271 7,310 610,581 0807 Woodside Infant and Nursery School 616,679 634,218 68,885 703,103 5,160 708,263 0810 Hethersett VC Junior School 728,075 756,968 94,581 851,549 7,310 858,859 0816 Hevingham Primary School 348,904 335,345 55,561 390,906 3,870 394,776 0819 Hickling Infant School 171,332 171,572 31,836 203,408 0 203,408 0825 Ten Mile Bank 179,763 170,787 38,952 209,740 4,730 214,470 0828 Hilgay Village VC Primary School 217,393 216,398 48,774 265,172 3,010 268,182 0834 Hindringham C of E VC Primary 223,714 212,029 41,994 254,023 3,440 257,463 0837 Hingham Primary School 521,054 533,029 70,868 603,896 6,880 610,776 0846 Hockering C of E VC Primary School 176,968 172,389 43,290 215,680 1,290 216,970 0849 Great Hockham Primary School 302,770 308,776 53,336 362,112 2,750 364,862 0852 Hockwold Primary School 352,005 353,052 55,987 409,039 5,270 414,309 0858 Holt Community Primary School 544,906 566,920 75,839 642,759 14,190 656,949 0871 Hopton C of E Primary 566,928 587,653 133,753 721,405 8,600 730,005 0878 Horning Community Primary School 208,233 196,989 44,525 241,514 2,150 243,664 0881 Horsford C of E Infant School 449,936 480,033 57,220 537,253 8,170 545,423 0885 Horsford C of E Junior School 604,621 599,149 87,778 686,927 10,320 697,247 0892 St. Faiths C of E Primary School 362,350 374,817 64,696 439,513 3,010 442,523 0904 St. John's Community Primary School 602,572 618,977 72,801 691,778 8,170 699,948 0907 Hunstanton Infant School 295,446 314,700 48,217 362,917 3,870 366,787 0910 Redgate Junior School, Hunstanton 360,710 351,203 69,473 420,676 5,790 426,466 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

0913 Ingoldisthorpe C of E VA Primary School 304,938 304,876 57,436 362,311 6,020 368,331 0919 Kelling Primary School 274,381 278,436 50,046 328,482 2,580 331,062 0922 Kenninghall Primary School 334,986 341,690 55,379 397,069 3,870 400,939 0932 Fairstead Community Primary 978,226 1,019,535 153,639 1,173,174 27,950 1,201,124 0951 Howard Infant & Nursery School 579,916 573,656 84,945 658,601 22,790 681,391 0956 The Howard Junior School 590,302 547,961 97,595 645,556 29,670 675,226 0960 Gaywood Community Primary School 1,151,442 1,212,143 155,948 1,368,091 18,860 1,386,951 0969 Highgate Infant School 348,190 350,919 64,936 415,854 9,030 424,884 0974 Reffley Community School 1,186,596 1,232,783 147,781 1,380,563 14,620 1,395,183 0981 St. Edmund's Community School 709,573 703,228 123,450 826,679 33,110 859,789 0988 Greyfriars Primary School 950,756 994,523 134,606 1,129,129 22,790 1,151,919 0997 Eastgate Primary 902,837 909,161 142,544 1,051,705 34,400 1,086,105 1004 St. Martha's Catholic Primary School 609,543 629,525 94,710 724,235 6,020 730,255 1008 St. Michael's C of E Primary School 715,205 684,445 115,405 799,849 30,100 829,949 1012 Whitefriars C of E Primary 1,068,024 1,122,953 162,549 1,285,502 25,800 1,311,302 1033 Langham Village School 287,032 294,729 52,744 347,473 1,290 348,763 1042 Lingwood First & Nursery School 399,242 416,988 55,809 472,797 5,360 478,157 1046 Lingwood Junior School 364,804 354,038 43,920 397,958 4,300 402,258 1050 Litcham Primary School 316,012 313,188 55,193 368,381 6,020 374,401 1053 Little Melton Primary 319,674 325,742 54,552 380,294 3,440 383,734 1056 Little Plumstead C of E Primary School 512,389 531,651 72,631 604,282 3,870 608,152 1059 Little Snoring Primary School 260,334 261,328 50,643 311,971 6,020 317,991 1062 Loddon Infant School 478,400 499,014 61,241 560,254 8,370 568,624 1065 Loddon Junior School 524,603 517,114 79,344 596,459 11,610 608,069 1075 Manor Field Infant & Nursery School 546,278 546,154 60,369 606,523 9,430 615,953 1078 St. Mary's VC Junior School 633,750 649,403 108,355 757,757 9,890 767,647 1087 Ludham Primary School 327,346 331,545 54,585 386,130 3,010 389,140 1090 Lyng C of E Primary School 303,451 305,594 56,445 362,039 3,010 365,049 1093 Marham Junior School 416,409 352,459 70,364 422,824 20,860 443,684 1097 Marham Infant School 447,467 456,615 56,248 512,863 24,000 536,863 1102 Marsham Primary School 174,160 168,048 38,548 206,596 6,020 212,616 1105 Marshland St. James VC Primary School 359,035 351,885 57,818 409,703 8,170 417,873 1115 Martham Primary 1,155,331 1,057,302 126,216 1,183,518 12,900 1,196,418 1123 Mattishall Primary School 573,922 588,800 70,650 659,450 9,230 668,680 1126 Astley Primary School 620,485 659,451 88,156 747,607 11,180 758,787 1128 Duchy of Lancaster Methwold C of E Primary School 345,994 346,757 61,131 407,888 9,340 417,228 1131 Middleton VC Primary School 411,442 417,784 68,449 486,232 5,590 491,822 1134 Mileham Primary School 190,986 187,805 32,600 220,405 430 220,835 1137 Morley C of E VA Primary 421,317 428,634 59,878 488,512 7,310 495,822 1140 Mulbarton Community Infant School 428,980 453,214 59,175 512,389 6,020 518,409 1145 Mulbarton Junior School 485,285 494,694 75,978 570,672 5,160 575,832 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

1149 Mundesley First 428,227 450,884 64,821 515,706 6,450 522,156 1152 Mundesley Junior 376,134 364,205 59,426 423,632 7,740 431,372 1157 Mundford VC Primary 463,387 480,180 60,787 540,967 1,430 542,397 1160 Narborough Primary School 380,983 396,443 72,312 468,755 4,300 473,055 1163 Neatishead VC Primary 216,030 190,350 32,423 222,773 1,290 224,063 1170 Necton C of E Primary School 605,480 621,088 92,913 714,001 16,340 730,341 1172 Newton Flotman C of E (VC) Primary School 373,748 384,975 67,428 452,403 4,300 456,703 1178 North Elmham VC Primary 421,984 408,132 57,527 465,659 5,760 471,419 1181 St. Andrew's C of E VA Primary School, Lopham 216,998 195,902 40,764 236,666 2,150 238,816 1185 North Pickenham, St. Andrew's C of E VC Primary School 294,285 278,723 94,642 373,365 7,310 380,675 1188 Northrepps Primary School 206,918 191,509 52,606 244,115 6,020 250,135 1195 North Walsham Infant School & Nursery 706,698 753,399 87,143 840,542 18,230 858,772 1197 North Walsham Junior School 700,051 718,580 104,950 823,530 19,780 843,310 1207 Millfield Primary School 976,055 1,023,858 113,839 1,137,697 14,390 1,152,087 1220 The Norman C of E Primary & Nursery School 347,577 354,219 62,493 416,711 3,550 420,261 1222 North Wootton Community School 915,598 981,154 123,492 1,104,646 9,890 1,114,536 1226 Angel Road Infant School 579,897 593,566 83,549 677,115 18,920 696,035 1231 Angel Road Junior 845,133 812,565 129,414 941,979 27,950 969,929 1246 Avenue Junior School 1,014,015 1,049,491 145,276 1,194,767 8,170 1,202,937 1250 Recreation Road Infant 901,801 958,939 106,682 1,065,621 7,310 1,072,931 1262 Bignold Community Primary School 1,308,051 1,301,174 175,554 1,476,728 52,460 1,529,188 1275 Bluebell Primary School 874,078 873,907 186,752 1,060,660 29,670 1,090,330 1280 Clover Hill Infant School & Nursery 469,284 466,028 97,383 563,411 16,340 579,751 1286 Chapel Break Infant 548,237 609,134 160,069 769,203 12,470 781,673 1290 St. Michael's VA Junior School 909,143 950,794 267,975 1,218,769 41,280 1,260,049 1307 Catton Grove Community Primary School 1,626,989 1,671,989 265,986 1,937,975 76,540 2,014,515 1315 Cavell Primary & Nursery School 873,305 892,753 134,892 1,027,645 36,120 1,063,765 1327 Valley Primary School 647,738 678,267 125,007 803,274 32,250 835,524 1335 Colman Infant School 663,954 694,072 73,669 767,741 17,630 785,371 1340 Colman Junior School 807,391 813,506 109,587 923,093 24,080 947,173 1353 Mile Cross Primary 1,588,209 1,619,499 234,550 1,854,049 75,680 1,929,729 1367 Eaton Primary 985,981 1,038,505 135,772 1,174,278 7,740 1,182,018 1370 George White Junior School 715,834 716,318 109,652 825,971 19,350 845,321 1392 Heartsease Primary 1,386,060 1,443,223 192,759 1,635,982 33,540 1,669,522 1413 Lakenham Primary School 1,106,049 1,129,774 148,647 1,278,421 55,470 1,333,891 1426 Larkman Community Primary School 1,230,807 1,162,451 279,876 1,442,327 66,220 1,508,547 1431 Magdalen Gates Primary School 634,170 629,476 79,653 709,128 27,090 736,218 1443 Mousehold Infant & Nursery School 840,713 867,248 94,176 961,424 22,760 984,184 1450 Nelson Infant School 584,264 592,755 77,735 670,490 24,080 694,570 1466 Henderson Green Primary School 492,316 489,981 145,113 635,094 22,360 657,454 1475 Tuckswood Community Primary School 726,971 695,990 129,790 825,779 34,800 860,579 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

1480 St. John's Catholic Infant School 567,151 592,945 85,125 678,070 6,450 684,520 1485 St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Junior School 961,360 990,434 150,158 1,140,592 16,340 1,156,932 1499 Lionwood Junior 698,082 704,588 127,209 831,797 30,530 862,327 1502 Lionwood Infant 625,589 633,970 115,481 749,451 26,660 776,111 1517 Wensum Junior School 477,425 476,817 76,622 553,439 18,490 571,929 1525 West Earlham Community Infant School 844,869 763,313 143,943 907,256 32,680 939,936 1530 West Earlham Junior School 684,998 694,589 179,282 873,872 39,990 913,862 1580 Old Buckenham Community Primary School 523,601 541,914 66,997 608,911 6,880 615,791 1583 Garrick Green Infant School 425,388 448,118 63,323 511,442 6,450 517,892 1587 Lodge Lane Infant School 598,663 640,394 75,819 716,213 9,890 726,103 1591 Old Catton CE Junior School 396,954 407,614 76,027 483,641 8,170 491,811 1608 Ormesby Infant School 406,905 422,717 49,685 472,402 2,780 475,182 1611 Ormesby Junior School 594,035 603,747 83,177 686,925 3,840 690,765 1616 Overstrand, The Belfry, C of E VA Primary School 355,354 359,025 54,673 413,698 2,150 415,848 1622 Poringland Primary School 810,396 836,686 91,651 928,337 4,300 932,637 1631 Pulham C of E Primary School 418,987 435,705 62,490 498,195 3,870 502,065 1637 Rackheath Primary School 444,600 452,526 70,789 523,315 9,030 532,345 1648 Harleston Cof E VA Primary School 1,076,017 1,098,381 133,551 1,231,932 23,220 1,255,152 1650 Reedham Primary School 244,859 238,018 40,405 278,423 3,870 282,293 1653 Reepham Primary School 601,979 621,528 84,323 705,851 7,740 713,591 1661 Rocklands Community Primary School 196,801 183,797 31,663 215,460 1,290 216,750 1664 Rockland St. Mary Primary School 247,973 247,544 42,305 289,848 430 290,278 1667 Rollesby Primary and Nursery School 398,576 405,469 55,220 460,690 4,300 464,990 1672 St. Mary's (Endowed) VA C of E Primary School, Roughton 198,582 193,012 37,808 230,820 860 231,680 1675 Roydon Primary School 775,720 825,704 115,248 940,952 8,600 949,552 1678 Runcton Holme C of E Primary 250,121 236,566 43,745 280,311 860 281,171 1681 Parker's C of E Primary School 318,106 324,042 47,548 371,590 4,700 376,290 1687 Salhouse VC Primary School 441,080 431,871 51,313 483,184 6,020 489,204 1690 Sandringham & West Newton C of E Primary 326,923 328,958 51,715 380,673 2,550 383,223 1693 Saxlingham Nethergate C of E VC Primary School 212,721 210,931 38,688 249,619 1,290 250,909 1696 Scarning VC Primary School 711,831 754,159 89,832 843,991 9,460 853,451 1700 Scole C of E VC Primary School 327,250 334,340 52,766 387,107 2,150 389,257 1706 Sculthorpe C of E Primary 193,474 177,812 39,550 217,363 3,440 220,803 1709 Tattersett, Blenheim Park Community Primary 372,463 372,782 51,360 424,142 3,840 427,982 1715 Sedgeford Primary School 194,609 191,587 48,416 240,004 1,290 241,294 1718 Seething and Mundham Primary School 299,983 304,063 55,659 359,721 860 360,581 1724 Shelton with Hardwick Community School 205,000 197,217 51,018 248,235 4,300 252,535 1727 Sheringham Community Primary 1,461,948 1,537,541 189,482 1,727,023 22,100 1,749,123 1742 Thomas Bullock C of E VA Primary 548,824 571,905 83,120 655,025 9,890 664,915 1755 St. Martin at Shouldham C of E VA Primary School 500,321 515,732 71,017 586,749 8,090 594,839 1763 Snettisham Primary School 463,357 474,524 71,104 545,627 5,590 551,217 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

1772 Southery Primary 327,869 322,041 56,021 378,061 9,030 387,091 1778 South Walsham, Fairhaven C of E VA Primary School 333,916 331,784 53,435 385,219 3,010 388,229 1781 South Wootton First School 636,330 683,698 88,580 772,278 6,020 778,298 1784 South Wootton Junior School 492,573 488,329 76,802 565,131 6,420 571,551 1789 Spixworth Infant School 349,607 366,908 48,803 415,711 3,440 419,151 1792 Woodland View Junior School 529,708 535,743 75,327 611,070 6,880 617,950 1799 Sporle Primary School 309,652 296,220 59,893 356,113 7,710 363,823 1802 Sprowston Infant School 448,079 480,421 53,881 534,302 8,600 542,902 1805 Sprowston Junior School 659,032 691,661 111,780 803,441 13,330 816,771 1810 Cecil Gowing Infant School 467,133 489,188 61,378 550,566 8,170 558,736 1814 Falcon Junior School 862,584 889,369 124,086 1,013,455 11,180 1,024,635 1818 Sparhawk Infant School & Nursery 411,149 421,581 50,723 472,304 1,720 474,024 1822 White Woman Lane Junior School 759,254 776,566 112,829 889,395 19,980 909,375 1828 Stalham Community Infant School 273,548 280,615 36,390 317,005 8,170 325,175 1832 Stalham Junior School 841,316 852,799 112,992 965,791 19,350 985,141 1843 The James Bradfield C of E VC Community Primary School 331,501 328,974 48,559 377,533 5,590 383,123 1846 Stoke Holy Cross Primary School 547,982 559,135 70,564 629,699 2,150 631,849 1855 Surlingham Community Primary School 338,245 321,200 52,903 374,104 1,720 375,824 1858 Sutton C of E Infant School 207,343 209,879 39,396 249,275 2,150 251,425 1861 Swaffham Infant and Nursery School 529,555 558,768 68,018 626,786 13,760 640,546 1867 Swaffham VC C of E Junior School 582,707 604,672 89,582 694,254 15,480 709,734 1873 Swanton Abbott Community Primary School 295,872 302,311 52,896 355,207 860 356,067 1876 Swanton Morley Primary School 615,654 639,943 69,029 708,972 19,190 728,162 1888 Tacolneston VC Primary School 331,627 339,731 51,123 390,854 3,870 394,724 1891 Preston (C of E) VC Primary School 350,075 359,669 51,743 411,412 1,290 412,702 1894 Taverham, Ghost Hill Infant & Nursery 566,559 595,439 61,011 656,450 3,010 659,460 1897 Nightingale Infant School, Taverham 499,559 529,453 63,624 593,077 8,600 601,677 1900 Taverham Junior School 1,173,219 1,206,641 145,565 1,352,206 8,170 1,360,376 1910 Terrington St. Clement Primary 986,887 968,079 102,878 1,070,956 18,260 1,089,216 1919 Terrington St. John Primary School 297,280 294,315 51,262 345,578 4,300 349,878 1930 The Bishop's Cof E VA Primary 954,573 889,478 249,024 1,138,502 39,130 1,177,632 1932 Thetford, Drake Infant School and Nursery 600,179 637,955 176,567 814,522 5,990 820,512 1942 Norwich Road School 1,248,723 1,330,404 405,124 1,735,528 20,210 1,755,738 1947 Queensway Infant School & Nursery 601,333 650,781 169,287 820,068 19,750 839,818 1952 Thetford Queensway Community Junior School 645,076 696,499 210,266 906,764 30,100 936,864 1962 Raleigh Infant School 558,077 577,615 164,233 741,848 7,640 749,488 1967 The Admiral’s Junior School 975,568 1,031,118 312,466 1,343,584 17,640 1,361,224 1972 Redcastle Furze Primary School 635,457 677,046 197,860 874,905 27,030 901,935 1985 Thompson Primary School 349,968 357,189 57,387 414,575 2,520 417,095 1992 Hillside Avenue Primary School 1,373,117 1,432,692 165,153 1,597,845 16,340 1,614,185 1995 Dussindale Primary School 588,573 617,290 83,736 701,025 7,740 708,765 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

2001 St. William's Primary School 1,275,035 1,324,405 169,389 1,493,794 12,580 1,506,374 2010 Thurlton Primary School 371,369 377,936 57,288 435,224 3,010 438,234 2013 Thurton Primary School 316,172 318,547 57,035 375,582 3,870 379,452 2019 Tilney All Saints VC Primary School 228,244 206,723 48,942 255,664 3,010 258,674 2022 Tilney St. Lawrence Community Primary 384,387 366,864 67,298 434,162 6,450 440,612 2025 Tivetshall Primary School 155,327 151,342 29,870 181,212 1,290 182,502 2028 Glebeland Community Primary School 298,031 303,828 54,372 358,200 5,160 363,360 2031 Trowse Primary School 333,948 341,015 63,960 404,975 2,150 407,125 2034 Tunstead Primary School 315,051 328,287 47,670 375,957 5,160 381,117 2040 Upwell Community Primary School 492,483 492,480 75,409 567,889 9,030 576,919 2043 Walpole Cross Keys Primary School 207,318 206,394 46,820 253,214 1,290 254,504 2046 Walpole Highway 224,932 219,451 48,461 267,911 3,870 271,781 2052 Anthony Curton C of E Primary School 555,013 573,345 79,570 652,915 12,040 664,955 2054 Walsingham Community Primary 193,478 173,979 41,319 215,298 6,880 222,178 2056 Watlington Primary School 491,459 508,196 73,612 581,808 7,050 588,858 2061 Westfield (Watton) Infant and Nursery School 530,321 558,641 61,923 620,564 12,550 633,114 2067 Watton Junior School 769,877 794,995 105,804 900,799 14,240 915,039 2073 Weasenham VC Primary 175,563 167,228 33,972 201,200 1,720 202,920 2076 Weeting VC Primary School 464,591 480,561 68,008 548,569 6,880 555,449 2079 Wells-next-the-Sea Primary & Nursery School 495,984 490,076 69,866 559,942 15,680 575,622 2085 William Marshall C of E Primary School 181,028 167,788 37,268 205,056 6,450 211,506 2100 West Lynn Primary School 367,979 373,120 62,939 436,059 7,310 443,369 2109 West Raynham VC Primary School 182,920 170,419 48,631 219,051 4,730 223,781 2112 West Walton Community Primary 661,389 678,283 112,156 790,439 11,180 801,619 2118 West Winch Primary School 495,471 505,670 82,823 588,493 8,170 596,663 2130 Wicklewood Primary School 438,917 436,980 61,222 498,202 1,720 499,922 2133 St. Germans Primary School 307,359 290,541 58,352 348,893 2,580 351,473 2136 Wiggenhall, St. Mary Magdalen Primary 250,595 239,215 42,738 281,952 6,880 288,832 2139 Wimbotsham and Stow Community School 332,024 339,493 59,038 398,531 5,590 404,121 2142 Winfarthing, All Saints C of E Primary 317,689 317,531 54,441 371,972 6,450 378,422 2145 Winterton Primary & Nursery School 301,998 305,566 51,538 357,104 3,010 360,114 2148 Woodton Primary School 176,711 172,062 58,329 230,391 4,300 234,691 2151 Wormegay C of E Primary School 175,265 168,132 39,304 207,436 2,950 210,386 2154 Worstead VC Primary 321,005 327,205 57,194 384,399 1,290 385,689 2157 Wreningham V.C. Primary School 327,856 337,223 55,777 393,000 0 393,000 2169 Ashleigh Infant School and Nursery 628,067 656,542 74,486 731,028 9,460 740,488 2180 Browick Road Infant School 716,997 761,790 85,039 846,828 7,310 854,138 2185 Robert Kett Junior School 1,460,573 1,526,742 199,492 1,726,234 23,220 1,749,454 2194 Spooner Row Primary School 338,413 347,916 57,544 405,460 2,150 407,610 2210 Yaxham C of E VA Primary 313,039 322,152 58,975 381,127 2,580 383,707 2250 Acle High School 2,903,167 2,845,180 408,348 3,253,528 36,550 3,290,078 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

2255 Attleborough High School 3,809,276 3,806,957 513,491 4,320,448 27,950 4,348,398 2260 Aylsham High School 3,911,263 3,864,824 625,461 4,490,285 39,040 4,529,325 2265 Caister High School 3,172,503 3,115,207 639,657 3,754,863 56,330 3,811,193 2270 Costessey High School 3,921,855 3,879,816 633,129 4,512,945 75,680 4,588,625 2275 Cromer High School 2,159,579 2,127,930 346,640 2,474,570 23,650 2,498,220 2289 Diss High 4,787,434 4,651,703 501,925 5,153,628 35,260 5,188,888 2300 Downham Market High School - Technology College 6,668,364 6,514,580 768,635 7,283,214 74,340 7,357,554 2309 Neatherd Community High 5,089,175 5,027,090 633,893 5,660,983 49,600 5,710,583 2315 Northgate High School 4,668,146 4,638,715 574,886 5,213,601 50,620 5,264,221 2320 Fakenham High School 5,582,003 5,459,726 584,333 6,044,060 58,480 6,102,540 2330 Framingham Earl High School 2,891,878 2,795,298 421,830 3,217,128 21,500 3,238,628 2345 Cliff Park High School 4,016,972 3,942,132 842,514 4,784,646 61,060 4,845,706 2350 Lynn Grove VA High School 4,098,906 4,003,909 798,382 4,802,291 49,880 4,852,171 2355 Great Yarmouth VA High School 4,374,129 4,161,053 1,138,603 5,299,656 146,630 5,446,286 2370 Oriel High School 3,251,441 3,119,339 743,638 3,862,978 86,000 3,948,978 2385 Hellesdon High School 5,316,117 5,236,054 651,943 5,887,997 46,580 5,934,577 2390 Hethersett High School 2,937,675 2,825,503 395,038 3,220,542 22,790 3,243,332 2395 Broadland High School 2,723,300 2,661,993 365,678 3,027,671 20,210 3,047,881 2400 Smithdon High, Hunstanton 3,946,012 3,913,186 525,145 4,438,331 27,950 4,466,281 2405 Springwood High School 6,353,719 6,242,626 790,440 7,033,066 72,670 7,105,736 2410 The Park High School 3,356,124 3,240,840 436,960 3,677,800 69,660 3,747,460 2415 King Edward VII School 5,664,877 5,554,559 688,556 6,243,116 59,340 6,302,456 2427 Litcham High School 2,274,385 2,222,198 457,181 2,679,379 29,120 2,708,499 2432 Hobart High School 3,309,573 3,245,880 410,333 3,656,213 36,980 3,693,193 2437 Long Stratton High School 2,605,850 2,565,996 354,000 2,919,995 21,070 2,941,065 2442 Flegg High School 3,443,513 3,405,138 505,170 3,910,309 36,550 3,946,859 2452 Methwold High School 2,930,646 2,877,913 386,399 3,264,312 38,270 3,302,582 2467 North Walsham High School 3,261,596 3,230,828 471,157 3,701,985 51,600 3,753,585 2472 Sewell Park College 4,641,280 4,484,970 834,107 5,319,077 104,060 5,423,137 2484 The City Academy 2,992,001 2,925,293 586,083 3,511,376 101,910 3,613,286 2489 City of Norwich School 7,184,175 7,136,464 1,302,907 8,439,371 60,200 8,499,571 2494 The Open Academy 2,145,777 2,101,390 430,464 2,531,854 56,760 2,588,614 2499 Hewett School, Norwich 4,674,273 4,578,461 585,042 5,163,503 100,960 5,264,463 2505 Notre Dame High School, Norwich 5,965,626 5,869,465 1,185,898 7,055,363 42,310 7,097,673 2520 Old Buckenham High 2,292,718 2,247,365 283,765 2,531,129 19,350 2,550,479 2525 Archbishop Sancroft C of E High School 1,879,225 1,849,566 232,108 2,081,673 19,350 2,101,023 2530 Reepham High School 4,083,797 4,046,665 641,446 4,688,111 35,690 4,723,801 2535 Sheringham High School & VI Form Centre 3,418,655 3,385,845 441,682 3,827,527 29,670 3,857,197 2540 Sprowston Community High School 6,910,945 6,783,889 873,024 7,656,913 52,890 7,709,803 2545 Stalham High School 2,053,702 2,002,814 310,845 2,313,659 26,230 2,339,889 2550 Hamond’s High School 3,065,082 3,066,770 462,114 3,528,884 40,850 3,569,734 Schools - Proposed Formula, Mainstreamed Grants and Pupil Premium Appendix A

Locn School 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 Pupil Total Current Formula & YPLA Proposed Formula & YPLA Mainstreamed Grants Total Premium (exc. Grants) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) (Jan'10 Pupil Numbers) ££££££

Proposed 28th Feb Budget Share New formula excluding Mainstreamed grants Formula plus £430 per LAC + £430 per excluding SSG/SSGP and SSG/SSGP and SF. No distribution (includes Mainstreamed Free Meal Entitlement + Standards Fund transition applied. EiC/BIP) Grants £200 per Service Child

2555 Taverham High School 4,492,665 4,429,532 552,805 4,982,337 26,630 5,008,967 2560 St. Clement's High School 2,453,848 2,429,925 359,558 2,789,483 26,860 2,816,343 2571 Rosemary Musker High School 3,305,019 3,317,558 795,076 4,112,634 38,270 4,150,904 2574 Charles Burrell Humanities School 3,059,906 3,097,557 900,288 3,997,845 67,940 4,065,785 2575 Thorpe St. Andrew School 6,738,078 6,646,622 846,122 7,492,744 60,600 7,553,344 2586 Wayland Community School 2,879,771 2,871,587 413,143 3,284,731 33,910 3,318,641 2591 Alderman Peel High School 1,784,614 1,748,933 366,410 2,115,342 22,360 2,137,702 2596 Marshland High School 3,080,252 3,054,326 464,015 3,518,341 47,300 3,565,641 2601 Wymondham High School 6,048,496 5,948,765 796,195 6,744,961 26,230 6,771,191 2607 Wymondham College 5,082,156 5,048,098 656,785 5,704,883 26,150 5,731,033 2650 Chapel Road 1,135,749 1,135,749 152,383 1,288,131 5,590 1,293,721 2670 John Grant 1,867,277 1,867,277 212,280 2,079,557 21,070 2,100,627 2675 Woodfields 1,717,351 1,717,351 261,741 1,979,092 9,030 1,988,122 2690 Churchill Park 1,991,845 1,991,845 171,450 2,163,294 24,940 2,188,234 2695 Clare 1,775,778 1,775,778 234,968 2,010,746 12,040 2,022,786 2705 Harford Manor 1,290,375 1,290,375 132,167 1,422,542 10,750 1,433,292 2710 Parkside 1,897,554 1,897,554 282,002 2,179,556 24,080 2,203,636 2715 Hall 1,246,540 1,246,540 230,079 1,476,619 11,610 1,488,229 2720 Sidestrand 1,680,628 1,680,628 116,847 1,797,476 20,210 1,817,686 2721 Fred Nicholson 2,168,427 2,168,427 221,117 2,389,543 23,650 2,413,193 2723 Eaton Hall 1,649,452 1,649,452 220,629 1,870,080 6,880 1,876,960

414,058,663 414,011,087 64,690,707 478,701,794 6,548,550 485,250,344 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ Cluster 1 1226 Angel Road Infant School 0 6,189 1231 Angel Road Junior School 70,356 13,450 1307 Catton Grove Primary School 0 33,208 1370 George White Junior School 0 12,498 1431 Magdalen Gates Primary School 0 9,760 1353 Mile Cross Primary School 0 34,398 1443 Mousehold Infant & Nursery School 0 10,831 2472 Sewell Park College 0 57,965 Cluster Total 70,356 178,300 248,656

Cluster 2 92 Bawburgh School 0 2,619 277 Costessey Infant School 0 5,237 280 Costessey Junior School 52,361 8,213 283 Queen's Hill Primary School 0 238 285 St. Augustine's RC VA Primary School 0 3,333 2270 Costessey High School 0 40,469 Cluster Total 52,361 60,108 112,469

Cluster 3 1275 Bluebell Primary School 0 12,617 1286 Chapel Break Infant School 0 12,260 1280 Clover Hill Infant School & Nursery 0 6,784 10 Earlham Nursery School 0 0 1466 Henderson Green Primary School 0 10,474 1426 Larkman Primary School 0 32,137 1450 Nelson Infant School 0 6,070 499 St. Michael's CE VA Junior School 0 119 1327 Valley Primary School 0 17,854 1517 Wensum Junior School 73,884 6,308 1525 West Earlham Infant School 0 13,093 1530 West Earlham Junior School 0 13,212 2484 City Academy 0 55,109 Cluster Total 73,884 186,037 259,921

Cluster 4 1246 Avenue Junior School 0 7,737 2695 Clare School 0 2,142 1335 Colman Infant School 0 8,570 1340 Colman Junior School 81,444 11,069 2723 Eaton Hall School 0 0 1367 Eaton Primary School 0 6,546 2710 Parkside School 0 6,070 1250 Recreation Road Infant School 0 6,189 2489 City of Norwich School 0 39,873 Cluster Total 81,444 88,198 169,642

Cluster 5 180 Brooke VC CE Primary 2,500 119 1622 Poringland Primary School 0 238 1664 Rockland St. Mary Primary School 0 119 1846 Stoke Holy Cross Primary School 0 476 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 1855 Surlingham Community Primary School 0 238 2031 Trowse Primary School 0 2,261 2330 Framingham Earl High School 45,256 4,404 Cluster Total 47,756 7,856 55,612

Cluster 6 1392 Heartsease Primary School 0 17,378 1502 Lionwood Infant School 0 8,213 1499 Lionwood Junior School 37,251 9,641 2494 The Open Academy 0 26,900 Cluster Total 37,251 62,131 99,382

Cluster 7 760 Arden Grove Infant & Nursery School 0 952 765 Firside Junior School 0 4,642 771 Heather Avenue Infant 0 3,571 881 Horsford CE VC Infant School 0 1,785 885 Horsford Church of England Junior School 24,081 2,738 779 Kinsale Infant School 0 2,261 786 Kinsale Junior School 0 3,809 892 St. Faith CE VC Primary School 0 1,904 2385 Hellesdon High School 36,376 26,543 Cluster Total 60,458 48,205 108,663

Cluster 8 294 Cringleford CE VA Primary School 0 1,428 810 Hethersett VC Junior School 0 2,261 1053 Little Melton Primary School 0 952 1140 Mulbarton Community Infant School 28,053 0 1145 Mulbarton Junior School 20,622 0 807 Woodside Infant & Nursery School 0 595 2390 Hethersett High School 0 6,903 Cluster Total 48,674 12,141 60,815

Cluster 9 1262 Bignold Primary School 65,445 18,568 1315 Cavell Primary & Nursery School 0 15,592 2705 Harford Manor School 0 1,547 1413 Lakenham Primary School 0 20,115 1475 Tuckswood Community Primary School 0 9,403 2499 The Hewett School 0 52,847 Cluster Total 65,445 118,073 183,519

Cluster 11 1810 Cecil Gowing Infant School 0 2,142 1814 Falcon Junior School 0 3,333 484 Frettenham Primary Partnership School 0 476 1583 Garrick Green Infants School 0 2,500 733 Hainford Primary Partnership School 0 0 2715 Hall School 0 2,500 1587 Lodge Lane Infant School 0 3,095 1591 Old Catton CE Junior School 0 4,404 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 1818 Sparhawk Infant & Nursery School 0 1,190 1789 Spixworth Infant School 0 0 1802 Sprowston Infant School 0 4,047 1805 Sprowston Junior School 80,807 5,475 1822 White Woman Lane Junior School 0 5,356 1792 Woodland View Junior School 0 357 2540 Sprowston Community High School 0 32,494 Cluster Total 80,807 67,368 148,175

Cluster 12 367 Drayton CE VC Junior School 0 1,547 366 Drayton Community Infant School 0 1,428 1894 Ghost Hill Infant & Nursery 0 952 1897 Nightingale First School 21,834 714 1900 Taverham Junior School 0 2,023 2555 Taverham High School 30,199 7,499 Cluster Total 52,034 14,164 66,198 Cluster 13 128 Blofield Primary School 0 0 186 Brundall School 0 357 1995 Dussindale Primary School 0 476 798 Hemblington Primary School 0 0 1992 Hillside Avenue Primary and Nursery School 0 3,928 1056 Little Plumstead CE VA Primary School 0 0 2001 St. William's Primary School 64,997 5,237 2575 Thorpe St Andrew School 0 13,093 Cluster Total 64,997 23,091 88,088 Cluster 14 30 Aldborough Primary School 0 2,261 66 Bure Valley School 0 3,809 204 Buxton Primary School 0 238 257 Colby Primary School 0 1,071 437 Erpingham VC Primary School 0 238 816 Hevingham Primary School 0 476 60 John of Gaunt Infant & Nursery School 0 1,071 1102 Marsham Primary School 0 1,309 63 St. Michael's CE VC Nursery & Infant School 0 714 2260 Aylsham High School 55,626 12,141 Cluster Total 55,626 23,329 78,955

Cluster 15 306 Cromer Junior School 0 11,545 715 Gresham Village Primary School 0 476 1188 Northrepps Primary School 0 238 2720 Sidestrand Hall School 0 4,166 1672 St. Mary's Endowed VA CE Primary School 0 714 303 Suffield Park Infant & Nursery School 0 10,236 1616 The Belfry CE VA Primary 0 1,666 2275 Cromer High School 47,751 17,140 Cluster Total 47,751 46,182 93,932

Cluster 16 380 Dereham CE VA Infant School & Nursery 0 3,214 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 383 St. Nicholas Junior School 0 7,142 386 Grove House Nursery and Infant School 35,376 952 392 King's Park Infant School 0 952 395 Toftwood Infant School 9,100 2,381 398 Toftwood Community Junior School 0 3,452 493 Garvestone Primary 0 238 846 Hockering CE VC Primary School 0 0 1123 Mattishall Primary School 0 119 1178 North Elmham VC Primary School 0 357 1696 Scarning VC Primary School 0 5,832 1742 Thomas Bullock CE VA Primary School 0 476 1876 Swanton Morley VC Primary School 0 3,095 2210 Yaxham CE VA Primary School 0 119 2309 Neatherd Community High School 51,668 9,879 2315 Northgate High School 0 13,093 2319 Dereham Sixth Form Centre 0 0 2721 Fred Nicholson School 0 3,214 Cluster Total 96,145 54,514 150,658

Cluster 19 1709 Blenheim Park Community Primary 0 595 260 Colkirk CE VA Primary School 0 1,071 440 Fakenham Infant & Nursery School 0 4,999 443 Fakenham Junior School 23,856 6,903 1059 Little Snoring Primary School 36,278 3,095 410 Rudham CE VC Primary School 0 3,571 1706 Sculthorpe CE VA Primary 0 595 523 Stibbard All Saints CE VA Primary School 0 595 2109 West Raynham CE VC Primary School 0 238 2320 Fakenham High School 0 20,710 Cluster Total 60,135 42,373 102,508

Cluster 20 271 Coltishall Primary School 0 595 878 Horning Community Primary School 0 238 1163 Neatishead VC Primary 0 238 1637 Rackheath Primary School 0 0 1687 Salhouse CE VC Primary School 0 0 904 St. John's Community Primary School & Nursery 0 595 2034 Tunstead Primary School 0 0 2395 Broadland High School 48,230 1,904 Cluster Total 48,230 3,571 51,801

Cluster 21 101 Beeston Primary School 0 0 171 Brisley CE VA Primary School 0 0 511 Great Dunham Primary School 0 595 517 Great Massingham VC Primary 0 119 745 Harpley CE VC Primary 0 833 1050 Litcham Primary School 0 714 1134 Mileham Primary School 0 1,190 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 104 St. Mary's Community Primary School 0 595 2073 Weasenham VC Primary 0 0 2427 Litcham High School 49,913 4,285 Cluster Total 49,913 8,332 58,245

Cluster 22 39 Antingham & Southrepps Community Primary School 0 357 79 Bacton Community First 0 476 1207 Millfield Primary School 0 6,546 1149 Mundesley First School 0 3,214 1152 Mundesley Junior 0 2,976 1195 North Walsham Infant School & Nursery 58,689 4,999 1197 North Walsham Junior School 0 5,951 1873 Swanton Abbott Community Primary School 0 476 2154 Worstead CE VC Primary School 0 1,785 2467 North Walsham High School 0 19,996 Cluster Total 58,689 46,777 105,466

Cluster 23 1126 Astley Primary School 0 5,832 95 Bawdeswell Community Primary School 0 238 242 Cawston VC Primary School 0 3,452 274 Corpusty Primary 22,189 357 478 Foulsham Primary School 0 0 529 Great Witchingham CE VA Primary School 0 119 1090 Lyng CE VC Primary School 0 0 1653 Reepham Primary 31,128 1,785 2530 Reepham High School 0 8,927 Cluster Total 53,317 20,710 74,027

Cluster 24 858 Holt Community Primary School 0 6,308 919 Kelling Primary School 0 3,571 1727 Sheringham Community Primary School & Nursery 0 11,188 2675 Sheringham Woodfields School 26,249 1,666 2535 Sheringham High School 19,207 16,306 Cluster Total 45,456 39,040 84,496 Cluster 25 239 Catfield CE VC Primary School 0 2,381 413 East Ruston Area Community Infant School 0 714 739 Happisburgh CE VC Primary School 20,396 952 819 Hickling CE VC Infant School 0 0 1087 Ludham Primary School and Nursery 0 0 1828 Stalham Community Infant School 0 833 1832 Stalham Junior School 25,153 2,976 1858 Sutton CE VC Infant School 0 357 2545 Stalham High School 2,500 4,404 Cluster Total 48,049 12,617 60,665 Cluster 26 122 Blakeney CE VA Primary School 0 1,309 198 Burnham Market Primary School 0 595 834 Hindringham CE VC Primary School 0 714 1033 Langham Village School 0 595 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 2054 Walsingham Community Primary 0 3,690 2079 Wells-next-the-Sea Primary & Nursery School 0 3,571 2591 Alderman Peel High School 41,791 7,856 Cluster Total 41,791 18,330 60,121 Cluster 27 21 Acle St Edmunds CE VC Primary School 0 2,500 224 Cantley Primary School 0 119 1778 Fairhaven CE VA Primary School 0 0 468 Fleggburgh CE VC Primary School 0 357 481 Freethorpe Community Primary School 51,402 119 1042 Lingwood First & Nursery School 0 238 1046 Lingwood Junior School 0 238 1650 Reedham Primary School 0 0 2250 Acle High School 0 3,214 Cluster Total 51,402 6,784 58,186 Cluster 28 51 Attleborough Infant School 0 1,666 54 Attleborough Junior School 0 3,571 2650 Chapel Road School 0 1,071 514 Great Ellingham Primary 0 595 837 Hingham Primary School 2,700 0 1661 Rocklands Community Primary School 0 0 2255 Attleborough High School 47,903 4,642 Cluster Total 50,603 11,545 62,148

Cluster 31 165 Bressingham Primary School 0 952 201 Burston Community Primary School 0 833 327 Dickleburgh CE VC Primary 0 119 336 Diss CE VC Junior School 0 4,523 333 Diss Infant & Nursery School with Children's Centre 0 2,738 490 Garboldisham CE VC Primary 0 357 1181 Lopham St. Andrew's CE VA Primary School 0 0 1675 Roydon Primary School 0 3,214 1700 Scole CE VC Primary School 0 1,666 2025 Tivetshall Primary School 0 119 2142 Winfarthing All Saints CE VA Primary School 62,525 0 2289 Diss High School 0 8,570 Cluster Total 62,525 23,091 85,616

Cluster 32 532 Alderman Swindell Infant School 67,670 6,546 581 Greenacre Primary School 0 37,612 608 North Denes School 0 12,379 614 Northgate St. Andrews Community First School 0 15,711 644 St. George's Infant School 0 15,949 638 St. Nicholas CE VC Priory Junior School 0 30,828 2355 Gt Yarmouth High School 0 69,392 Cluster Total 67,670 188,417 256,087

Cluster 33 27 Alburgh with Denton CE VC Primary School 0 119 177 Brockdish CE VC Primary 0 119 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 1648 Harleston CE VA Primary School 17,432 4,404 1631 Pulham CE VC Primary School 0 357 2525 Archbishop Sancroft High School 22,407 2,976 Cluster Total 39,839 7,975 47,814

Cluster 34 36 Alpington & Bergh Apton CE VA Primary School 0 119 342 Ditchingham CE VC Primary School 0 1,071 374 Earsham CE VA First School 0 1,071 428 Ellingham CE VC Primary 0 833 2028 Glebeland Community Primary School 0 357 1062 Loddon Infant & Nursery School 0 1,071 1065 Loddon Junior School 0 1,785 1718 Seething and Mundham Primary School 0 357 499 St. Michael's CE VA First School 0 119 2010 Thurlton Primary School 36,173 714 2013 Thurton CE VC Primary School 0 0 2148 Woodton Primary School 0 0 2432 Hobart High School 24,814 6,427 Cluster Total 60,987 13,926 74,913

Cluster 35 48 Aslacton Primary School 0 0 475 Forncett St. Peter CE VA Primary 0 119 742 Hapton CE VC Primary School 0 0 801 Hempnall Primary School 0 119 1075 Manor Field Infant & Nursery School 31,724 119 1172 Newton Flotman CE VC Primary School 0 0 1891 Preston CE VC Primary School 0 119 1693 Saxlingham Nethergate CE VC Primary School 0 0 1724 Shelton with Hardwick Community School 0 476 1078 St. Mary's CE VC Junior School 0 714 2437 Long Stratton High School 22,696 357 Cluster Total 54,420 2,023 56,444

Cluster 37 210 Caister Infant School 0 4,642 216 Caister Junior School 0 7,142 462 Filby Primary School 0 119 804 Hemsby Primary School 0 833 2670 John Grant School 0 6,784 1115 Martham Primary School and Nursery 0 4,642 1608 Ormesby Village Infant School 0 476 1611 Ormesby Village Junior School 0 595 1667 Rollesby Primary School 0 595 2145 Winterton Primary School 0 119 2442 Flegg High School 73,206 7,975 2265 Caister High School 0 21,782 Cluster Total 73,206 55,704 128,910

Cluster 38 83 Banham Community Primary School 0 0 192 Bunwell Primary School 2,500 238 230 Carleton Rode CE VA Primary School 0 0 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 407 East Harling Primary School & Nursery 0 1,190 422 Eccles, Hargham & Wilby CE VA Primary School 0 0 922 Kenninghall Primary School 0 0 1580 Old Buckenham Community Primary School 0 357 2520 Old Buckenham High School 44,761 1,309 Cluster Total 47,261 3,095 50,355

Cluster 39 144 Bradwell Hillside Primary School 6,900 3,928 147 Bradwell Homefield CE VC Primary School 0 4,047 150 Bradwell Woodlands Primary School 0 8,808 546 Cliff Park Community Junior School 0 12,617 539 Cliff Park Infant School 0 8,689 551 Cobholm Primary School 0 13,212 559 Edward Worlledge Community Junior School 0 15,592 599 Herman Primary School 0 24,162 871 Hopton CE VC Primary School 0 2,023 115 Moorlands CE Primary School 27,329 6,784 635 Peterhouse Primary School 0 20,948 675 Southtown Infant School 0 9,522 651 St. Mary's RC VA Primary & Nursery School 0 8,689 658 Stradbroke Community Primary School 0 12,855 664 Wroughton Infant School 0 14,164 671 Wroughton Junior School 0 17,973 2370 Oriel Specialist Mathematics and Computing College 0 48,919 2350 Lynn Grove VA High School 61,238 35,589 2345 Cliff Park High School 27,329 44,754 Cluster Total 122,796 313,275 436,070

Cluster 40 2169 Ashleigh Infant School & Nursery 0 1,904 85 Barford Primary School 0 357 87 Barnham Broom Primary School 0 0 2180 Browick Road Infant School 0 1,190 1137 Morley CE VA Primary School 0 0 2185 Robert Kett Junior School 0 6,308 2194 Spooner Row Primary School 0 357 1888 Tacolneston C of E Primary School 0 119 2130 Wicklewood Primary School 0 238 2157 Wreningham VC Primary School 0 238 2601 Wymondham High School 77,537 9,998 2607 Wymondham College 0 2,738 Cluster Total 77,537 23,448 100,985

Cluster 42 356 Clackclose Community Primary School 29,764 4,166 315 Denver CE VC Primary School 0 238 828 Hilgay Village VC Primary School 0 1,904 362 Hillcrest Primary School 0 2,619 2136 Magdalen Village School 0 119 1678 Runcton Holme CE VA Primary School 0 238 1772 Southery Primary 0 0 1755 St. Martin at Shouldham CE VA Primary School 0 1,428 825 Ten Mile Bank Community Primary School 41,734 0 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 2040 Upwell Community Primary School 0 4,523 2056 Watlington Community School 0 2,619 2085 William Marshall CE VC Primary School 0 0 2139 Wimbotsham & Stow Community School 6,700 1,190 2151 Wormegay CE VC Primary School 0 119 2300 Downham Market High School 0 19,282 Cluster Total 78,198 38,445 116,643

Cluster 43 951 Howard Infant & Nursery School 0 11,069 956 Howard Junior School 0 13,926 1131 Middleton VC Primary School 0 3,333 974 Reffley Community School 0 6,189 981 St. Edmund's Community Foundation School 27,405 14,878 2133 St. German's Primary School 0 3,095 2118 West Winch Primary School 0 595 2410 The Park High School 28,368 35,589 Cluster Total 55,774 88,674 144,447 Cluster 44 156 Brancaster CE VA Primary School 0 2,381 321 Dersingham Infant & Nursery School 0 2,023 345 Docking CE Primary School & Nursery 0 6,665 748 Heacham Infant & Nursery School 0 238 752 Heacham Junior School 37,526 476 907 Hunstanton Infant School 0 4,523 913 Ingoldisthorpe CE VA Primary School 0 238 119 King George VI School 0 1,071 910 Redgate Junior School 0 5,237 1715 Sedgeford Primary School 0 833 1763 Snettisham Primary School 0 357 324 St. George's CE Junior School 0 1,666 2400 Smithdon High School 25,070 20,591 Cluster Total 62,595 46,301 108,896 Cluster 45 997 Eastgate Primary 0 20,591 988 Greyfriars Primary School 0 19,163 969 Highgate Infant School 0 5,951 7 King's Lynn Nursery School 0 0 1222 North Wootton Primary School 0 10,474 1781 South Wootton First School 8,100 5,475 1784 South Wootton Junior School 0 2,738 1008 St. Michael's CE VC Primary School 0 8,094 1012 Whitefriars CE VA Primary 61,328 19,877 2415 King Edward VII High School 0 43,444 Cluster Total 69,428 135,808 205,236 Cluster 46 1128 Duchy of Lancaster CE VC Primary School 0 2,142 453 Edmund de Moundeford CE VC Primary School 0 0 505 Gooderstone CE VA Primary School 0 0 852 Hockwold Primary School 0 0 1843 James Bradfield CE VC Community Primary School 0 238 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££ 1157 Mundford V C Primary 0 357 1220 Norman CE VA Primary School 0 2,023 2076 Weeting VC Primary School 51,064 476 2452 Methwold High School 0 3,690 Cluster Total 51,064 8,927 59,991

Cluster 47 45 Ashwicken CE VA First School 0 1,428 721 Church Hill School 0 0 2690 Churchill Park Special School 0 5,475 932 Fairstead Community Primary 0 21,187 472 Flitcham CE VA Primary School 3,900 238 496 Gayton CE VC First School 0 1,309 960 Gaywood Community Primary School 0 16,545 727 Grimston Junior School 0 1,428 724 Pott Row First School 0 119 1690 Sandringham & West Newton CE VA Primary 0 595 1004 St. Martha's RC VA Primary School 0 4,642 2405 Springwood High School 67,028 42,254 Cluster Total 70,928 95,220 166,148

Cluster 48 233 Castle Acre CE VC Primary School 0 595 1093 Marham Junior School 0 0 1097 Marham Infant School 0 119 1160 Narborough CE VC Primary School 0 2,261 1170 Necton VA Primary School 0 1,428 1185 North Pickenham St. Andrew's CE VC Primary School 22,473 2,381 1799 Sporle CE VC Primary School 32,929 595 1861 Swaffham CE VC Infant School 0 5,594 1867 Swaffham CE VC Junior School 0 6,308 2550 Hamond High School 0 15,711 Cluster Total 55,401 34,993 90,395

Cluster 49 248 Clenchwarton Primary School 0 1,904 1910 Terrington St. Clement Community School 43,894 5,356 2019 Tilney All Saints CE VC Primary School 0 1,547 2043 Walpole Cross Keys Primary School 0 476 2100 West Lynn Primary School 0 3,214 2560 St Clements High School 0 8,570 Cluster Total 43,894 21,067 64,962

Cluster 50 1967 Admiral's Junior School 0 6,427 1932 Drake Infant School & Nursery 0 3,333 1942 Norwich Road School 43,404 12,617 1952 Queensway Community Junior School 0 16,425 1947 Queensway Infant School & Nursery 0 13,093 1962 Raleigh Infant School & Nursery 25,114 1,666 1972 Redcastle Furze Primary School 0 16,783 2574 Charles Burrell Humanities School 0 42,968 2571 Rosemary Musker High School 0 20,591 Cluster Total 68,518 133,904 202,422 Mainstreamed Grants Cluster Funding Appendix B

Extended Schools Disadvantaged Cluster Total Sustainability Subsidy

£££

Cluster 52 42 Ashill VC Primary School 0 0 236 Caston CE VA Primary School 0 0 849 Great Hockham Primary School 0 357 1681 Parker's CE VC Primary School 0 595 227 St. Peter & St. Paul CE VC Primary School 0 714 1985 Thompson Primary School 0 238 2067 Watton Junior School 0 2,381 2061 Westfield Infant & Nursery School 0 1,309 2586 Wayland Community High School 52,306 5,118 Cluster Total 52,306 10,712 63,018

Cluster 53 2052 Anthony Curton CE VA Primary School 0 5,475 4 Emneth Nursery School 0 0 434 Emneth Primary School 0 2,500 1105 Marshland St. James VC Primary School & Nursery 0 2,142 1919 Terrington St. John Primary School 0 1,785 2022 Tilney St. Lawrence Community Primary 0 3,333 2046 Walpole Highway Community Primary School 0 2,857 2112 West Walton Community Primary 53,492 2,381 2596 Marshland High School 0 23,924 Cluster Total 53,492 44,396 97,889

Catholic Cluster 1480 St. John's Catholic Infant School 0 5,118 1485 St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Junior School 0 10,355 2505 Notre Dame High School 2,500 22,853 Cluster Total 2,500 38,326 40,826

Centrally Retained 430,000 430,000

Grand Total 3,142,914 2,527,503 5,670,417 Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 13 January 2011 Item No. 11 Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Report for 2010-11 Report by the Director of Children’s Services

Summary

This report provides an update on performance and finance monitoring information for the 2010-2011 financial years. This report monitors progress against the Corporate Objectives set out in the County Council Plan that are covered by 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 variations between the approved budget for 2010/11 and the actual spending during the year. The paper comments on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions.

The main financial points within the paper are:

 The Children’s Services revenue budget shows a £2.192 million or 1.3% projected overspend for the year. The report highlights a significant budget overspend on Looked After Children agency costs, school pension/redundancy costs and Public Law Outline costs, which are partly offset by a number of savings on other budgets.  The Schools Budget variations are contained within the approved contingency fund.  The level of projected school balances at 31 March 2011 is £21.232 million.  The level of projected balances and provisions at 31 March 2011 is £14,043 million.

Recommendation Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report.

1 Performance update 1.1 Ofsted Annual Children’s Services Assessment for 2009/10 1.1.1 We have received our Ofsted’s annual performance assessment score of children’s services arrangements in Norfolk. The County Council was judged adequate overall for the services it provides to children and young people, with “a large majority of all types of services, settings and institutions inspected by Ofsted good or better.” Ofsted said the council “has strengths in its services and provision for children and young people whose circumstances have made them vulnerable, such as those in care or with special educational needs.” The Annual Children’s Services Assessment letter is publicly available on the Ofsted website.

1.1.2 Other praise for support to vulnerable groups in the assessment included:  Children in need of protection are consistently responded to in a timely and assured way;  The virtual school has been instrumental in helping children in care achieve more;  Most recent data on teenage pregnancy shows a fall at a higher rate than in similar areas and nationally;  Parents of disabled children indicate their levels of satisfaction with local services are much higher than average;  A high proportion of special schools and children’s homes are outstanding and almost all of the others are good;  The local fostering agency is good and the local adoption agency is outstanding. 1.1.3 Inspectors found that the majority of educational attainment indicators were in line with similar areas, however the number of inadequate schools had increased and

has affected the rate of improvement. 1.2 The Future of the Children’s Services performance assessment for 2010/11 1.2.1 Ofsted currently has a statutory duty to produce an annual assessment and rating of the effectiveness of local children’s services. We have recently been advised that the annual rating assessment of children’s services will end at the earliest legislative opportunity. The annual review whilst useful in drawing attention to the positive work undertaken by local authorities’ children’s services is viewed by ministers as having a number of serious limitations as an indicator of overall effectiveness and adds little to the understanding of children’s services in an areas over and above the individual inspections that underlie it. 1.3 Peer Review 1.3.1 The Local Government Improvement and Development peer review for Norfolk was undertaken during Monday 22nd to Friday 26th November 2010. The review was not an inspection but seen as a supportive but challenging approach to assist the council and its partners in celebrating strengths and identifying areas for improvement. The key purpose of the review was to stimulate local discussion about how the council and its partners can become more effective in delivering improved safe outcomes. The peer review team were asked to explore the robustness of our safeguarding processes, the early intervention journey and performance reporting and management. 1.3.1.1 The review took the form of interviews with key officers and partners, a self- evaluation questionnaire, on-site visits, a case file mapping exercise and evidence from key local documents and data. 1.3.1.2 The main findings of the Peer Review included  Robust safeguarding processes and protocols in place  Acknowledgement of a political, strategic and operational commitment to maintain safeguarding and to ensure consistent practice  Frontline working relationships are strong  Established strengths are being built on  There is evidence of innovation  There is commitment to getting the change management journey right  The commitment to maintaining a practice focus throughout the recent restructure.

The Performance Board will be considering the findings of the Review and the improvement actions. 1.4 Performance indicators Please see Appendix A for the latest performance results. The exceptions that require further explanation are: 1.4.1 Social Care Performance

1.4.2 The increasing demand for social care in children’s services continues in Norfolk as well as regionally and nationally. There continues to be a rise in the number of referrals leading to initial assessments. The restructuring of the front door teams and a focus on completing overdue assessments has resulted in an improvement in the number of initial assessments being completed, although a lower percentage have been within timescale. Whilst referrals continue to rise, the number of children becoming subject to a child protection plan has leveled off and is currently showing a slight decrease. 1.4.3 A growth in Norfolk’s number of looked after children, staffing capacity and delays in recording have all contributed to a reduction in the percentage reviewed in timescale and Norfolk remains below performance of its statistical neighbours 90.6%.

Over the last couple of months there has been about an 8% reduction in the number of looked after children placed out of county compared against 3.6% increase over the same timescale.

1.4.4 School Performance

1.4.5 In its annual performance assessment, Ofsted stated “Two primary schools and three secondary schools were judged to be inadequate in the academic year 2008/2009. This increased to 10 primary schools and five secondary schools in the academic year 2009/2010”. There are currently 11 Schools under Notice to Improve across Norfolk – 8 Primary and 3 Secondary, with 6 schools currently in Special Measures – all Primary / Junior Schools. Changes to the Ofsted inspection regime in September 2009 have resulted in it becoming much more difficult to attain a “Good” grade as the requirements for this are now much more stringent. Due to the inspection schedule, many schools which were rated “Satisfactory” under the old regime are now, when inspected under the new requirements, narrowly failing to meet the necessary criteria for “Satisfactory” or better.

Following inspections since May 2010, 3 Schools are no longer under Notice to Improve – these being Cromer High (Suffield Park Ward), Marshland High & St. Clements High (Walton Ward) and one school – Aslacton Primary (Bunwell Ward) – has gone from being in Special Measures to being graded “Good” in its subsequent inspection.

2 Revenue – Local Authority Budget 2.1 The 2010/11 Children’s Services revenue budget has reduced by £3.154 million to £169.445 million. This as a result of in-year Area Based Grant reductions of £4.029 million and in-year Area Based Grant increases of £0.875 million. There is no Local Authority funding of schools as they are funded completely by the Dedicated Schools Grant.

This year end monitoring report shows a projected £2.192 million or 1.3% revenue budget overspend for the year.

The following summary table shows by type of budget, the actual spend for the year. The table shows the variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget. Revenue – Local Authority Budget

Division of service Approved Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance budget Outturn +Over/- +Over/Underspend in £m £m Underspend as % of budget forecast £m since last report £m Budget Increases Looked After 50.381 55.279 4.898 10 -0.835 Children LAC Adoptions 3.047 3.247 0.200 7 School Pension 5.680 6.180 0.500 9 -0.100 /Redundancy costs LAC transport 0.670 1.250 0.580 86 0.180 LAC Legal costs 2.621 4.321 1.700 65 0.500 Field Study Centre 0.000 0.100 0.100 n/a additional running costs Unfunded Sep 20- n/a n/a 0.080 n/a 09 Soulbury pay award Spending Reductions Staff 64.703 63.933 -0.770 - Building Schools 2.000 -0.155 -2.155 -108 -0.197 for the Future Home to School/ 26.794 25.443 -1.381 -5 -0.581 College Transport Recovery plan n/a n/a -1.089 n/a -1.089 Grant Income n/a n/a -0.400 n/a Other Savings n/a n/a -0.71 n/a

Total 2.192 -2.122

3 Revenue – Schools Budget

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

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

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

Revenue – Schools Budget

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 Non-maintained 9.557 11.557 2.000 21 0.500 School Placements Suspended school 0.269 0.409 0.140 52 0.140 staff costs School staff 0.176 0.576 0.400 227 0.400 redeployment costs School staff maternity 1.773 1.393 -0.380 21 -0.380 costs School supply special 0.266 0.106 -0.160 60 -0.160 circumstances Dedicated Schools 435.861 434.867 -0.994 n/a Grant Schools Contingency 1.032 0.026 -1.006 97 -0.500 Fund

Total 0 0

4 Monitoring of budget investment decisions

The County Council Plan 2010/11 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 2010/11 stands at £83 million. As set out in paragraph 6 below as a result of tight control and monitoring, available resources are being spent on agreed priorities.

5 Capital Programme

2010/11 Future Years £M £M Approved Budget 83,142 133,685 Forecast Outturn 82,897 133,651 Variation from Approved Budget (0.245) 0.034

The 2010/11 approved capital budget contained £114,465 million of estimated payments in 2010/11. Since approval the approved budget has decreased by £31.323 million to £83.142 million. This is due to a reduction of £8.286 million government grants and reprofiling £23.037 million of funding to future years.

The projected 2010/11 outturn based on the latest monitoring information is £82.897 million; an underspend of £0.245 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 of 2009-10 2009-10 since the work capital capital previous budget outturn report £m £m Norfolk Schools 2.377 2.475 0.099 A small overspend is Project due to increased project costs St Michaels 0.122 0.117 -0.005 Savings on project Bowthorpe - costs High growth Costessey High 0.770 0.619 -0.151 Savings on project - High Growth costs South Harford 1.615 1.427 -0.188 Savings on project Pupil Referral costs unit

Total -0.245

6 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 2011 is as follows:

School Balances as at 31 March 2011

Title/description Original Revised Variance Reason for forecast forecast £m variance balance at balance at 31-03-10 31-03-11 £m £m Nursery 0.087 0.103 0.016 Underspend of annual budget Primary 10.161 12.306 2.145 Underspend of annual budget Secondary 5.072 5.436 0.364 Underspend of annual budget Special 0.836 1.275 0.439 Underspend of annual budget Partnerships 2.351 2.112 -0.239 Partnership use of balances

Total 18.507 21.232 2.725 7 Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions

A number of Reserves and Provisions exist within Children’s Services. The following table sets out the balances on the reserve and provision in the Children’s Services accounts at 1 April 2010 and the balances at 31 March 2011.

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 31-03-10 balance at £m £m 31-03-11 £m Schools Transport Days 0.295 0.151 -0.144 Reduced number of Equalisation home to school/college Fund transport days in the 2010/11 financial year as a result of the timing of Easter. Schools 1.426 0.420 -0.926 Part of the School Contingency Budget and used to fund Fund Dedicated Schools Grant variances Schools Non- 0.270 0.270 0.000 Additional school Teaching contributions to the Activities reserve Building 0.389 0.750 0.361 Used for large school Maintenance building and engineering Partnership maintenance projects Pool School 1.225 1.225 0.000 Schools’ use of fund Sickness Insurance Scheme School Playing 0.240 0.270 0.030 Additional annual school surface sinking contributions to the fund reserve Education 0.031 0.031 0.000 Frozen holiday pay Provision for entitlement paid to Holiday Pay former Education staff now employed by Norse Ltd on their retirement. Non BMPP 1.062 1.060 -0.002 Schools’ use of the Building reserve Maintenance Fund Provision for 4.464 0.000 -4.464 Use of school provision Modern Reward for MRS compensation Strategy payments Norfolk PFI 9.596 9.600 0.004 Additional contribution to Sinking Fund the reserve

Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 31-03-10 balance at £m £m 31-03-11 £m BSF Reserve 0.708 0.000 -0.708 Building Schools for the Fund Future

Schools total 19.706 13.777 -5.929

Children’s Services IT Earmarked 0.116 0.120 0.004 Use of the reserve to Reserves support IT projects within Children’s Services Repairs and 0.266 0.146 -0.120 Use of fund to replace Renewals Fund assets

Children’s 0.382 0.266 -0.116 Services total

Total 20.088 14.043 -6.045

8 Other implications

8.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

The information included in this report represents activity agreed as part of the Council’s wider strategic agenda to address inequality over the medium to long term.

8.2 Impact on Children and Young People

Measuring performance against the service plan and performance indicators is used to monitor progress against the service plans objectives and measure the impact. 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.

8.3 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.

9 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

There are no specific implications for crime and disorder reduction. 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.

10 Risk Implications / Assessment Risks to achieving the objectives are contained within the Children’s Services risk register. These continue to be monitored and reported regularly to Chief Officer Group and to the Audit Committee. Actions to mitigate risks are frequently part of other performance management actions and are referred to where relevant throughout this report.

11 Action Required Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report.

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.

Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 13 January 2011 Item No. 12

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 7 October 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.

2 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act

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

3 Equality Impact Assessment

3.1 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.

4 Any Other implications

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

Action Required

(1) To consider the attached Outline Programme (Appendix A) and agree the scrutiny topics listed and reporting dates. (2) 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 13 January 2011 This is only an outline programme and will be amended as issues arise or priorities change Scrutiny is normally a two-stage process: • Stage 1 of the process is the scoping stage. Draft terms of reference and intended outcomes will be developed as part of this stage. • The Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Panel or a Member Group will carry out the detailed scrutiny but other approaches can be considered, as appropriate (e.g. ‘select committee’ style by whole O&S Panel). • On the basis that the detailed scrutiny is carried out by a Member Group, Stage 2 is reporting back to the O&S Panel by the Group.

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

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

Changes to Programme from that previously submitted to the Panel on 7 October 2010

Added  None Deleted  None

Topic Outline Objective Cabinet Stage 1 Stage 2 Requested Comment Portfolio Area Terms of (report back by Reference to Panel) Scrutiny Items Outstanding/ Ongoing 1. Levels of Consider and review the Children’s 7 October 10 March Overview & The working group met on 7 attendance in strategies and plans in Services 2010 2011 Scrutiny October and on three other schools place to improve levels of Panel occasions since the last meeting of attendance March 2010 the Overview & Scrutiny Panel. The Work closely with schools working group has reviewed and in order to highlight areas considered the following aspects:- of best practice and  A statistical analysis of absences success. over the last school year and how Identify, in partnership the information is used to with Norfolk schools and improve attendance levels other agencies, how  An examination of the reasons further improvements for children missing school and of could be made to raise some of the initiatives underway levels of attendance. to tackle poor attendance.  Comparative data with neighbouring local authorities  Attendance support for Looked After Children and Travellers’ children  The budget for the attendance teams  Discussions with a wide range of expert witnesses from within Children’s Services and partner agencies. Visits are being arranged between December 2010 and February 2011 for members of the working group to

a number of Norfolk schools.

2. The To review the current Children’s 14 January 10 March Overview & Since the last meeting of the Recruitment strategy and situation Services 2010 2011 Scrutiny Overview & Scrutiny Panel meetings and Retention relating to the recruitment Panel have been held with three newly of Head and retention of head July 2007 appointed head teachers. Teachers teachers. A meeting of the working group will To draw up be held in January which will include recommendations to help a discussion with the chairmen of improve the recruitment governing bodies recently involved in and retention of head recruiting a head teacher. teachers. 3. Energy & Raise Members Children’s Not Not Overview & A scrutiny review will be undertaken Environmental awareness of current Services applicable – applicable Scrutiny by the full panel on 12 May 2011. Issues initiatives within Children’s scrutiny by – scrutiny Panel Services, highlighting good full panel by full May 2010 practice and areas for panel improvement. Identify the means by which Members can be involved in supporting future developments.

4. Child Consider the impact of Children’s To be To be Overview & Lord Laming’s report will be protection after Lord Laming’s report on Services determined determined Scrutiny superseded by the review of child Lord Laming’s child protection referrals. Panel protection being undertaken by report Examine whether March 2010 Professor Monroe. The final report Children’s Services are and recommendations from this responding effectively to review are expected in April 2011. increased levels of It is recommended that draft Terms demand. of Reference for a scrutiny review be Identify priorities for the considered in the light of the future planning and recommendations contained in resourcing of child Professor Monroe’s report. protection responsibilities in Norfolk.

5. The take up Highlight the reasons why Children’s Not Not Overview & A report was made to the last meeting of school young people are not Services applicable – applicable – Scrutiny of the Panel on work completed by a meals & free taking school meals. scrutiny by scrutiny by Panel cross departmental project examining school meals Identify any key factors full panel full panel March 2010 all aspects of school catering. where improvements will Forthcoming changes in legislation will result in a significant have an impact on the eligibility for free increase in the number of school meals. Consequently the need meals taken. for a scrutiny review should be considered after changes in eligibility have been implemented. 6. The To be determined Children’s To be To be Overview & This topic was placed on the forward availability and Services determined determined Scrutiny programme by the former Overview & condition of Panel Scrutiny Panel. toilets in September schools for 2007 pupils. 7. Strategy to To be determined Children’s To be To be Overview & This topic was placed on the forward combat racism Services determined determined Scrutiny programme by the former Overview & and promote Panel Scrutiny Panel. inter cultural September A briefing paper was presented to the understanding 2006 Panel in March 2008. . A further scoping exercise will be undertaken

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