Children's Services Committee
Date: Tuesday, 10 May 2016
Time: 10:00
Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, Norfolk, NR1 2DH
Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.
Membership Mr J Joyce - Chairman Mr A Adams Mr B Hannah Mr R Bearman Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr B Bremner Mr B Long Mrs J Chamberlin Mr J Perkins Mr D Collis Mr R Smith Ms E Corlett - Vice-Chairman Mr B Stone Mr D Crawford Miss J Virgo Mr P Gilmour Mr A White
Church Representatives Mrs H Bates Mr A Mash
Non-voting Parent Governor Representatives Mrs K Byrne Mrs S Vertigan
Non-voting Schools Forum Rep Mrs A Best-White
Non-voting Co-opted Advisors Mr A Robinson Norfolk Governors Network Ms T Rainbow Special Needs Education Ms V Aldous Primary Education Mr J Mason Post-16 Education Ms C Smith Secondary Education
For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer:
1 Julie Mortimer on 01603 223055 or email [email protected]
Under the Council’s protocol on the use of media equipment at meetings held in public, this meeting may be filmed, recorded or photographed. Anyone who wishes to do so must inform the Chairman and ensure that it is done in a manner clearly visible to anyone present. The wishes of any individual not to be recorded or filmed must be appropriately respected.
2 A g e n d a
1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending
2. To confirm the minutes from the meeting held on 15 March 2016 Page 5
3. Declarations of Interest If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is on your Register of Interests you must not speak or vote on the matter. If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is not on your Register of Interests you must declare that interest at the meeting and not speak or vote on the matter
In either case you may remain in the room where the meeting is taking place. If you consider that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to remain in the room, you may leave the room while the matter is dealt with.
If you do not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest you may nevertheless have an Other Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects - your well being or financial position - that of your family or close friends - that of a club or society in which you have a management role - that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward.
If that is the case then you must declare such an interest but can speak and vote on the matter.
4. Any items of business the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency
5. Public Question Time Fifteen minutes for public questions of which due notice has been given. Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team [email protected] by 5pm on Thursday 5 May 2016. Guidance can be found in the Norfolk County Council constitution - www.norfolk.gov.uk
6. Local Member Issues/ Member Questions Fifteen minutes for local member to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given. Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team ([email protected]) by 5pm on Thursday 5 May 2016.
7. Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring report 2016-17 Page 16 Report by the Executive Director of Children's Services
3 8. Revenue Budget 2016-17 – Allocation of Transitional Funding and Page 61 Rural Services Delivery Grant
9. Social Care Recording System - Verbal Update Page
10. Re-commissioning Short Breaks for Disabled Children (Play, Page 66 Leisure, Home based)
11. Developing Norfolk’s self-improving school system in the light of Page 76 the White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’
12. Schools Capital Programme 2016-19 Page 90
13. Exclusion of the Public: Page The committee is asked to consider excluding the public from the meeting under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 for consideration of the item below on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by Paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The committee will be presented with the conclusion of the public interest test carried out by the report author and is recommended to confirm the exclusion.
14. To confirm the exempt minutes from the meeting held on 15 Page March 2016.
Information relating to any individual;
Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH
Date Agenda Published: 04 May 2016
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Customer Services on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
4
Children’s Services Committee
Minutes of the Meeting Held on Tuesday 15 March 2016 10am, Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich
Present:
Mr J Joyce - Chair
Mr R Bearman Mr P Gilmour Ms C Bowes Mr B Hannah Mr B Bremner Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mrs J Chamberlin Mr B Long Mr D Collis Mr J Perkins Miss E Corlett Mr B Stone Mr D Crawford Miss J Virgo Mr T Garrod Mr A White
Church Representatives Mrs H Bates
Non -Voting Co -opted Advisors Dr K Byrne Parent Governor Mr A Robinson Norfolk Governors Network Ms T Rainbow Special Needs Education
1 Apologies and substitutions
1.1 Apologies were received from Mr T Adams (Ms C Bowes substituted); Mr R Smith (Mr T Garrod substituted); Ms C Smith, Secondary Education Rep; Mr A Mash, Church Rep; Ms V Aldous, Primary Education Rep; Mr J Mason, Post 16 Education Rep; Ms S Vertigan, Parent Governor Rep and Mrs A Best White, Schools Forum Rep.
2 Minutes
2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2015 were agreed as an accurate record by the Committee and signed by the Chair.
2.2 Matters arising
2.2.1 The Executive Director of Children’s Services updated the Committee on the latest position with regard to the Parker Review. The Committee noted that meetings had been held with the Norfolk Foster Carers Association (NFCA) and it had been agreed that independent legal advice would be sought and there were also discussions about the possibility of the NFCA nominating a
5 carer to sit on the Panel. The deadline for taking part had also been extended. It was expected that the report would be published in July 2016 and, although additional costs would be incurred, a more independent review would be achieved. The Committee also noted that a couple of the requests made by the NFCA could not be complied with due to data protection rules, for example the request to have access to all files. If the NFCA decided they would not take part, the report was likely to be published earlier than July.
3 Declarations of Interest
Mr B Hannah, Mr R Bearman and Mr B Stone declared an other interest in agenda item 9 as they were Members of Youth Advisory Boards.
4 Items of Urgent Business
The Committee received an update from the Assistant Director Education, about the recent media reports regarding Dereham 6 th Form. The Committee noted that the Governors at the Neathered site had proposed a new and separate 6 th form.
The Chair said it was his belief that the current 6th form in Dereham should remain as it offered a broad range of subjects for students.
Members’ mentioned the difficulties in recruiting trained teaching staff, particularly science and maths teachers, and sought reassurance as to whether a full range of subjects could still be offered to students if the schools decided to split.
The Executive Director of Children’s Schools and the Assistant Director Education said that the Governing Bodies of both sites needed to agree the way forward and reassured Members that the role of Norfolk County Council was to support and challenge.
Members expressed concern about the viability of the proposals, especially the risks around leaving students at risk of a diminished education.
5 Local Member Issues/Member Questions
No Local Member questions were received.
6 Integrated performance and Finance Monitoring Report.
6.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services, reporting performance within Children’s Services department for the period ending 31 January 2016.
6.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:
6 6.2.1 The Head of Education Achievement Service agreed to circulate details of the reasons warning notices had remained in force for two years at one school which was considered not to be improving fast enough.
6.2.2 The Committee was pleased that the participation by children not in education, employment or training (NEET) in training placements had improved. Members were reassured that work was continuing to ensure youngsters were offered training in good placements and asked that some young people be asked to share their views on the placements they attended.
6.2.3 It was expected that, by 31 March 2016, Personal Education Plans (PEPs) would be in place for every looked after child. It was recognised that ambitious, but achievable targets needed to be set and work was being undertaken to achieve this aim. It was hoped that by the beginning of the next term Members would be able to view anonymised examples of PEPs. The Virtual Schools Team was responsible for monitoring the quality of PEPs.
6.2.4 The Committee was reassured that work was taking place to ensure that every PEP had the same level of ambitious and achievable targets.
6.2.5 A PEP Audit tool was being developed in conjunction with Governor Services. It was hoped that training would take place during the summer term for those governors who wished to engage in monitoring the quality of PEPs.
6.2.6 The Committee requested a district by district breakdown of the numbers of social work assessments completed within timescale to be included in the next performance monitoring report.
6.2.7 The Committee was reassured that significant activities had been undertaken to ensure that the importance of Health Assessments was acknowledged and that these assessments were undertaken in a timely manner in future.
6.2.8 Clinical Commissioning Groups were the Commissioners of health assessments with Dr Ian Mack being the lead contact on the commissioning side. Dr Mack was working through the contract with CCGs to ensure its terms were met. It was hoped that this work would lead to an improvement in the health assessment figures in future reports.
6.2.9 Following a proposal from Ms E Corlett, seconded by Mr B Long the Committee agreed to write, in the strongest possible terms, to Clinical Commissioning Groups and providers to reiterate the Committee’s expectations that 100% of looked after children received a timely health assessment.
6.2.10 The Executive Director advised that the proposed looked after children savings would not be met and that other savings would need to be made to achieve a balanced budget. The Committee would receive full details of proposals at a future meeting.
7 6.2.11 The Committee was reassured that PEPs were monitored and tracked regularly.
6.3 The Committee RESOLVED to:
Note the performance management information, including the Dashboard presented in Appendix A of the report.
Note any areas of performance that require a more in-depth analysis.
Confirm the committee’s set of vital signs performance indicators as set out in the report.
The Committee agreed to take agenda item 13 (Looked After Children (LAC and Leaving Care Strategy) as its next item of business.
7 Looked After Children (LAC) and Leav ing Care Strategy
7.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services setting out the Vision for Norfolk looked after children and care leavers, our values and principles, priority areas and described how it was intended to achieve those priorities. The purpose of the document was to give absolute clarity about how it was intended to go about the work with children and their families in Norfolk.
7.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:
7.2.1 The Executive Director confirmed that Dave Hill, the Government appointed Commissioner had seen the document and had supported the Looked After Children and Leaving Care Strategy.
7.2.2 Although impact measures and success criteria would not be included in the strategy, some Members felt these should be included so performance could be monitored, although caution was needed to ensure decisions were not made in order to meet targets.
7.2.3 Members commended the document and were pleased to note that a child focused version would be made available for young people.
7.3 The Committee RESOLVED to:
endorse and support the Looked After Children and Care Leavers Strategy.
8 Norfolk Youth Justice Plan 2016 -17
8.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services updating the Norfolk Youth Justice Plan to outline the actions, risks and opportunities identified to ensure that the desired outcomes for young people and the victims of their crime are achieved by Norfolk Youth Offending Team in 2016-17. The Plan also set out the key external and internal drivers
8 behind this area of the County Council’s work, which was delivered in partnership with the required statutory agencies on the Norfolk Youth Justice Board (Health, Police and Probation) and others such as the County Community Safety Partnership and the Norfolk and Suffolk Criminal Justice Board.
8.2 The Chair informed the Committee that the Youth Justice Board guidance and the Council’s Policy Framework had seen an error in the recommendation, which clarified that, constitutionally, approval of the Norfolk Youth Justice Plan must go through full Council. The Committee agreed to amend the recommendation to read:
Recommendation : that Children’s Services Committee comment on the details contained in the Norfolk Youth Justice Plan 2016-17 and that a final version (taking on board Committee Members comments) be presented to full Council in April for approval.
8.3 During the presentation of the report, the Committee noted that a National Review of the Youth Offending service was under way, which would lead to a change in the funding of the service, although these changes had yet to be clarified. Norfolk Youth Offending Team had commenced a review of its resources, how these were delivered and how the service could be changed to ensure services were delivered in the most effective way in future.
8.4 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:
8.4.1 The Committee requested a briefing note about the effectiveness of interventions for Girls in the Criminal Justice System.
8.4.2 The budget for the Youth Offending Team (YOT) was made up from a Partnership Budget, of which Norfolk County council was one contributor. Other contributors included CCG’s, Norfolk Probation Service, Police and the budget was agreed at a NYOT Management Team meeting annually. The largest source of funding came from the Ministry of Justice.
8.4.3 The formal reporting mechanism for YOT sat with the Health and Wellbeing Board. Children’s Services Committee asked to receive a briefing paper showing the latest information and results.
8.4.4 Links had been established with Parish and Town councils to involve young offenders in unpaid reparation work, although care needed to be taken with regard to health and safety. Whenever possible reparation work was done for the victim of the crime, although this was not always possible if the victim did not wish for this to happen. Norfolk Trails also offered opportunities for young offenders to carry out reparation work.
8.4.5 In cases of non-attendance, formal warnings were issued. After two formal warnings, the young person would need to attend Court for the Court to decide on the next steps.
9 8.5 The Committee RESOLVED that Children’s Services Committee comment on the details contained in the Norfolk Youth Justice Plan 2016-17 and that a final version (taking on board Committee Members comments) be presented to full Council in April for approval.
9 Final report by Members of the Children’s Centres Task and Finish Group (reconvened): How well do Children’s Centres assist in the delivery of healthy child outcomes and contribute to the Healthy Child Programme?
9.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services and the Chair of the Task and Finish Group, Cllr E Corlett, presenting the findings from the Children’s Centres Task and Finish Group which was reconvened to focus upon how Children’s Centres were engaging and delivering activities which support healthy outcomes for children.
9.2 The Committee RESOLVED to:
1. Note the findings within the report. 2. Request Officers to provide detailed performance information relating to Children’s Centres and report to Committee prior to recommendation 3 (this could form part of a Children’s Services performance monitoring report). 3. Consider whether a Task and Finish Group be formed to revisit all aspects of Children’s Centres, including contract management and delivery of all identified outcomes in 9 months with a view to reporting findings to Committee in early 2017. 4. Consider whether Officers should be asked to include references in a future report as to how Children’s Centres and Early Years Settings are working together to assist the delivery of early years outcomes for Norfolk Children. 5. Consider the recommendation from the Director of Public Health that further joint work be done by Children’s Services and Public Health to ensure that appropriate formalised arrangements were in place between Health Visitors and Children’s Centres focusing upon the following: exploring a shared estate, resources and encouraging shared training and performance/ governance arrangements where possible between Providers.
10 Development of a Norfolk Youth Support Model
10.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services outlining changes to the way Children’s Services wished to utilise funding to support young people and building on proposals to remove the Youth Support savings from the budget made by Children’s Services Committee at its meeting on 26 January and agreed at Policy & Resources Committee on 2 February and ratified at full Council on 22 February 2016.
10.2 The Executive Director of Children’s Services reassured the Committee that the proposals in the report were not a final set of proposals, but those the department wished to formally consult on.
10 10.3 Once the results of the consultation were known, Members requested a Member Working Group be set up to agree the most appropriate approach.
10.4 The Committee RESOLVED to agree:
1. Maintenance of the proposed reduction in funding for infrastructure support within the voluntary sector from April 2016. 2. To maintain current contract commitments in respect of Positive Activities and returning the management of Positive Activities commissioning to Norfolk County Council Children’s Services from April 2016.
The Committee RESOLVED to agree to consult on:
3. Ceasing commissioning grants to Youth Advisory Boards (YABs) from April 2017 and establish a consultation and involvement fund for YABs. 4. Re-specifying and recommissioning at the end of current contract at March 2017 for Youth Worker Support to YABs. 5. Extending locality delivery of 5-19 Outreach support for young people from April 2016. 6. Development of involvement activity for groups of young people (Looked After Children and Children with Disabilities. 7. Establishment of a fund for the commissioning of Mental Health, Wellbeing and Behaviour Support for young people as part of the Positive Activities Fund (In addition to the existing Edge of Care and NEET Positive Activities funding) from April 2016.
11 Education Inclusion Strategy: Outlining the emerging strategy and key priorities within the education inclusion service.
11.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services providing a summary of activity within the overall education inclusion strategy; a strategy which encompassed a wide range of statutory duties for the local authority, education providers and partners. The report provided information within five elements of current priority activity – 1. Our emerging strategy and governance; 2. Priority work within the education inclusion service; 3. Budget pressures and mitigations; 4. Service capacity issues and resource solution recommendations; 5. New Ofsted inspection framework.
11.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:
11.2.1 The Education Inclusion Service had been formed to ensure the Local Authority was fully discharging its statutory duties.
11.2.2 Although schools did not have a direct obligation to share data, consultation with the Headteacher Associations was taking place and no difficulties were anticipated in obtaining relevant information.
11.2.3 To ensure home schooling was being carried out effectively, constant monitoring was undertaken. Members were reassured that all reasons given
11 for home education were challenged in order to ensure they were appropriate and legitimate.
11.2.4 The “inclusion barometer” was a self-assessment tool which had been developed to assess and evidence the inclusive nature of all early years settings, schools and colleges to balance support and challenge. It would not be used to RAG rate or rank schools.
11.3 The Committee RESOLVED to
• Note the emerging education inclusion strategy, the current priority areas of work and plans to mitigate both budget pressure and service capacity issues.
• Agree plans to establish formal governance arrangements, via the Children and Young People Strategic Partnership, for a range of current stakeholder and partner working groups.
• Agree to receive further reports regarding our readiness for, and self- evaluation of, our current performance within the new SEND Ofsted Inspection Framework.
12 Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health Task and Finish Group Proposal
12.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services setting out a proposal for a Children’s Services Committee Members’ Task and Finish Review of access to support and interventions for children’s emotional wellbeing and mental health.
12.2 Following a suggestion from Ms E Corlett, the Committee agreed to ask the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to nominate a Member of its Committee to be a Member of the Task and Finish Group.
12.3 The Committee RESOLVED to:
Agree the purpose and objectives of the Task and Finish Review Group proposal – Review of access and support and interventions for children’s emotional wellbeing and mental health.
13 Road Crossing Patrol Service
13.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director, Children’s Services, presenting the options for the provision of a Road Crossing Patrol (RCP) Service in Norfolk following the 2014-15 spending consultation (item 29) when it was agreed that the budget for this service would be decreased by £150k in each of the financial years 15/16 and 16/17.
13.2 The Committee was presented with the following five options for consideration and was asked to agree how they would like Children’s Services to proceed.
12
Option 1. Manage the service within the set budget already set (including in year one-off costs).
Option 2. Continue the service as it was.
Option 3. Continue the service for those sites that still meet the criteria.
Option 4. Stop the service altogether.
Option 5. Subcontract the service.
13.3 During the presentation of the report, the Lead HR and OD Business Partner supporting Children's Services, advised that the Environment, Development and Transport Committee at its meeting on Friday 11 March, had agreed to:
• Approve the future inclusion of ‘School Keep Clear’ carriageway markings when supported by the relevant school as viable bids under the Parish Partnership scheme. Bids would be submitted by the Parish/Town Councils. The Schools would not submit the bid, but could contribute to the 50% minimum funding required.
13.4 The Executive Director of Children’s Services urged the Committee to support Option 3 – Continue the service for those sites that still met the criteria.
13.5 In response to questions from the Committee, the following points were noted:
13.5.1 Independent legal interpretation of the Road Traffic Act in relation to road crossing patrols, had clarified that there was no statutory responsibility to maintain a road crossing patrol service.
13.5.2 Where a road crossing patrol existed, Norfolk County Council was responsible for training, equipment, etc. therefore if volunteers were utilised, Norfolk County Council would need to provide and fund training and equipment, etc.
13.5.3 Schools were not allowed to use their budget to fund a school crossing patrol service.
13.5.4 Members were advised that if option 2 was agreed, some of the sites which currently did not have a school crossing patrol service could request a service citing the fact that some of the sites which currently received a service were no longer eligible.
13 13.5.5 The Police were responsible for issues such as parking and speeding outside schools and any incidents should be reported to them.
13.5.6 Once the road crossing patrol sites had been reviewed, a report would be submitted to the Committee for ratification.
13.5.7 The following Committee Members agreed to take part in the work to review the service to ascertain those sites that met the criteria: Mr P Gilmour Mr B Bremner Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr J Perkins
13.6 The Committee considered the options and RESOLVED to agree Option 3 – Continue the service for those sites that still meet the criteria.
14 Exclusion of the Public
14.1 The Committee considered excluding the public whilst agenda item 15 was discussed and was presented with the following public interest test, as required by the 2006 Access to Information Regulations for consideration by the Committee:
“Exclusion of the press and public in relation to agenda item 15 (School Transport in Exceptional Circumstances) is sought under paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 2 of part 1 of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as it contained specific and very personal information.”
The Committee RESOLVED to exclude the public from the meeting while the report was considered.
15 School Transport in Exceptional Circumstances
15.1 The Committee received the report by the Executive Director of Children’s Services.
15.2 The Committee RESOLVED to:
Grant the Executive Director of Children’s Services delegated authority to confirm transport support in the most exceptional circumstances.
The meeting closed at 1.15pm.
14 Chair
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Customer Services on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
15 Children’s Services Committee Item No…… Report title: Performance Management Report Date of meeting: 10th May 2016 Responsible Chief Michael Rosen Officer: Strategic impact Robust performance and risk management is key to ensuring that the organisation works both efficiently and effectively to develop and deliver services that represent good value for money and which meet identified need.
Executive summary This is the first performance management report to this committee that is based upon the new Performance Management System, which was implemented as of 1 April 2016, and the committee’s 12 vital signs indicators. Like any new approach it may take time to become fully established and our vital signs and/or other indicators may be subject to change as we go forward.
Performance is reported on an exception basis, meaning that only those vital signs that are performing poorly or where performance is deteriorating are presented to committee. Those that do not meet the exception criteria will be available on the Performance section of the Norfolk County Council web site. This is currently under development.
Of the 12 vital signs indicators that fall within the remit of this committee, the following have met the exception criteria and so will be discussed in depth as part of the presentation of this report:
Children in Need (CIN) with an up to date plan Looked After Children (LAC) rate per 10k Rate of re-entry to care LAC with an up to date Personal Education Plan LAC with an up to date Health Assessment
In addition to vital signs performance, we will continue to provide CS Committee with detailed performance information through the Education Scorecard, Early Help Dashboard and the Monthly Management Information (MI) Report (which replaces the Social Work Dashboard).
Members have previously requested locality-level performance information and this will be available on the Members Insight area of the intranet.
Recommendation:
Review and comment on the performance data, information and analysis presented in the vital sign report cards and determine whether the recommended actions identified are appropriate or whether another course of action is required (refer to list of possible actions in Appendix 3).
16 1. Introduction 1.1 This is the first performance management report to this committee that is based upon the revised Performance Management System, which was implemented as of 1 April 2016, and the committee’s 12 vital signs indicators.
1.2 This report contains:
A Red/Amber/Green rated dashboard overview of performance across all 12 vital signs indicators Report cards for those 12 vital signs that have met the exception reporting criteria Report cards for those 12 vital signs that have been identified as being corporately significant and so will be reported, in turn, to the Policy and Resources Committee.
1.3 Performance dashboard (Appendix 1) 1.3.1 The performance dashboard provides a quick overview of Red/Amber/Green rated performance across all 12 vital signs over a rolling 12 month period. This then complements that exception reporting process and enables committee members to check that key performance issues are not being missed.
1.4 Report cards (Appendix 2) 1.4.1 A report card has been produced for each vital sign, as introduced in March’s performance report. It provides a succinct overview of performance and outlines what actions are being taken to maintain or improvement performance. The report card follows a standard format that is common to all committees.
1.4.2 Each vital sign has a lead officer, who is directly accountable for performance, and a data owner, who is responsible for collating and analysing the data on a monthly basis. The names and positions of these people are clearly specified on the report cards.
1.4.3 Vital signs are to be reported to committee on an exceptions basis. The exception reporting criteria are as follows:
Performance is off-target (Red RAG rating or variance of 5% or more) Performance has deteriorated for three consecutive months/quarters/years Performance is adversely affecting the council’s ability to achieve its budget Performance is adversely affecting one of the council’s corporate risks.
1.4.4 Performance is reported on an exception basis using a report card format, meaning that only those vital signs that are performing poorly or where performance is deteriorating are presented to committee. To enable Members to have oversight of performance across all vital signs, all report cards will be made available to view through Members Insight. To give further transparency to information on performance, for future meetings it is intended to make these available in the public domain through the Council’s website. . 1.5 Recommendation 1.5.1 For each vital sign that has been reported on an exceptions basis, Committee Members are asked to:
17 Review and comment on the performance data, information and analysis presented in the vital sign report cards and determine whether the recommended actions identified are appropriate or whether another course of action is required.
1.5.2 In support of this, Appendix 3 provides some example lines of enquiry.
2. Support For Education Improvement (Scorecard at Appendix 4) 2.1 All schools and academies were asked to provide an update to the forecasted attainment at the end of Early Years Foundation Stage, Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4. Most schools have submitted updated data, but this is dependent on school and academy trust data collection timetables.
2.2 As expected, Early Years Foundation Stage forecasts have increased significantly and 67% of pupils are expected to achieve a Good Level of Development at the end of Reception Year, which would represent a 2% improvement on 2015 figures.
2.3 At Key Stage 2, there is more clarity about the requirements for writing teacher assessment than was available in December; this has caused some schools to significantly revise their assessment of which pupils are working at the expected standard. There is a slight increase in the percentage of pupils working at age related expectations currently to 66%. It is not possible for schools to predict if pupils will meet the expected standard on the Key Stage 2 tests, and different schools and trusts are using different methodologies. We need to use great caution in drawing any tentative conclusions from this data set.
2.4 Key Stage 4 forecasts for achieving the basics of English and Mathematics are very similar to those submitted in December so remain positive in most districts. The March forecasts for Attainment 8 are slightly lower than in December. This is the first year that schools will have submitted data for Attainment 8, and the relative progress indicator Progress 8 and tracking attainment towards it is far more complex than the straightforward grade C or better in English and Mathematics.
2.5 Performance for March 2016 in participation and NEET is broadly in line with, or slightly better, than national performance. The data for 2016 shows that the profile of NEET across the county has changed since 2015. In 2015 the percentage of NEET was significantly higher in Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn than elsewhere in the county. In 2016 the difference between the highest and lowest percentage NEET is much smaller across the county except for a spike of high NEET in Norwich. This is due in part to the introduction in December 2015 of new NEET provision in Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn, Breckland and North Norfolk.
2.6 Participation at 16 remains slightly better than national and whilst participation at 17 is lower than national, the rate of improvement is significantly higher than the national rate of improvement with a four percentage point increase from 2015.
2.7 The percentage of young people whose status is not known has risen since February but we expect a decrease in the next three months due to improved data sharing processes. The percentage of young people who re-engage from NEET into education, employment or training is lower than national which indicates room for improvement in identifying and placing young people into provision. 18
2.8 The Local Authority continues to closely monitor the attendance of all Norfolk looked after children and intervenes where appropriate.
2.9 Permanent exclusion figures overall are higher than at this time last year. There has been an increase in the number of looked after children excluded since September 2015.
2.10 Ofsted outcomes for Early Years settings are above the national average overall. The outcomes for Breckland are the weakest. However the current percentage judged good or outstanding has improved significantly in the last two years. Engagement with the local authority has been positive and an Adviser Early Years has been allocated to each of the schools that Require Improvement. There is a particular focus in Thetford on transitions between settings and schools in order to improve outcomes for children.
2.11 Ofsted outcomes for primary schools continue to improve and there has been some increase in the number of school inspections in the last six weeks. The percentage judged good or outstanding in Norfolk is 85%, the same as the published provisional national data for 31st March 2016. The percentage judged by Ofsted to require improvement has now dropped to 14% compared to 13% nationally and the percentage graded by Ofsted as inadequate is currently zero.
2.12 Ofsted outcomes for secondary schools declined slightly with the inspection outcome of 1 school but remains close to the national average.
2.13 Dereham Neatherd has been issued with an LA warning Notice in the light of proposals to withdraw from the current Dereham Sixth Form provision 3. Early Help (Dashboard at Appendix 5) Highlights in respect of Early Help and Family Focus:
3.1 March saw a 13% increase against the average number of referrals received into Early Help over the last twelve months. Since the last report new referrals have increased to 217 in March, however at our peak in February we received 396.
3.2 There were 932 active cases to Early Help and Family Focus in March. This represents an 8.4% increase per team and a 116% increase in total, compared with Q1 in 2015. In total there are 2771 Family Support Plans in place across Norfolk worked with by Children’s Services and partner organisations. An increase of 5.4% from our last report.
3.3 While our main source of requests are from schools, there has been an increase in referrals from Health professionals, such as midwives and health visitors. There has also been an increase in self referrals via MASH
3.4 March saw 7 cases transferring from Social Care (Step Downs).
3.5 Families are continuing to access on-going support once their agreed outcomes have been met. There were 133 families accessing the supporting progress service (previously monitoring support), in March. This is a further increase since our last report to Committee (130 in February). 407 Cases have been supported through the service since its conception in February 2015.
19 4. Social Work (MI Report at Appendix 6) 4.1 Contacts, Referrals and Assessments 4.1.1 The number of contacts continues to fluctuate month-to-month. We are hopeful that the recent launch of a revised threshold guide will support a sustained reduction in the overall volume of contacts and a corresponding increase in conversion of contacts to referrals.
4.1.2 The percentage of assessments authorised in March fell slightly from February and leaves us slightly lower than the statistical neighbour average (SNA). Members requested an update on the Breckland assessment performance for this meeting and we are pleased to report significant improvement in the last few weeks. However, this will not show in the performance data until the next report to committee.
4.2 Children In Need (CIN) 4.2.1 CIN with a visit in timescale fell slightly from February to March and currently sits at 73%. The County figure masks considerable locality variation and are we are currently investigating the causes of this variation in order that targeted action can be taken to rectify the variation and improve the overall performance.
4.3 Child Protection (CP) 4.3.1 The total number of children subject to a CP plan has fallen to 454 and the corresponding rate per 10k puts Norfolk in the top quartile for performance.
4.3.2 The percentage of children subject to CP plans who have been seen in timescale has fallen very slightly (by 0.5%) and whilst we still compare favourably with our statistical neighbours, we are aware that further focus in this area is required in order for us to attain top quartile performance.
4.4 Looked After Children (LAC) 4.3.1 Performance remains strong in the two placement stability indicators (3 or more placements in any one year & same placement for 12+ months). As the Permanence Panel and Review Groups are fully embedded, we envisage further strengthening of performance in this area.
4.3.2 LAC seen in timescale remains high at 94% with all Localities returning performance of 90%+ and Great Yarmouth achieving 100% for March.
4.5 Care Leavers 4.4.1 Pathway Plan completion across all three categories of care leavers is in excess of 80%. The completion rate for eligible care leavers is currently 85% but the completion rate for pathway plan needs assessments for that group of young people is 95% and we need to understand the blocks to those needs assessments being converted into plans.
4.4.2 More than 80% of relevant and former relevant care leavers were contacted in March. 5. Financial Implications (Appendix 7) There are no significant financial implications arising from the development of the revised performance management system or the performance and risk monitoring reports.
5.1 This report provides an update on performance and finance outturn information for the 2015/16 financial year. 20
5.2 The report sets out the financial outturn data for the period ending 31 March 2016.
5.3 The report sets out the variations between the approved budget for 2015/16 and the actual spending during the year. These are described below in Appendix D. The overall financial position covers the Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions.
5.4 The main financial points within the paper are:
The Children’s Services revenue budget shows a £3.318 million overspend for the year, (compared to £4.177 million at the end of period 10). The Schools Budget variations are contained within the approve contingency fund. The Children’s Services capital budget shows a projected balanced budget for the year. The level of school balances at 31 March 2016 is £21.982 million. The level balances and provisions at 31 March 2016 is £17.269 million 5.5 In order to address the overspend, a number of corrective actions were taken, as set out in Appendix D. It is important to note that this is not distracting from the focus required to deliver the ongoing savings, particularly the new approach to achieving permanence for Looked after Children. As a number of the corrective actions resulted in a one off impact in this financial year it is key that the focus on our looked after children remains, to ensure an ongoing sustainable budget and to ensure better outcomes for children.
6. Issues, risks and innovation (Appendix 8/9) There are no significant issues, risks and innovations arising from the development of the new performance management system or the performance and risk monitoring reports.
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with:
Performance: Officer name : Don Evans Tel No. : 01603 223909 Email address : [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
21
Vital Signs Dashboard – see appendix 1
22
Appendix 2
Report Cards for indicators meeting exceptions reporting criteria
23 Section 17 Children in Need (CIN) with an up-to-date CIN Plan Why is this important? Our Section 17 CIN services are designed to support and empower families to make changes enabling them to thrive and meet any challenges / difficulties via their own reserves and/or use of universal services. A good quality CIN Plan that is regularly updated to reflect the changing needs of children and families is essential in achieving this outcome. Performance What is the background to current performance? Percentage of Section 17 CIN with up-to-date CIN Plan: Our current reporting expectations are that a CIN plan review should take place at a minimum of 6 weekly intervals. However, statutory guidance offers no minimum timescale (unlike for LAC 97.5% and CP) and other LAs report this indicator on a 12-weekly frequency. This longer window ensures that any intervention being undertaken has had sufficient time to deliver positive impact for the 76.4% family, which isn’t always apparent in a 6-week window.
57.1% To ensure that the emphasis of reporting is on impact and that our 50% data is comparable with other LAs we intend to move to a 12-week frequency for performance reports going forward.
We expect to see a measurable increase in performance as a Jul
Jul result of this change in frequency and an update will be given at
Jan Jan
Jun Jun
Oct Oct
Apr Apr
Sep Feb Sep Feb
Dec Dec
Aug Aug
Nov Nov
Mar Mar May May Committee. 13/ 14/ 2015/16 2016/17 14 15 Norfolk Trend Target Trajectory Action required Liaise with colleagues in BIPS to amend the reporting frequency. What will success look like? Continue to ensure that appropriate management focus is All CIN and their families will have a plan that details their needs and the maintained on CIN performance and effective action is taken to support they will receive to meet those needs achieve the year end target. Performance will be in line with the top performing 25% of local authorities in England. The target is for 97.5% of Section 17 Children in Need have a timely CIN Plan by the end of March 2017.
Responsible Officers Lead: Cathy Mouser Data: Don Evans
24
Rate of re-entry to care - Percentage of children starting to be looked after who have previously been looked after Why is this important? Where it is safe to do so, sustained reunification with family is our primary aim for Looked After Children. The rate of re-entry to care is a key indicator of the extent to which the service is achieving its aims Performance What is the background to current performance? Percentage children starting to be looked-after who have previously been The apparent increase in March 2016 can be explained by two looked-after: sibling groups, who had both previously ceased to be looked-after in April 2014 being readmitted to care. The overall trend for re-entry to care has been downwards (i.e. improving) since 2014/15, with most months seeing performance at or below target, indicating the quality of reunification work is improving, or maintaining a good level, and that families are being supported to remain together either by universal , early help or lower-level social care services. 16.0% 15.3%
14.5% 15%
Jul Jul
Jan Jan
Jun Jun
Oct Oct
Apr Apr
Sep Feb Sep Feb
Dec Dec
Aug Aug
Nov Nov
Mar Mar
May May 13/ 14/ 2015/16 2016/17 Action required 14 15 Norfolk Trend Target Trajectory Fully embed the Permanence Panel and Review Groups. What will success look like? Continue to improve quality of reunification work with children and families. Families who are reunited will stay safely together and thrive Ensure identified wrap-around services for children who have been reunified are in place and accessible for families. LAC will achieve permanence In data terms 15% or less of children starting to be looked-after will previously have been in care.
Responsible Officers Lead: Cathy Mouser Data: Don Evans
25
Percentage of School-Aged Looked-After Children with an up-to-date Personal Education Plan (PEP) Why is this important?
Performance What is the background to current performance? Percentage of School-Aged Children with up-to-date PEP: A poor system and historic lack of ownership of the PEP has lead to unacceptably low completion rates and/or poor quality. The County completion rate masks considerable locality variation 97.5% Considerable focus has been given to the PEP process, including the development of an e-PEP. 81.5% 86.2% 73.5% We have moved from a requirement for PEPs to be reviewed
every 6 months to PEPs being reviewed termly.
Jul Jul
Jan Jan
Jun Jun
Oct Oct
Apr Apr
Sep Feb Sep Feb
Dec Dec
Aug Aug
Nov Nov
Mar Mar
May May 13/ 14/ 2015/16 2016/17 14 15 Action required Norfolk Trend Target Trajectory Fully embed the e-PEP process and continually review/update the What will success look like? process as required Continue to challenge areas of poor performance and/or locality variation. LAC will be effectively supported to reach their educational potential At 97.5% our performance will be in line with the top performing 25% of local authorities in England. However, our ambition is to reach 100%
Responsible Officers Lead: Cathy Mouser Data: Don Evans
26
LAC with an up to date Health Assessment Why is this important? Looked-After Children are among the most vulnerable in our society, a great many of whom have experienced neglect or abuse. Regular Health Assessments ensure that any emerging health issues are identified and appropriately managed. Performance What is the background to current performance? Percentage of LAC for 12+ months with up-to-date Health Assessment: The overall performance figure masks a distinct split between Initial Health Assessments (IHA) and reviews. 97.5% There has been long-standing systemic problems both within Children’s Services (CS) and Health in relation to IHAs. A business process reengineering exercise has significantly improved CS’ performance in making HA requests within the target 85.7% 84.4% 5 days
81.9%
Jul Jul
Jan Jan
Jun Jun
Oct Oct
Apr Apr
Sep Feb Sep Feb
Dec Dec
Aug Aug
Nov Nov
Mar Mar
May May 13/ 14/ 2015/16 2016/17 14 15 Action required
Norfolk Trend Target Trajectory Continue to address any areas of poor performance and/or locality variation around timescales for making HA requests. What will success look like? Robustly challenge colleagues in Health to deliver the required service level. Children’s health needs will be identified at the earliest possible opportunity and effective plans will ensure those needs are met. Performance will be in line with the top performing 25% of local authorities in England. The target is for 97.5% of children who have been looked-after for 12 or more months to have had a timely Health Assessment by the end of March 2016. Responsible Officers Lead: Cathy Mouser Data: Don Evans 27 Appendix 3 Performance discussions and actions
Reflecting good performance management practice, there are some helpful prompts that can help scrutinise performance, and guide future actions. These are set out below.
Suggested prompts for performance improvement discussion In reviewing the vital signs that have met the exception reporting criteria and so included in this report, there are a number of performance improvement questions that can be worked through to aid the performance discussion, as below:
1. Why are we not meeting our target? 2. What is the impact of not meeting our target? 3. What performance is predicted? 4. How can performance be improved? 5. When will performance be back on track? 6. What can we learn for the future?
In doing so, committee members are asked to consider the actions that have been identified by the vital sign lead officer.
28 Appendix 7
1. Revenue – Local Authority Budget
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.
Movement Approved +Over/- +Over/ - since last Division of budget Outturn Underspend Underspend service as % of report budget £m £m £m £m Spending
Increases
Looked After Children - 5.163 9.006 +3.843 +74 Agency Residential
Looked After Children - 14.206 15.790 +1.584 +11 Agency Fostering
In-house LAC 7.934 8.848 +0.777 +10 -0.137 fostering
Staying-put 0.000 0.338 +0.338 n/a +0.008 fostering
Residence/ kinship 2.713 3.223 +0.510 +19 +0.060 payments
Fostering 0.092 0.099 +0.007 +8 Recruitment
Adoption 0.657 0.787 +0.130 +20 Family Finding
Leaving Care 2.427 3.200 +0.773 +32
Agency social Workers and 0.675 1.395 +0.720 +107 NIPE
Clinical 0.423 0.494 +0.071 +17 +0.071 Commissioning
Mainstream Home to 22.462 22.822 +0.360 +2 +0.360 School transport
29 Movement Approved +Over/- +Over/ - since last Division of budget Outturn Underspend Underspend service as % of report budget £m £m £m £m Post 16 Home to School 3.244 3.407 +0.163 +5 +0.163 transport
Spending
Reductions
Looked After 3.670 3.335 -0.304 -8 +0.031 Children Legal
Information, Advice and 0.684 0.534 -0.150 -22 Guidance Service
Early Years and Childcare 3.766 3.116 -0.650 -17 -0.250 Service
Business 3.690 3.515 -0.175 -5 Support
Primary 0.409 0.233 -0.176 -43 computing
Locality 0.421 0.211 -0.210 -50 -0.050 Coordinators
School staff Retirement 3.743 3.677 -0.066 -2 +0.010 scheme
Educational Psychology 0.998 0.730 -0.268 -27 -0.168 Service Support for Children with 2.992 2.562 -0.430 -14 -0.130 disabilities Children’s 4.953 4.803 -0.150 -3 -0.150 Homes Boarding 0.319 0.275 -0.044 -14 -0.123 Pathfinder Social Care Special 0.105 0.023 -0.082 -78 -0.082 Purposes grants Early Help 1.110 0.610 -0.500 -45 investment
30 Movement Approved +Over/- +Over/ - since last Division of budget Outturn Underspend Underspend service as % of report budget £m £m £m £m School Intervention 0.788 0.693 -0.095 -12 -0.095 Service Other minor 0.000 -0.177 -0.177 n/a -0.027 savings
Sub Total +5.799 -0.509 One off corrective actions Vacancy -0.700 -0.700 n/a -0.350 management 2 year old trajectory 0.000 -1.000 -1.000 n/a funding Use of conditional 0.000 -0.781 -0.781 n/a - grants and reserves Sub Total -2.481 -0.350
Total 3.318 -0.859
The main reasons for the variances are shown in the following table:-
Division of service +Over/- Reasons for variance from budget Underspend £m Spending Increases Looked After +3.843 Number of Looked After Children residential Children (LAC) - agency placements are not reducing as Agency Residential quickly as originally planned. (Target is 7% placements of the total number of Looked After Children). Looked After +1.584 Number of Looked After Children Children (LAC) - agency fostering placements not reducing Agency Fostering as quickly as originally planned. (379 placements compared with a January target of 298) In-house LAC +0.777 Increased cost as a result of accreditation Fostering and temporary fostering arrangements for family and friends in preparation for residence/kinship. Staying-put Fostering +0.338 Additional net cost of “staying put” policy. Government grant of £0.180 million Residence/ kinship +0.510 Additional number and cost of residence/ payments kinship payments Fostering Recruitment +0.007 Additional cost of fostering recruitment Adoption Family +0.130 Additional cost of purchasing adoption Finding out-county placements 31 Division of service +Over/- Reasons for variance from budget Underspend £m Leaving Care +0.773 Additional cost of care leavers independent living support Agency social +0.720 Additional costs of agency social workers workers and NIPE and the Norfolk Institute of Private Excellence (NIPE) Clinical +0.071 Additional support packages for young Commissioning People who are on the edge of care. +0.360 Additional number of transported pupils Mainstream Home to and additional costs of pupils with School transport Special Education Needs, Post 16 Home to +0.163 Additional cost of Special Education School transport Needs Post 16 students
Spending Reductions Looked After Children -0.304 Reduced cost of LAC legal services Legal Information, Advice -0.150 Savings on staff vacancies and running and Guidance costs Service Early Years and -0.650 Savings on staff vacancies & running Childcare Service costs; additional Early Years traded income and savings on the Sustainability Fund to support early years providers. Business Support -0.175 Savings on staff vacancies and additional lettings income Primary computing -0.176 Capitalisation of school broadband costs
Locality Coordinators -0.210 Additional school non-attendance court fine income
School staff -0.066 Reduced cost of school staff redundancies Retirement scheme Educational -0.268 Increased trading has resulted in a higher Psychology Service than budgeted income amount, this has been built into next year’s budget. Support for Children -0.430 There is an underspend on the budget for with disabilities support costs for children with disabilities, as a result of the more direct work being undertaken by the children with disabilities teams, This has been built into the future years budgets. Children’s Homes -0.150 Income received from CCGs to support the health needs of young people in care. Boarding Pathfinder -0.044 Reduced number of Boarding Pathfinder placements Social Care Special -0.082 Reduced spend on special purposes for Purposes grants young people in foster care Early Help -0.500 Reduced cost of commissioning work as investment more direct work being undertaken by the Early Help teams School Intervention -0.095 Reduced cost of associates used to support Service the intervention in schools Other minor savings -0.177 Several other minor savings across Children’s Services less than £20,000 per saving
32 Division of service +Over/- Reasons for variance from budget Underspend £m One off corrective actions Vacancy -0.700 Vacancy management was implemented Management across the department with all vacancies being considered by the DCS to ensure that in the short term only business critical vacancies are recruited into. 2 year old trajectory -1.000 A number of activities undertaken by the funding early years teams are being funded by the residual of the funding that was received to increase early years places and uptake. Maximisation of -0.781 Ensuring that where applicable revenue grants and reserves costs are funded by unconditional grants and reserves
2. 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.
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.
Movement Approved +Over/- +Over/ - Outturn since last Division of budget Underspend Underspend service as % of report budget £m £m £m £m Independent and non- 12.362 15.398 +3.036 25 +0.436 maintained education Alternative Education 1.956 2.856 +0.900 46 provision Special 24.370 25.270 +0.900 4 Schools Schools 1.800 1.300 -0.635 35 -0.135 contingency Suspended 0.320 0.186 -0.134 42 -0.014 school staff School maternity 1.124 1.071 -0.053 5 -0.053 staff E Learning 0.107 0.010 -0.097 91 -0.097 service 33 Movement Approved +Over/- +Over/ - Outturn since last Division of budget Underspend Underspend service as % of report budget £m £m £m £m Minority Achievement 0.725 0.671 -0.054 7 -0.054 & Attainment Service Dedicated Schools 0.000 -3.863 -3.863 n/a -0.083 Grant reserve
The main reasons for the variances are shown in the following table:-
Division of service +Over/- Reasons for variance from budget Underspend £m Independent and +3.036 Additional cost and number (from 357 to non-maintained 361) of children placed with independent education and non-maintained education providers. Alternative Education +0.900 Increase in top up funding to the Short Stay provision School for Norfolk as a result of the increased number of school exclusions Special Schools +0.900 Funding additional 41 places in Norfolk’s special schools from September 2015 Schools contingency -0.635 Less use of schools’ contingency to fund rate revaluations and exceptional circumstances Suspended school -0.134 Reduced number and cost of school staff suspended staff School maternity staff -0.053 Reduced number of school staff on Maternity leave E Learning service -0.097 Additional school traded income Minority Achievement -0.054 Reduced running costs & Attainment Service Dedicated Schools -3.863 Use Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Grant (DSG) reserve reserve to fund the above net variances
3. Schools Balances
The Scheme for Financing Schools in Norfolk sets out the local framework within which delegated financial management is undertaken. School accounts have been closed and balances reconciled. This paragraph sets out in summary terms the position of Norfolk schools balances at 31 March 2016 and compares them with balances at 31 March 2015.
Balance Redistribution Mechanism
Schools are able to hold revenue balances for:-
School contingency funding, not exceeding 8% of the final budget share or £20,000, whichever is the greater. An exception based on school by school justification.
34 Surpluses derived from sources other than the budget share e.g. YPLA sixth form funding, contributions from parents for school trips where expenditure will not be incurred until the following year or surpluses arising from providing community facilities. Unspent cluster fund activities. In exceptional circumstances, with the authorisation of the Head of Schools Finance, where an individual allocation amounting to more than 1% of the final budget share was allocated after 1st February. Voluntary Aided schools are allowed to hold revenue monies to fund governors’ liabilities towards DFE grant aided capital work.
Table 1 compares the value of school balances at 31 March 2016 with 31 March 2015
Change between at 31/03/15 at 31/03/16 years
Closed Academised schools Overspe schools - balance School Balance nd Total balance at at Balance Overspe Total Balance Overspe type (£,000) (£000) (£000) 31/03/15 31/03/15 (£,000) nd (£000) (£000) (£,000) nd (£000)
Nurseries 103 1 102 0 0 103 0 103 0 -1 Primary 15,038 644 14,394 526 19 16,170 248 15,921 1,677 -396 Secondary 3,530 302 3,228 110 0 2,517 40 2,477 -903 -262 Special 1,213 0 1,213 0 0 1,310 137 1,173 97 137
Partnerships 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 -5 -4 Clusters 3,231 0 3,231 0 0 2,328 20 2,308 -902 20 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 23,120 952 22,168 637 19 22,427 446 21,982 -37 -506
Table 2 snows the average level of positive and negative balances held by Norfolk schools analysed by school type.
Balance Overspend Total Type of school (£,000) (£000) (£000) Nursery 34 0 34 Primary 62 12 50 Secondary 180 20 160 Special 146 137 8 Parnerships 0 0 0 Clusters 51 7 44 Total 68 17 61
Table 3 shows by each type of school the level of balances compared with the overall budget
Position at Type of School 31/3/16 (%) Nursery 12.10 Primary 7.41 Secondary 4.20 Special 5.40 Partnerships 0.00 Clusters 24.20 All Schools 7.17 35
Table 4 compares the number of schools with surplus and deficit balances at 31 March 2016 with 31 March 2015
Change between at 31/03/15 at 31/03/16 years
No. of schools Closed / No. of Amalgamat schools ed / Academised Federated School Overspe in year at in year at Oversp Balance Oversp type Balance nd Total 31/03/15 31/03/15 Balance end Total (£,000) end
Nurseries 2 1 3 0 0 3 0 3 1 -1 Primary 284 21 305 16 11 260 20 280 3 -1 Secondary 17 2 19 3 0 14 2 16 0 0 Special 10 0 10 0 0 9 1 10 -1 1
Partnerships 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Clusters 49 0 49 0 0 46 3 49 -3 3 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 363 25 388 19 12 332 27 359 0 2
4. 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 2015 and the projected balances at 31 March 2016.
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 Balance at Variance Reason for variance 01-04-15 31-03-16 £m £m £m Schools Transport Days 0.655 0.756 +0.101 Reduced number of Equalisation home to school/college Fund transport days in the 2015/16 financial year as a result of the timing of Easter. Dedicated 10.227 5.547 -4.680 Use of two year old Schools Grant trajectory funding to (DSG) reserve ensure sufficient places & take up (£1.000 million); funding DSG net overspends (£3.863 million) and additional contribution to the school shared energy savings scheme
36 Title/description Balance at Balance at Variance Reason for variance 01-04-15 31-03-16 £m £m £m Schools Non- 1.355 0.933 -0.422 These are school funds Teaching held on behalf of schools Activities Building 0.549 1.157 +0.608 These are school funds Maintenance held on behalf of schools Partnership Pool School 1.154 1.273 +0.119 These are school funds Sickness held on behalf of schools Insurance Scheme School Playing 0.239 0.273 +0.034 These are school funds surface sinking held on behalf of schools fund Education 0.015 0.015 -0.000 Provision for Holiday Pay Non BMPP 1.044 1.169 +0.125 These are school funds Building held on behalf of schools Maintenance Fund Norfolk PFI 2.111 2.349 +0.238 Additional school Sinking Fund contributions to the fund
Schools total 17.349 13.472 -3.877
Children’s Services IT Earmarked 0.305 0.222 -0.083 Use of reserves to fund Reserves IT schemes Repairs and 0.153 0.200 +0.047 Additional contribution Renewals Fund to the fund for replacement of equipment in future years Grants and 4.385 2.885 -1.500 2014-15 and 2015-16 Contributions government grants and contributions to be spent in 2015-16 and 2016-17 Children's 0.560 0.490 -0.070 Use of reserves to Services post support Children’s Ofsted Services service Improvement improvement Fund
Children’s 5.403 3.797 -1.606 Services total
Total 22.752 17.269 -5.483
37 Children's Services Committee - Vital Signs Dashboard
NOTES: Indicators are usually reported on a monthly, calendar year or financial year basis, the colour of the different headings below corresponds with the colour of the indicator title. Green is in line with high performing authorities; Amber within 10% (not percentage points) of high performing authorities; Red being more than 10% worse than high performing authorities. The target displays the latest target from the latest period shown. That target may be different from the target for the latest actual value shown due to profiling. Column24 Column25 Column26 Column27 Column28 Column29 Column30 Column31 Column33 Column34 Column35 Column36 Column37 Column38 Column39 Column40 Bigger or Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Smaller is Target Monthly 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 better Percentage of Referrals into Early Help Services who have had a referral to Smaller Early Help in the previous 12 months Percentage of Referrals into Section 17 CIN Services who have had a Smaller 8.0%7.7%7.4%<15% referral to S.17 CIN in the previous 12 months Percentage of Children Starting a Child Protection Plan who have previously Smaller 18.0% 6.2% 14.6% 15.2% 20.7% 5.9% 0.0% 3.3% 5.6% 5.1% 14.8% 7.3% 3.5% <15% been subject to a Child Protection Plan (within in last 2 years) Percentage of Children Starting to be looked-after who have previously been Smaller 17.4% 22.7% 9.7% 17.2% 10.9% 12.9% 13.8% 11.8% 20.0% 13.2% 10.0% 21.1% 31.4% <15% looked-after S.17 Child in Need (CIN) with up to date Bigger 62.0% 56.0% 58.4% 65.6% 66.0% 47.7% 46.2% 44.3% 46.4% 54.4% 58.4% 56.7% 57.1% 100% CIN Plan Child Protection (CP) - % children seen Bigger 76.0% 80.4% 75.4% 79.9% 83.7% 80.9% 74.9% 68.1% 83.7% 82.7% 83.1% 89.7% 89.2% 100% within 20 working days
LAC with up to date Care Plan Bigger 94.3% 94.1% 92.1% 90.4% 92.2% 91.6% 90.7% 90.4% 94.1% 91.5% 94.9% 94.3% 95.2% 100%
LAC with up to date Personal Bigger 86.5% 84.5% 78.2% 76.7% 75.2% 73.1% 63.5% 59.9% 64.2% 67.1% 73.5% 73.5% 100% Education Plan (PEP) LAC with up to date Health Assessment Bigger 76.4% 78.5% 76.9% 78.8% 77.7% 77.3% 77.3% 78.0% 76.3% 76.0% 76.0% 81.9% 81.9% 100% (HA) Eligible Care Leavers with up to date Bigger 77.3% 79.6% 75.8% 68.6% 76.8% 79.4% 78.7% 81.1% 86.4% 76.7% 81.1% 85.9% 84.9% 100% Pathway Plan Bigger or Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Smaller is Target Quarterly 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 better Rate of Looked-After Children per Smaller 68.4 66.5 64.5 64.1 64.0 63.6 63.1 62.5 <55 10,000 of the overall 0-17 population Increase the percentage of education establishments judged good or better Bigger 71.0% 80.0% >86% by Ofsted
Supported by BIPS Page 1 of 1 https://norfolkcounty.sharepoint.com/teams/vital‐signs/Dashboard/Vital_Signs_Dashboard.xlsb 38 03/05/2016
April 2016
Norfolk Children’s Services Education Improvement Plan Scorecard
A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner 2014 – 2016
Phase 2 – Embedding the Local Authority Strategy for Supporting School Improvement
SCORECARD
The Local Authority has 4 key strategic aims which underpin the support provided to settings, schools and colleges. The support for school improvement sits within a broader ambition of ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’. The four key aims are to:
Aim 1: Raise Standards at all Key Stages Aim 2: Increase proportion of schools judged good or better Aim 3: Improve leadership and management Aim 4: Improve monitoring and evaluation of impact
(This scorecard reflects measurable data for Aim 1 and Aim 2 for routine monitoring purposes)
1
39
Performance Monitoring – Against LA High Level Strategic Targets for Improvement
Aim 1: Raise Standards at all Key Stages
Data is collected each half term from all Norfolk schools. The data collected from these schools is analysed school by school by the Education Achievement Service and an interpretation is sent back to the school with comments.The Education Intervention Service then follow up with schools of concern to quality assure the data provided.
Each school’s data is aggregated to calculate an overall percentage in order to monitor to the impact of intervention and support on the overall trajectory to meet 2016 targets.
Aim 2: Increase the proportion of schools judged good or better
Outcomes from school inspections are monitored weekly. A report is provided to the Assistant Director of Children’s Services showing the impact of Norfolk inspections on our trajectory towards our 2016 targets. Further analysis is undertaken to show the impact of intervention, challenge and support on inspection outcomes by LA risk category.
Key Green Performance is in line with national or better *Latest – represents the latest value and rating available at the time of reporting + Performance above national Amber Performance is off-track (up to 4% below national) Red Performance is well below national (more than 4% below national) ↑ / ↓ Improvement / decline from 2014 Norfolk outcomes Frequency of reporting is given against each measure - available Monthly [M], Quarterly [Q], Bi-annually [B] or Annually [A], some measures with © against are cumulative figures so data Frequency cannot be compared month to month as numbers will always increase.
2
40
Aim 1: Raise Standards at all Key Stages
1.1 Improve Early Years outcomes - % Achieving A Good Level of Development
Percentages represent the percentage of pupils.
FSM = Pupils eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last 6 years
All = All pupils in the cohort
2015 predictions are derived from half termly report card data collected from all schools
Results School forecasts 2015 - 2016 Result
Improvement 2013 2014 2015 December 2015 March 2016 July 2016 since 2014 All 46 58 ↑ 65 ↑ +7 61 ↓ 67↑ Norfolk FSM 32 43 ↑ 51 ↑ +8 46 ↓ 51↑ All 41 58 ↑ 64 ↑ +6 59 ↓ 68 ↑ 68↑ Breckland FSM 28 49+ ↑ 47 ↓ -2 44 ↓ 50↓ All 52 60 ↑ 69 + ↑ +9 60 ↓ 69+ Broadland FSM 37 + 41 ↑ 48 ↑ +7 47 ↓ 52+ ↑ Great Yarmouth All 40 57 ↑ 61 ↑ +4 57 ↓ 63 ↑ FSM 32 48+ ↑ 53 + ↑ +5 40 ↓ 52↓ All 47 61+ ↑ 66 ↑ +5 61 ↓ 68↓ Kings Lynn & West FSM 34 43 ↑ 54 + ↑ +11 42 ↓ 54 All 38 51 ↑ 62 ↑ +11 53 ↓ 61↓ Norwich FSM 28 38 ↑ 48 ↑ +10 40 ↓ 47↓ All 48 57 ↑ 62 ↑ +5 62 65+↑ North FSM 37+ 45 ↑ 52 + ↑ +7 49 ↓ 46↓ All 55+ 60 ↑ 70 + ↑ +10 68 ↓ 75+ ↑ South FSM 32 42 ↑ 51 ↑ +9 52 ↑ 60+ ↑ National All pupils 52 60 ↑ 66 ↑ +6 FSM 36 45 ↑ 51 +6
In order to track the progress in closing the gap with national averages - the colour coding relates to the Norfolk gaps to national average .
We did not collect FSM data in autumn term 1 (Schools should compare the FSM gap with pupils who are not FSM – and not to the average for All children. So it is advisable not to calculate the gap between FSM and All children)
3
41
1.2: Improve Outcomes at Key Stage 2 - % Achieving a Level 4+ in Reading, Writing and Mathematics - UP TO SUMMER 2015
Percentages represent the percentage of pupils.
FSM = Pupils eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last 6 years
All = All pupils in the cohort
2015 predictions are derived from half termly report card data from all schools. They do not include special schools whereas final published outcomes do.
2015 Predictions Results Summer 2015 2013 2014 Aut 1 Aut 2 Spr 1 Spr 2 Imp since 2014 (validated) Norfolk All 71 74 ↑ 75 ↑ 76 ↑ 78 78 76↑ +2
FSM 55 59 ↑ 62 ↑ 63 ↑ 67 ↑ 67 ↑ 63↑ +4 Breckland All 64 68 ↑ 68 69 ↑ 68 69 ↑ 70 ↑ +2 FSM 48 51 ↑ 57 ↑ 55 ↑ 54 ↑ 55 ↑ 57 ↑ +6 Broadland All 78+ 82+ ↑ 83+ ↑ 84 +↑ 84 +↑ 84 +↑ 83 +↑ +1 FSM 67+ 69+ ↑ 70+ ↑ 73 +↑ 71 +↑ 71 +↑ 71 +↑ +2 Great Yarmouth All 65 74 ↑ 72 ↓ 74 ↑ 76 ↑ 75 ↑ 73↓ -1 FSM 55 62 ↑ 58 ↓ 65 ↑ 65 ↑ 65 ↑ 60 ↓ -2 Kings Lynn & West All 69 73 ↑ 73 76 ↑ 77 ↑ 78 ↑ 77 ↑ +4 FSM 53 58 ↑ 64 ↑ 64 ↑ 68 +↑ 69 +↑ 68 ↑ +10 North All 72 75 ↑ 75 76 ↑ 79 ↑ 77 ↑ 75 0 FSM 56 63 ↑ 64 ↑ 63 72 +↑ 73 +↑ 64 ↑ +1 Norwich All 66 72 ↑ 72 74 ↑ 77 ↑ 79 ↑ 77 ↑ +5 FSM 57 60 ↑ 63 ↑ 64 ↑ 71 +↑ 70 +↑ 65 ↑ +5 South All 79+ 82+ ↑ 82+ 82 + 81 +↑ 82 +↑ 81 + ↓ -1 FSM 60 63 ↑ 63 65 ↑ 65 64 65 ↑ +2 National All pupils 76 78 80 +2
FSM 63 67 70 +3
In order to track the progress in closing the gap with national averages - the colour coding relates to the Norfolk gaps to the national average .
(Schools should compare the FSM gap with pupils who are not FSM – and not to the average for All children. So it is advisable not to calculate the gap between FSM and All children.)
4
42
1.2: Improve Outcomes at Key Stage 2 - % achieving the expected standard, which is roughly equivalent to Level 4b+ FROM 2016 ONWARDS
Percentages represent the percentage of pupils.
FSM = Pupils eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last 6 years
All = All pupils in the cohort
% Pupils attaining level Nov 2015 % Pupils currently working at expected standard % Pupils meeting the 4b (unvalidated) Aggregated school targets expected standard
December 2015 March July 2015 % Target % Coverage* % On ARE % Coverage* 2016 2016 Norfolk All 64 76 65 66 91 FSM 96 49 66 51 52 Breckland All 57 73 58 61 94 FSM 97 44 60 40 40 Broadland All 73 + 80 71 76 95 FSM 99 59 68 55 65 Great Yarmouth All 57 75 68 65 100 FSM 100 50 67 60 56 Kings Lynn & West All 65 73 66 67 84 FSM 88 53 60 50 53 North All 62 78 66 67 93 FSM 99 47 68 53 53 Norwich All 65 76 61 61 92 FSM 96 52 70 50 50 South All 71 + 79 67 70 81 FSM 95 53 65 47 50 National All pupils 69 FSM 56
In order to track the progress in closing the gap with national averages - the colour coding relates to the Norfolk gaps to the national average .
*Coverage = the percentage of pupils in the cohort for who schools have submitted a target. Where targets are not available, the 2015 % Level 4b has been substituted. For current working levels, where levels have not been submitted, the 2015 % Level 4b has been substituted
(Schools should compare the FSM gap with pupils who are not FSM – and not to the average for All children. So it is advisable not to calculate the gap between FSM and All children.)
5
43
1.3: Improve outcomes at Key Stage 4 - % Achieving 5 GCSEs A* - C, including English and Mathematics - UP TO SUMMER 2015 Percentages represent the percentage of pupils.
FSM = Pupils eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last 6 years
All = All pupils in the cohort
2015 predictions are derived from half termly report card data from all schools
2015 Predictions 2015 Results Summer Improvement 2013 2014 Aut 1 Aut 2 Spr 1 Spr 2 (validated) since 2014 Norfolk All 55 53 ↓ 55 ↑ 56 ↑ 59+ ↑ 60+ ↑ 55 ↑ +2 FSM 31 30 ↓ 33 ↑ 35 ↑ 40+ ↑ 41+ ↑ 34 ↑ +4 Breckland All 50 52 ↑ 54 ↑ 55 ↑ 56+ ↑ 58+ ↑ 55 ↑ +3 FSM 26 33 ↑ 34 ↑ 34 ↑ 38+ ↑ 40+ ↑ 42+ ↑ +9 Broadland All 60 58+ ↓ 60+ ↑ 64 + ↑ 64 +↑ 65+ ↑ 59 + ↑ +1 FSM 34 34 ↓ 38+ ↑ 42 + ↑ 44+ ↑ 46+ ↑ 40 + ↑ +6 Great Yarmouth All 48 44 ↓ 51 ↑ 51 ↑ 54 ↑ 53 ↑ 51 ↑ +7 FSM 30 30 ↓ 37+ ↑ 37+ ↑ 40+ ↑ 39+ ↑ 37 ↑ +7 Kings Lynn & West All 54 45 ↓ 47 ↑ 45 54 ↑ 55 ↑ 51 ↑ +6 FSM 34 24 ↓ 23 27 ↑ 34 ↑ 33 ↑ 32 ↑ +8 North All 57 59+ ↑ 62+ ↑ 61 +↑ 66+ ↑ 65+ ↑ 57 ↓ -2 FSM 34 42+ ↑ 42+ 41+↓ 46+ ↑ 45+ ↑ 36 ↑ -6 Norwich All 46 49 ↑ 50 ↑ 51 ↑ 54 ↑ 55 ↑ 49 - FSM 26 29 ↑ 30 ↑ 27 ↓ 38+ ↑ 38+ ↑ 33 ↑ +4 South All pupils 66+ 61+ ↓ 62+ ↑ 64 + ↑ 66+ ↑ 67+ ↑ 65 + ↑ +4 FSM 43+ 33 ↓ 35 ↑ 38 + ↑ 45+ ↑ 46+ ↑ 39 + ↑ +7 National All pupils 60 57 57
FSM 41 36 36
The 2014 results are FIRST and cannot be compared to 2013 results
In order to track the progress in closing the gap with national averages – the colour coding relates to the Norfolk gaps to the national average .
(Schools should compare the FSM gap with pupils who are not FSM – and not to the average for All children. So it is advisable not to calculate the gap between FSM and All children)
6
44
1.3: Improve outcomes at Key Stage 4 - % Achieving 5 GCSEs A* - C, including English and Mathematics – up to 2015. For 2016 onwards the measure changes to the Progress 8 and Attainment 8 score. It is possible to monitor the schools forecasts and their progress towards Attainment 8, but not Progress 8.
Percentages represent the percentage of pupils.
FSM = Pupils eligible for Free School Meals at any point in the last 6 years
All = All pupils in the cohort
2015 predictions are derived from half termly report card data from all schools
Attainment 8 English and Mathematics Progress 8 * Result Forecast Result Progress 8 Forecast Result July 2015 (validated) July 2016 (unpublished) March July July 2015 * March July July 2015 Dec 2015 Dec 2015 2016 2016 (unpublished) 2016 2016 Norfolk All 57 59↑ 59↑ Norfolk All 0.0 47 49.5 48.3 FSM 38 43+↑ 42+↑ FSM -0.3 36.1 42.4 41 Breckland All 57 60+↑ 61↑ Breckland All 0.1 47.9 50.0 48.5 FSM 44 + 41+ 41+ FSM -0.1 39.6 42.8 42.3 Broadland All 60 + 64+↑ 64+ Broadland All 0.1 49.6 51.6 49.7 FSM 41 + 59+↑ 58+↑ FSM -0.3 40.5 42.8 42.8 Great All 52 52 52 Great All 0.1 44.4 45.9 44.3 Yarmouth FSM 39 40+↑ 41+↑ Yarmouth FSM -0.1 37.9 41.9 40.2 Kings Lynn & All 55 46 46 Kings Lynn All -0.3 44.5 45.2 45.9 West FSM 35 28 27 & West FSM -0.7 35.5 37.4 37.1 North All 59 64+↑ 61 North All 0.1 49.2 52.0 50.1 FSM 40 + 46+↑ 42 FSM -0.1 41.7 46.5 45.0 Norwich All 52 59↑ 60 Norwich All -0.1 45.6 49.1 46.8 FSM 36 48+↑ 44+↑ FSM -0.3 38.0 44.7 38.9 South All 68 + 67+ ↓ 70+ South All 0.2 52.4 52.8 52.3 FSM 42 + 48+↑ 49+↑ FSM -0.2 41.0 46.1 44.2 National All 59 National All 0.0 47.8 FSM 39 FSM -0.36 39.0
Notes: Attainment 8 and Progress 8 Progress 8: Green = at or above 0 (national) Attainment 8: Green = at or above national *No Norfolk schools opted into Attainment 8 and Progress 8 in 2015, so school data will not be published for any Amber = -0.1 or -0.2 Amber = 1 or 2 below national Norfolk schools. 2015 data is provided here only as a context by which to evaluate 2016 forecasts and results. Red = -0.3 or lower Red = 3 or more below national Attainment 8 and Progress 8 are affected significantly by curriculum options, and entry patterns in schools are changing considerably as all schools will be held to account using the measures in 2016. Progress 8 figures are a value added 1 = 1 GCSE grade above national An attainment 8 score of 50 = average grade C calculation, so capture the difference between the attainment 8 score and the national average attainment 8 score for 10 = an average of 1 GCSE grade across all subjects pupils with the same starting points.
In order to track the progress in closing the gap with national averages – the colour coding relates to the Norfolk gaps to the national average . (Schools should compare the FSM gap with pupils who are not FSM – and not to the average for All children. So it is advisable not to calculate the gap between FSM and All children)
7
45
8
46
Aim 2: Increase the proportion of schools judged good or better
Shown as a percentage of schools, the number of settings or schools is shown in brackets. The denominator represents the current number of schools that have an Ofsted judgement.
July 2012 July 2013 July 2014 July 2015 Dec 2015 April 2016 July 2016 Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National Latest Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Norfolk
%Early Years settings judged 83% 78% 81% 82% 85% +↑ 83% 87% ↑ 84% 90%↑ 88% 94%↑ 94%+↑ good or better %Childminders judged good 74% 71% 76% 75% 80% +↑ 78% 89%↑ 84% 88% 84% 88%+ 88% or better
%Children’s Centres judged 82%+ 69% 73%+↓ 69% 71% +↓ 67% 67% 66% 68%↑ 68%↑ 68%↑ good or better %Primary phase schools 60% 69% 64% ↑ 78% 70% ↑ 81% 81%↑ 85% 81%↑ 85% 86%↑ 87% 86%↑
increase
% should judged good or better %Secondary phase schools judged good or better 47% 66% 63% ↑ 72% 62% ↓ 70% 67% ↑ 74% 76% ↑ 75% 74% ↑ 76% 74% ↑ %Special schools judged good or better 91% 81% 82% ↓ 87% 91% +↑ 90% 100% 91% 91% 92% 91% 88% 91% Reduce % of schools in an
Ofsted category 3% 3% 4% ↑ 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% ↓ 2% 1% ↓ 1% 1% ↓
Reduce % of schools judged
decrease % should to Require Improvement 37% 28% 32% ↓ 19% 25% ↓ 17% 19% ↓ 14% 18% ↓ 14% 15% ↓ 13% 15% ↓
Reduction in District Variation: Percentage of all schools, percentage of schools judged good or better :
Norfolk Autumn 2013 July 2014 December 2014 April 2015 July 2015 Dec 2015 April 2016 July 2016 Latest Norfolk 66% (270/409) 70% (287/403) ↑ 71% (282/396) 74% (288/390) ↑ 79% (310 / 394) 80% (309 / 384) 84% (318 / 377) 85% (319 / 377)
Breckland 64% (41/64) 69% (44/64) ↑ 66% (42/64) ↓ 68% (43/63) ↓ 69% (44/64) ↑ 71% (45/63) ↑ 80% (47/59) ↑ 80% (47/59) ↑ Broadland 77% (46/60) 75% (45/60) ↑ 77% (46/60) ↑ 75% (45/60) 88% (51/58) +↑ 89% (51/57) +↑ 91% (52/57) +↑ 91% (52/57) +↑ Great Yarmouth 56% (20/36) 65% (22/34) ↑ 67% (22/33) ↑ 69% (22/32) ↑ 67% (22/33) ↑ 64% (21/33) ↑ 69% (22/32) ↑ 69% (22/32) ↑ Kings Lynn & West 52% (51/79) 63% (49/77) ↑ 64% (47/73) ↑ 69% (49/71) ↑ 73% (52/71) ↑ 76% (51/67) ↑ 80% (52/65) ↑ 80% (52/65) ↑ Norwich 66% (27/41) 70% (28/40) ↑ 69% (27/39) ↓ 74% (28/38) ↑ 74% (29/39) ↑ 81% (30/37) ↑ 89% (32/36) ↑ 89% (32/36) ↑ North 65% (35/54) 73% (39/54) ↑ 75% (40/53) ↑ 79% (41/52) ↑ 93% (49/53) ↑ 93% (49/53) ↑ 94% (50/53) ↑ 94% (50/53) ↑ South 80% (59/74) 81% (59/73) ↑ 81% (59/73) 81% (59/73) 85% (62/73) 85% (62/73) 85% (63/74) 85% (63/74) National 81% 81% 82% 84% 84% 85% 85%
9
47
Inclusion Performance Framework Attendance of Looked After Pupils
Shown as a percentage of pupils who are in Local Authority Care
2015-2016 2012-2013 2012-2013 2013-2014 2013-2014 2014-2015 (*Persistent Absence = 10%+ missed sessions) Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National Norfolk National LAC LAC LAC LAC Autumn Spring Summer Autumn Spring Summer All Pupils* All Pupils* All Pupils* All Pupils* Pupils* Pupils* Pupils* Pupils* Primary 4.9% 4.7% 4.0% 3.8% 3.4% 3.2% 4.3% 3.5% 3.5% Absence 4.7% 4.4% 3.8% 3.9% Secondary 6.5% 5.8% 5.1% 5.6% 5.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.2% 6.9% Persistent Absence Primary 2.9% 3.0% 2.1% 2.1% 4.4% 3.8% 5.0% 6.0% (*9.9%) 5.0% (*9.7%) (15% + 4.8% 5.0% 3.4% 4.6% missed Secondary 7.4% 6.4% 5.2% 5.8% 7.8% 10.1% 11.0% 11.4% (*17%) 11.4% (*15.9%) sessions) % Attending a good 63% 76% 69% 78% 63% 71% 84% 70% 78% or better school
*Annual absence figures are taken from DfE Statistical First Release (SFR49_2014) -shows absence from school over five terms for children who have been looked after for at least 12 months. Termly monitoring shows absence of all looked after pupils using data collected from schools by Welfare Call.
Access to Education
Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Summer 2015 Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Children Missing 192 181 195 193 159 Education (CME)
10
48
Exclusions
Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Summer 2015 Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Norfolk 2013-14 National 2013-14 (No. of pupils) (No. of pupils) (No. of pupils) (No. of pupils) (No. of pupils) (No. of pupils)
0 – 4 years x x 1 0 0 0 0
5– 11 years (No of YR/KS1) 0.05% 0.02% 17 (5) 22 (3) 26 (6) 29 (7) 31 (11) 12 – 16 years 0.19% 0.12% 60 35 45 78 59 SEN Pupils (Statement / EHCP) 26 33 25 12 10
FSM Pupils 27 28 24 43 31
Permanent Exclusions Permanent Looked After Children 2 3 5 4 5
Achievement of Vulnerable Groups (KS4) % achieving 5 good GCSEs including English and mathematics
2014 Autumn 2014 Summer 2015 National 2015 Spring 2015 Prediction Nat. Norfolk Prediction Outcome Outcome
FSM 36 30 35% 41% 36% 36%
Non-FSM 64.2% 59% 62 66% 62% 63%
Looked After Pupils 12.0% 8.3% 7% 13% 19.4% 13.8%
Progress 8 * Progress 8 English and Mathematics (%) July 2015 Summer 2016 Attainment 8 Result (unpublished / Forecast Result validated) (validated) March Summer 2016 July March July July 2015 Dec 2015 July 2015 Dec 2015 2016 Outcome 2016 2016 2016 FSM FSM -0.3 42.4 41.0 38 (Nat 39) 43 42 Non- Non-FSM 0.15 51.9 51.5 FSM 63 (Nat 65) 65 65 Looked Looked After Pupils After N/A 18.1 22.4 (Nat 15.9) 13.3 Pupils
11
49 0 Norfolk Early Help Management Overview Dashboard March 2016 Referrals in - Requests for Support Universal Family Support Process - Rolling month on month 450 1.2 90 396 77 400 80 1 67 350 70 300 0.8 68 60 47 221 217 42 42 50 250 206 209 39 39 55 187 179 0.6 36 200 172 34 34 33 40 133 146 125 37 37 150 99 0.4 36 34 20 35 30 31 30 30 14 100 29 27 20 0.2 22 20 50 18 16 20 10 16 10 11 0 0 3 9 8 8 10 8 0 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 no. of cases Worked with Other Agency FSP Opened in month Advised Closed
While we did see a drop in the amount of referrals received into the department in March, this represents a 13% increase In line with the reduction in Requests for Support, March has seen a 2.77% decrease against the yearly average, of FSPs being led against the average number of referrals received into the department over the last twelve months. by universal partners. We received 8 closure notifications in March which is 43% decrease against the average number of closures received over the last twelve months. Area Case Distribution - Month on Month Active Engagements Across Norfolk Early Help 250 225 219 215 214 206
200 189 170 165 Doreis - Individuals Total NEHFF Userv 164 157 156 155 153 152 150 148 145 141 136 136 134 134 133 130 130 128 Active Cases open 932 150 128 125 124 123 121 120 120 120 118 118 116 115 114 114 113 113 111 110 109 108 107 106 104 104 101 100 100 98 Open FSP's with stepdown 359 41 318 97 95 94 93 92 91 89 83 81 100 80 76 76
Open FSP's, no stepdown 2412 243 2169 68 68 63 60 53 53 49 40 Delivery Plans on system 2771 50 36 0 0 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Broadland North East South West City Breckland
The team allocation records the team caseload distribution month on month split into area's We can see a slight decrease of 9% compared to the annual average of, however this is not reflected across the county. In the city we can see an increase of 37% compared to the yearly average.
Made to Supporting Progress Service Referral Calls into Doreis Helpdesk 14 80
12 Closures, - Reasons for Closure, 60 IT Password Setting up 10 not using Supporting 2% 12% 17% Progressions Service Duplicate 8 10% 40 6 Person Error 12% 4 Training 20 Due to NEHFF recording within 47% 2 DOREIS from Oct 15, Reporting 0 0 will recommence for the April North & Broadland East South West City Breckland 2016 report as previously Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 advised. Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar_16 Type of Call Setting up Duplicate Person Error Training IT unlock Password Total Current in Monitoring The period covers from October 2015 when the Doreis roll out began, which will account for the high rate of "How do In March, 133 cases are being worked with within the Supporting Progress Service. This includes 17 new cases referred to the service and I" calls, logged here as "Training". This also accounts for the 175 of calls relating to "Setting Up". This will now be 15 cases closed during March. In total, 407 Cases have been supported by the service since February 2015 monitored regularly.
50 HS /TW 51 HS /TW Norfolk County Council
Children's Services
Monthly Performance Monitor
County Report
March 2016
Produced by Business Intelligence & Performance Service All Data sourced from CareFirst & accurate as at midnight 07/04/2016
Produced by BIPS Page52 1 of 7 Contents Business Area Page Introduction 2 Contacts & Referral, Assessment & S17 Children in Need 4 Safeguarding 5 Looked-After Children 6 Care Leavers 7
Introduction:
This report replaces the previously-issued Monthly MI Report and contains performance information for the teams within the locality only, alongside overall locality & county performance.
For each measure, data is available for both the most-recent month, alongside the previous reporting month &, where possible, data published by the DfE for Norfolk from the latest available statistical return (county level only) and targets.
Data is accurate at the point at which it is extracted from CareFirst (see front page for date extracted in this issue) & will not reflect any changes within the system that were made after the stated date.
Any queries relating to the data should be sent to the following email address: [email protected]
Produced by BIPS Page53 2 of 7 Each measure title states whether a higher or lower figure signifies better performance (where relevant).The report shows colour coded figures, where possible, for current performance vs. last month performance - the colours are calculated in the following way:
Green - Performance has improved by 5% or more from the previous month's performance Amber - Performance is within 5% of the previous month's performance Red - Performance if more than 5% worse than the previous month's performance
Red figures do not, therefore, always mean poor performance - simply that there has been a decline since the previous month.
Performance is also presented, where figures are available, in the context of other similar authorities (Statstical Neighbours) and the best-performing 25% of authorities for each measure.
Performance vs. comparator areas is graded in a similar way to performance vs. last month, only using faces to indicate relevant performance. The faces have the following meanings:
J Norfolk performance is better than comparator areas K Norfolk performance is in line with comparator areas L Norfolk performance is below comparator areas
Produced by BIPS Page54 3 of 7 Performance as at end of: March 2016 unless otherwise stated 3 Return to Contents Page
Contact & Referral Indicator Name Indicator Type Current Last Month Perf Previous Latest Latest Top Target Snapshot Performance Reporting Year Statistical Published & Neighbour Quartile or year-to-date Direction of Average Average Travel & Frequency* Number of contacts received in month M 2505 2386 - - - - Number & % of contacts received in month that became a referral M 667 26.63% 667 27.95% - - - - Number & % of referrals where a decision was made within 1 working day M 487 73.0% 511 76.6% - - - - Number & % of re-referrals within the last 12 months M 180 27.0% 154 23.1% - - - -
* Frequency: M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly; HT = Half-Termly, A = Annually
Assessment Indicator Name Indicator Type Current Last Month Perf Previous Latest Latest Top Target Snapshot Performance Reporting Year Statistical Published & Neighbour Quartile or year-to-date Direction of Average Average Travel & Frequency* Number of social work assessments authorised in month M 674 716 - - - - Number & % of social work assessments authorised in month within 35 working days M 438 65.0% 451 63.0% - - - 80% K Number & % of social work assessments authorised in month within 45 working days M 530 78.6% 574 80.2% 72% J 81% K 95% L
* Frequency: M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly; HT = Half-Termly, A = Annually
Children in Need Indicator Name Indicator Type Current Last Month Perf Previous Latest Latest Top Target Snapshot Performance Reporting Year Statistical Quartile Outturn Neighbour Average or year-to-date & Average Direction of & Frequency* Travel Number of cases at month end M 5559 5615 - - - - Number of Children in Need at month end M 1820 1814 - - - - Number & % of Children in Need with an up to date CIN plan M 1040 57.1% 1029 56.7% - - - - Number & % of Children in Need with a review in last 6 weeks M 1058 58.1% 1001 55.2% - - - - Number & % of Children in Need with a visit in timescale M 1321 72.6% 1342 74.0% - - - -
* Frequency: M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly; HT = Half-Termly, A = Annually
Produced by BIPS Page55 4 of 7 Performance as at end of: March 2016 unless otherwise stated 3 Return to Contents Page Safeguarding
Indicator Name Indicator Type Current Last Month Perf Previous Latest Latest Top Target Snapshot Performance Reporting Year Statistical Quartile & Neighbour Average or year-to-date Direction of Average Travel & Frequency* Number of children subject to strategy discussions in month M 199 188 - - - - Number of children subject to an ICPC in month M 73 55 - - - - Number & % of ICPCs held within 15 days of strategy discussion M 65 89.0% 54 98.2% 85.5% h 81.6% J 93.4% K Number & % of ICPCs that resulted in no CP Plan M 16 21.9% 2 3.6% - - - - Number of children on child protection plans at month end M 454 468 - - - - Rate of children on child protection plans at month end per 10k Under-18s M 27.2 28.0 34.2 h 30.2 J 28.7 J Number & % of child protection plans allocated to qualified social worker M 451 99.3% 464 99.1% - - - Number & % of children subject to child protection plan for >3 months M 288 63.4% 280 59.8% 60.8% h 70% J 52% L Number & % of RCPCs held in timescale in month M 137 100.0% 129 97.7% - - - - Number & % of core group meetings held in timescale in month M 49 89.1% 54 87.1% - - - - Number & % of children subject to child protection plan for > 2 years M 2 0.4% 2 0.4% 1.9% h 3.3% J 0.3% L Number & % of children on child protection plans seen within timescales** M 355 89.2% 367 89.7% 93.1% h 63.9% J 93.7% K Number & % of children on child protection plans seen alone within timescales M 245 61.6% 274 67.0% - - - - Number of children whose child protection plan ceased this month M 71 58 - - - - Number of children whose CP Plan started this month M 57 55 - - - - Number & % of children whose child protection plan started this month who had previously been subject to a CP Plan within the M 2 3.5% 4 7.3% 18.2% i 17.0% J 9.9% J last 2 years
* Frequency: M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly; HT = Half-Termly, A = Annually
Produced by BIPS Page56 5 of 7 Performance as at end of: March 2016 unless otherwise stated 3 Return to Contents Page
Looked-After Children Indicator Name Indicator Type Current Last Month Previous Latest Stat Latest Top Target Snapshot Performance Perf Reporting Year Nbr Average Quartile & DoT Average or year-to-date
& Frequency* Number of Looked After Children M 1044 1040 1070 n 534 L - Rate of Looked After Children pe 10k Under-18s 62.5 62.2 64 53 36 Number & % LAC Placed in County M 809 77.5% 804 77.3% 81% n 79% K 77% J Number & % LAC Placed Out of County M 174 16.7% 165 15.9% 19% h 21% J 23% J Number & % of LAC Seen within Timescales M 930 93.9% 935 94.1% - - - Number & % of LAC Seen Alone within Timescales M 788 79.6% 783 78.8% - - - Number UASC LAC M 4 5 10 h - - Number & % of LAC with up-to-date Care Plan M 994 95.2% 981 94.3% - - - Number & % of School-Aged LAC with up-to-date PEP M 527 73.5% 275 38.7% - - - Number & % of LAC with all Reviews up-to-date since start of reporting year M - - - Number & % of LAC Reviews in month where child attended M 124 49.8% 79 53.4% - - - Number & % of LAC Reviews in month where child participated M 227 91.2% 137 92.6% - - - Number & % of LAC with up-to-date Health Assessment M 645 81.9% 649 81.9% 83% n 90% L 99% L Number & % of LAC Starts with Initial Health Assessment request within 5 working days of LAC start M 17 44.7% 26 68.4% - - - Number & % of LAC with Immunisations were up-to-date M 656 83.2% 655 82.7% 97% i 90% L 98% L Number & % of LAC with up to date dental check M 656 83.2% 659 83.2% 85% n 84% K 96% L Number & % of LAC where child had visited optician in last 12 months M 654 83.0% 656 82.8% - - - Number & % of LAC aged <5 with up to date development checks M 82 98.8% 85 96.6% 95.0% h 92% J 100% K Number & % of LAC for 2+ Years in same placement for 12+ months M 489 79.3% 494 81.3% - - - Number & % of LAC with 3 or more placements in any one year M 95 9.1% 89 8.6% - - - Number of LAC Currently missing from placement M 0 0 - - - Number of Current Courtwork Activity M 242 135
* Frequency: M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly; HT = Half-Termly, A = Annually
Produced by BIPS Page57 6 of 7 Performance as at end of: March 2016 unless otherwise stated 3 Return to Contents Page
Care Leavers Indicator Name Indicator Type Current Last Month Previous Latest Stat Latest Top Target Snapshot Performance Perf Reporting Year Nbr Average Quartile & DoT Average or year-to-date
& Frequency* Number of Eligible Care Leavers M 205 205 - - - Number & % of Eligible Care Leavers with a Pathway Plan Needs Assessment completed M 195 95.1% 198 96.6% - - - Number & % of Eligible Care Leavers with Pathway Plans M 174 84.9% 176 85.9% - - - Number of Relevant Care Leavers M 16 18 - - - Number & % of Relevant Care Leavers with Pathway Plans M 13 81.3% 15 83.3% - - - Number & % of Relevant Care Leavers contacted in last 2 months M 13 81.3% 16 88.9% - - - Number of Former Relevant Care Leavers M 472 476 - - - Number & % of Former Relevant Care Leavers with Pathway Plans M 433 91.7% 425 89.3% - - - Number & % of Former Relevant Care Leavers contacted in last 2 months M 393 83.3% 399 83.8% - - -
* Frequency: M = Monthly; Q = Quarterly; HT = Half-Termly, A = Annually
Produced by BIPS Page58 7 of 7 Why is this important? This scorecard presents performance data for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2015/16. The performance data is important in determining how well Children’s Services risks are being managed, and sets the benchmark for comparing Q1 risk management performance data for the 2016/17 financial year. Performance What is the story behind current performance?
0 No Children’s Services risks were closed in Q4 of 2015/16
0% and as a result all existing risks are being carried forward to 2016/17.
1 1 Red 20% 20% End of Q4 Risk Whilst no risks were closed across the year 2015/16, two Scores (RAG Ratings) risks, RM 14147 and RM14157, were deemed to have Amber reduced likelihood. Green 1 3 1 One current Children’s Services risk, RM 014a - inability Met to reduce the amount spent on home to school transport, 3 is deemed to be of Corporate significance to Norfolk 60% County Council. Opened risks in Q4: 0 Prospects of meeting target score by Closed risks in Q4: 0 the target date
What will success look like? Action required Timebound risks meeting their target score rating by their target date. Continued monthly monitoring, reviewing, and reporting of Current and relevant risk mitigations and progress presented in risk updates. Children’s Services risks, ensuring the Departmental Risk scores moving from being rated red, to amber, and amber to green, then Management Team have full sight of the progress on closed, if not a continuous risk. managing Communities risks appropriately. Responsible Officers Lead: Michael Rosen, Executive Director of Children’s Services Data: Don Evans
59 Risk Register - Norfolk County Council
Risk Register Name Children's Service Risk Register Red
Prepared by Don Evans High Amber
Date updated April 2016 Med Green
Next update due June 2016 Low Met
Prospects of meeting Date Date of Target Reviewed Risk entered on Target review Area Risk Name Risk Description Tasks to mitigate the risk Progress update Risk Risk Owner and/or Number risk Date and/or Score by updated by CDGSTP register update Target
Target Impact
Current Impact
Target Likelihood Target Risk Score Date
Current Likelihood
Current Risk Score
C Children's RM014a Inability to reduce Rising transport costs, the nature of Continue to enforce education transport Conversations with SEN commissioners in Children's Services the amount spent the demand-led service (particularly policy, and work with commissioners re Services on-going. Consultant has been 'recruited' to on home to school for students with special needs) and school placements. help deliver new Inclusion strategy, including SEN transport the inability to reduce the need for Continually review the transport networks, transport savings. New School Inclusion Strategy transport or the distance travelled will to look for integration and efficiency should help to reduce the number of children accessing result in a continued overspend on opportunities. alternative specialist provision, but this will not really Richard the home to school transport budgets Work with Norse to reduce transport kick in until 2016/17 Snowden and 20/04/16 04/11/2015 4 3 12 2 3 6 Red Gordon Boyd and an inability to reduce costs. costs and ensure the fleet is used SEN budget has been split down to lower levels and Michael efficiently and effectively. regular data is being sent to decision-makers in Bateman Look for further, more innovative, ways to Children's Services to enable further transparency and 31/03/2017 plan, procure and integrate transport. better budget monitoring. While student numbers continue to decrease in Overall risk treatment: reduce. secondary and Post 16 education, spend is reducing.
C Children's RM14147 Failure to improve CS Teams do not show the improved Recruit the right people with the right The NIPE programme continues to attract new social Services at the required performance at the speed which is skills into posts. Train and support workers but we continue to struggle to attract suitably pace. acceptable to DfE and Ofsted. managers to improve their performance. experienced workers. Ensure the Ofsted Action Plan is fully The Ofsted Action Plan is being delivered at pace and delivered through robust scrutiny and the impact of those actions will be scrutinised by Ofsted 01/12/2013 2 5 10 1 5 5 31/03/2017 Amber Michael Rosen Don Evans 20/04/2016 affirmative action to quickly address any as part of their improvement offer. deviation from the plan. The RN team continue to support us on the areas of Additional capacity has been secured via greatest concern i.e Health Assessments, Personal the Reimagining Norfolk (RN) team. Education Plans and Permanence.
D Children's RM14157 Lack of Corporate Lack of NCC capacity and Review of Resources Department is The Head of Client Management is directly engaged Services capacity and infrastructure to support the back- being conducted. with support functions looking at resolving issues capability reduces office functions that Children's Social Care Recording System is being proactively and reactively as neccessary. the ability of Services needs in particular ICT and reporcured and the new system will 1xFTE from BIPS is currently working exclusively within Children's Services BIPS capacity limitations include self-reporting tools. CS to support the delivery of the Ofsted action plan. 13/03/2014 4 5 20 3 5 15 31/03/2017 Amber Michael Rosen Don Evans 20/04/2016 to improve. Decentralisation of services for schools DNA will not in itself offer wholesale improvements. report to Education Challenge Board. However, self-service reporting tools will be a More robust client side function. rerquirement for the new social care recording system and this will mean Managers are less reliant on collegaues in BIPS. D Children's RM14148 Overreliance on Overreliance on interim capacity in Greater understaning of workforce data HR Business partner is working with corporate Services interim capacity social worker teams leads to as it relates to geographical variation and colleagues on a suite of key workforce data. unsustainable performance the County as a whole. Review and The NIPE programme is being evaluated to understand 01/12/2013 3 5 15 2 4 8 31/03/2017 Amber Michael Rosen Don Evans 20/04/2016 improvement. update of our 'offer to social workers. its impact. A social care academy is being developed to build to bring structure to the learning and development offer. D Children's RM13906 Looked After That the Looked After Children’s A Permanence panel and monitoring The LAC overspend for the year ending 31/3/16 was Services Children budget could result in significant group are in place and ensuring the right £XXXX. Whilst we are committed to delivering services overspends overspends that will need to be children are in the right placements. within budget for the 16/17 year, due to the demand- funded from elsewhere within 18/05/2011 1 5 5 Additonal resource has been added from lead nature of LAC spend, we feel it is prudent to retain 1 4 4 31/03/2017 Red Michael Rosen Don Evans 20/04/2016 Children’s Services or other parts of the Reimagining Norfolk team to support this area on the risk register for the 16/17 financial year Norfolk County Council data analysis and reporting. All CS costs are rigorously scrutinised.
60 Children’s Services Committee
Item No Report title: Revenue Budget 2016-17 – Proposals for Allocation of Transitional Funding and Rural Services Delivery Grant Date of meeting: 10 May 2016 Responsible Chief Michael Rosen Officer: Executive Director Children’s Services Strategic impact
This report provides the Committee with details of proposals for the use of Transitional Funding and additional Rural Services Delivery Grant held in the budget for 2016-17, which have been identified in respect of the services for which the Committee is responsible.
The report also sets out the timetable for the process to agree the use of this funding in 2016-17.
Executive summary
The Council received late notification of additional funding as part of the Final Local Government Finance on 8 February 2016. This funding was applied in the 2016-17 Budget to provide transitional funding to manage business risk. A process for making decisions about the use of this funding was considered and agreed by the Policy and Resources Committee in March 2016.
Proposals in relation to Children’s Services Committee have been developed and are set out in this report for Members’ comments.
Recommendation:
The Committee is asked to:
1. Consider and recommend the proposed use of additional funding as set out in this report, and to rank in order of priority these proposals, to enable Policy and Resources Committee to consider the options and make a recommendation on the use of this funding to County Council.
1. Background
1.1. The Final Local Government Settlement 2016-17 confirmed by Parliament on 10 February 2016 set out details of additional funding made up of Transition Grant and Rural Services Delivery Grant. There was also a small reduction in
1
61 the Council’s New Homes Bonus Grant allocation. These changes resulted in net additional funding from Government of £4.561m in 2016-17.
1.2. The County Council set aside the additional funding for 2016-17 as transitional funding to manage business risk. It was noted that the late notice of the additional funding had made it inappropriate to propose the allocation of the funding in the time available, and that Service Committees would wish to have the opportunity to comment on priorities for its use.
1.3. The following parameters for the use of the additional funding were set out:
the money will be spent in the new financial year; any spending must be sustainable; and invest to save initiatives must be paramount.
1.4. The Council faces a number of significant budget risks in 2016-17. It would therefore be prudent for the Council to retain some flexibility within the additional funding for 2016-17 in order to manage these risks. The key risks include:
The outcomes of local Better Care Fund negotiations with the NHS; The outcomes of the Adults Cost of Care work; The pressure arising from National Living Wage in contracts; and The need to ensure delivery of savings proposals in 2016-17.
2. Decision-Making Timetable
2.1. Policy and Resources Committee approved the following timetable for decision-making on the use of the additional funding available:
Service Committees to bring forward proposals in the May 2016 committee round, taking into account the criteria set out at 1.3; Policy and Resources Committee to consider Service Committee proposals in the round on 31 May 2016 in order to recommend an overall package of activity; and County Council to consider and approve the recommendations of the Policy and Resources Committee on 25 July 2016.
3. Committee Proposals
3.1. Proposals for use of this additional funding relating to the budgets controlled by this Committee have been identified totalling £4.75m. The table below sets out further detail of these proposals.
2
62 Table 1: Children’s Services Committee proposals for use of additional funding 2016-17
Criteria
Description of proposal Committee Provide a brief narrative summary of the funding bid, including details of: 2016-17
Priority
how the proposal meets the criteria or is otherwise a priority. Funding 17 Ref - any implications if the spending is not approved. requirement Ranking
save 1= top priority any impact on other areas of the budget / other services from this £m
2016
Invest to 2,3,4 etc. proposal.
Sustainable
expenditure Parent and Infant Mental Health Services (PIMS) and Compass Outreach - these are two programmes (PIMS relates to children within the age ranges 0- 5, who are on the cusp of coming into care and Compass Outreach relates to those between 5-18 who are already LAC). By focusing on emotional health and wellbeing, the aim of the project would be to keep children out of care CSE01 (PIMS) and reduce the number of children in care or otherwise reduce the 1.550 Y Y N number of out-of-county placements. The benefits are that we would expect to see improved outcomes (fewer people in care, more in their own homes/stable, longer-term placements). Pilot schemes have saved significant 5 figure sums and avoided costs which would otherwise have occurred).
Youth work - NCC has a larger number of ADHD diagnoses than its target number. Children with ADHD do not have access to CAMHS. The aim is to develop behavioural support services within the department to help those diagnosed with ADHD. The department would increase the number of CSE02 temporary/fixed-term staff with a view to helping this cohort group, which 0.60 Y Y N could lead to a reduction in costs into the medium-term and help address challenging behaviours leading to more favourable outcomes for this group.
Increase capacity (temporary staff) within the LAC team in order to improve outcomes in part by reducing the number of LAC. The work will help the department to reduce or remove the backlog of cases and continue to CSE03 improve its social work practices, especially in the fields of assessment and 1.00 Y Y N planning for LAC, more broadly contributing to addressing some of the points in the Ofsted Improvement Plan.
3
63 Criteria
Description of proposal Committee Provide a brief narrative summary of the funding bid, including details of: 2016-17
Priority
how the proposal meets the criteria or is otherwise a priority. Funding 17 Ref - any implications if the spending is not approved. requirement Ranking
save 1= top priority any impact on other areas of the budget / other services from this £m
2016
Invest to 2,3,4 etc. proposal.
Sustainable
expenditure Virtual school and Education Inclusion - in order to clear the backlog and improve the quality, we aim to get greater capacity in the team completing EHCPs and PEPs - evidence suggests where these are completed in a timely CSE04 fashion and to a high quality, children are more likely to be successful, thus 0.60 Y Y N improving educational and other outcomes and meaning it is less likely that YP will be NEET, leading to financial and other benefits to NCC and the wider public sector economy. Funding on a one-off basis to contribute towards the cost of improving routes from residential areas to schools or to public transport links - at the moment, children are sometimes taken in taxis to school or bus stops as there are no CSE05 safe ways for them to walk to school or bus stops, etc. Thus there is a 1.00 Y Y Y potential saving against transport budgets (which are currently and historically have been under considerable financial pressure) and also a health/wellbeing benefit of walking to school, etc. Total 4.750
4
64 4. Next Steps
4.1. All Committees have been invited to put forward proposals for the use of this additional funding in 2016-17. These will be considered by Policy and Resources Committee on 31 May. In the event that the funding proposals exceed the available amount of additional funding, Policy and Resources Committee will consider the overall balance and scope of proposals alongside the priority ranking from Service Committees in order to put forward a balanced package of proposals for approval by County Council on 25 July 2016.
Background Papers
Revenue Budget 2016-17 – Allocation of Transitional Funding and Rural Services Delivery Grant, agenda item 6, Policy and Resources Committee 21 March 2016: http://norfolkcc.cmis.uk.com/norfolkcc/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/3 97/Meeting/497/Committee/21/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx
Norfolk County Council Revenue and Capital Budget 2016-20 and Council Plan 2016- 19, agenda item 4, County Council 22 February 2016: http://norfolkcc.cmis.uk.com/norfolkcc/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/3 97/Meeting/438/Committee/2/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name: Tel No: Email address: Karl Steenson 01603 223160 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
5
65
Children’s Services Committee Item No……
Report title: Re-commissioning Short Breaks for Disabled Children (Play, Leisure, Home based) Date of meeting: 10 May 2016 Responsible Chief Michael Rosen Officer: Executive Director Children’s Services Strategic impact We wish to ensure that disabled children and their families receive support at the earliest opportunity including from within universal services, targeted support and specialist provision. The aim of the proposals to expand NCC Children’s Services approach to individual budgets for disabled children and ensuring local provision availability seeks to ensure for this cohort of children and young people that we are working to support vulnerable people and improve outcomes as part of putting Children First.
Executive summary This paper is to request changes to how short breaks are commissioned moving from a block contract approach to individual budgets (direct payments) and provider framework.
We have extended contracts through exemption for our short breaks services for disabled children and their families until March 2017. Disabled children and their families have told us that they wish greater control over the decision making of the kind of short breaks they access to reflect individual need and choice. In addition legislative change including the Children’s and Families Act 2015 indicates the need for personal budgets in relation to Education Health and Care Plans and within Adult Services personal budgets are the only option. Going forward our aim is to provide short break services as locally as possible improving access to a range of existing provision available to all children as well as more specialist provision.Therefore to respond to change and begin to develop and transform our approach to short breaks for disabled children the proposal is to enable disabled children and their families to make choices about how best to enjoy their play and leisure time both in the community and at home.
Recommendations: Children’s Services Committee to agree the following:
1. Expand current Direct Payment scheme to enable families of disabled children to self-manage and access short breaks support within the community using an individual budget.
2. Establish a dynamic purchasing system which enables range of existing and new short break providers to be available to purchase services from on behalf of disabled children and families.
3. Align funding with adult services and open the market up for post 16 providers, who are already providing day opportunities on a framework basis.
4. Phase implementation from September 2016 to enable transition.
66
1. Proposal (or options)
1.1 Expand current Direct Payment scheme to enable families of disabled children to self-manage and access short breaks support using an individual budget.
1.1.1 The proposed direct payment scheme development will enable families to purchase community based play and leisure services independently with their own individual budget. This will complement the current direct payments approach in Norfolk Children’ Social Care of also being able to employ a personal assistant to deliver short breaks provision
To bring about change it is proposed:
Ensure inclusive and accessible Early Help provision is in place at locality level: Children’s Centres Family Support Ensuring voice of disabled children at local level informs services and activities within localities (Link to Norfolk Youth Support model) Provide information, guidance and support on accessibility and disability through the Local Offer and Disabled Children’s Access and Services team. Providing sign-posting, direct support and training opportunities as required. Main emphasis initially will be assessing and understanding support required – early help, social work, education and health professionals working with families will evidence and identify needs through their respective assessments, if this is associated with a disabled child or their carers needs the Early Help Locality teams can address with referring professionals what is needed to enable community based resources to meet the need in the first instance. Specialist short breaks services will dovetail with community and locality based provision. It is important that some short breaks investment is used in regards to increasing accessibility. Messages from young disabled people, who do not require specialist services is they do not want much, but the little they want we do not cater for. They want services to feel able to meet their needs. Provide direct payments for disabled children and families to purchase specialist short breaks based on assessed need and identified outcomes to be achieved. 1.1.2 To enable the expansion of Direct Payments the Disabled Children’s Access and Services Team and Health & Disability Strategic Commissioner will work with disabled children and young people, parents and carers and providers to inform
67 implementation so that families of disabled children are able to self-manage and access short breaks support.
Four Bands of Support approach to individual budgets (Direct Payments) eligibility is proposed:
I. Direct Payment up to £500 where families are given money to meet activities identified in plan. Family will need to evidence significant impact on life. This is best demonstrated through evidence of claiming higher rate disability living allowance or 25 + hours of support in the school environment and registered on Disabled Children’s register. Estimated to support between 200-500 disabled children and young people.
II. Direct Payment up to maximum £1400 – eligibility based on assessed need and plan informed by completion of resource allocation form by parents or carers with supporting evidence or Family Support Plan. Where possible parents would be encouraged to write a support plan with their child about how best to meet their needs. This would detail outcomes a family want for their child and what the child wants from the provision and for the provision to be identified to meet this need. Enable someone to purchase up to 21 days (5 hour sessions) of a specialist service a year at the current price on average costs. Or this could purchase home sitting of about 2 hours a week for 51 week a year or up to 102 hours a year. Estimated to support approx. 570 disabled children and young people
III. Direct Payment up to £2000 – informed and supported by social work assessment and where disabled child requires 2:1 staffing to ensure the right level of support. For this group other services commissioned on a child in need basis can be available as part of support package.
IV. Direct Payment up to £2000 with additionality of residential short breaks, family support including personal care – informed and supported by social worker.
If specialist short breaks need to be considered the Disabled Children’s Access and Services Team will ensure support is in place against assessed need:
Working with providers to ensure specialist short breaks provision offer is available within all 6 localities including at complex needs schools Expand current Direct Payment scheme to enable families with disabled children to make their own choices about where and when spend short breaks
Expanding Direct Payment scheme will enable increased numbers of disabled children and their families to make choices about the kind of short breaks they wish to access to:
Enable children and young people to try something different and make new friends while having time away from their primary carers Provide an opportunity for carers to take some time out. An opportunity for the whole family to go on an outing where disabled children and young people can enjoy an activity together with their siblings.
68 The proposed Direct Payment scheme requires parents/carers to self-manage and purchase support independently from providers based on amount of allocated funding. Provision and support available will be promoted as part of the Local Offer.
1.2 Establish a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) which enables range of existing and new short break providers to be available to purchase services from on behalf of disabled children and their families.
1.2.1 As an alternative to receiving a Direct Payment allocation or in combination with a reduced Direct Payment allocation support and services can be commissioned as required using a Dynamic Purchasing System by NCC Children’s Services on behalf of disabled children and families based on assessed needs, choice and amount of individual budget allocated.
By establishing a Dynamic Purchasing System of providers NCC CS will be able:
To support individual families to manage access to short breaks where this is their preference. Work with users and providers to ensure range of provision is available throughout Norfolk and if necessary address potential locality or provision type availability inconsistencies.
‘The Dynamic Purchasing System’ (DPS) is a procedure available for contracts for works, services and goods commonly available on the market. As a procurement tool, it has some aspects that are similar to an electronic framework agreement, but where new suppliers can join at any time.
The DPS is a two-stage process:
First, in the initial setup stage, all suppliers1 who meet the selection criteria and are not excluded must be admitted to the DPS. Contracting authorities must not impose any limit on the number of suppliers that may join a DPS. Unlike framework agreements, suppliers can also apply to join the DPS at any point during its lifetime. Individual contracts are awarded during the second stage. In this stage, the authority invites all suppliers on the DPS (or the relevant category within the DPS) to bid for the specific contract.
The DPS can streamline procurement for both suppliers and authorities; suppliers don’t have to demonstrate suitability and capability every time they wish to compete for a public sector contract, and the award of individual tenders can be quicker than under some other procedures. The DPS is more flexible in some respects than frameworks, particularly as suppliers may join it at any time during its period of validity, meaning that suppliers are not locked out for the duration as they are with traditional frameworks.’ (Extract from The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 – Dynamic Purchasing System)
This approach is the preferred approach of NCC Procurement team and enables NCC to work with existing providers and new providers to ensure a range of services are available to purchase on behalf of individuals or organisationally.
We will work with existing and new providers of specialist short breaks to understand hourly rates which reflect total costs of service provision and enable
69 them to offer services through the DPS at competitive rates including reflecting national rates for similar services.
The flexibility here for both those accessing and providing short break services is that individual needs and support will be reflected at the point of request and reflected in the cost of service. New providers will be able to join the DPS at any point once set up.
The range of services and providers available on the DPS could reflect the full range of support and services required and if necessary new providers can be added to meet specific assessed needs. This approach would enable direct payment to be used to purchase personal assistants where the assessment determines that this is not required (personal choice), but would provide for a premium to be added to the personal budget where the services of a personal assistant is assessed as required.
We will work with Adult Service colleagues in developing and setting up the DPS as they are also in the process of providing commissioned support in this way. By working with them we anticipate that development and ongoing costs can be shared. This will also have the added benefit of supporting transition as individuals will not have to move between systems ensuring continuity of support.
In addition we will seek to work with Complex Needs Schools, where many children and young people eligible for short breaks services attend to provide extended opportunities during out of school hours including weekends and holiday periods.
1.3 Align funding with adult services and open the market up for post 16 providers, who are already providing day opportunities on a framework basis.
1.3.1 Adult Services already provide support for individuals through the use of personal budgets and a provider framework approach from which services are directly purchased and managed as in 2.3 above.
By linking with Adult Services we will be able to access a range of providers already operating in Norfolk for those children at the point of transition (14+) resulting in continuity of approach and service post 16.
1.4 Phase implementation from September 2016 to enable transition
1.4.1 Using existing Direct Payments it is proposed that we trial the proposed approach working with disabled children and their families and providers to use direct payment to purchase support and services as suggested.
This will enable us to test and evaluate new ways of working with a small cohort which will further inform the development of implementation of the proposal if agreed.
1.5 Consultation
1.5.1 Disabled children’s and parental feedback suggests we need to improve the range and access to play and leisure activities for disabled children. This has been informed by parental consultation and consultation with disabled children undertaken in January 2016 with 175 responses from disabled children and 140
70 responses from parents and carers of disabled children. Previous years’ consultations further support this view.
2. Evidence
2.1 The 4 proposals aim to provide as flexibly as possible support for disabled children and their families within their communities and at the earliest opportunity.
2.2 Recent Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) and health and social care changes highlight the need for a personal budgeting approach to enable families and disabled young people to make choices about the kind of support they receive.
2.3 It is the aim of NCC Children’s Services to increase the number of disabled children accessing support including short break provision in line with eligibility criteria to change to include all children deemed to have a disability. To enable short breaks support will be considered on the basis of the Equality Act 2010, which is, “A child with a permanent and long standing (more than a year) impairment that has an impact on a person’s ability to carry out day to day activities.”
2.4 We wish to put Children First so that children and young people achieve their full potential and have their own goals and ambitions reached in life. We know that our current short breaks provision ensures that those disabled children with the most complex needs are able to access a range of support. However there is less provision accessible or specialist support in place for those with moderate disabilities or where there are multiple needs and statistically these children are more likely to be growing up in areas of social deprivation. We need to bring on line targeted provisions for this cohort of children.
2.5 From a service level we need to ensure we align to achieve what is required through the Early Help Strategy. Short breaks contribute to family support and specifically to parent carers of disabled children where due to the complexity of their support needs the child and their family may need specialist support or opportunities. Overall short breaks provision enables families to stay together by enabling them to access additional support specific to their needs. Where this is achieved families receiving short breaks tend to manage their children’s and wider family needs reducing referrals for higher intervention from social care, health or education services.
2.6 There is extensive national research into the social and economic value of Short Breaks and the positive long term outcomes created for beneficiaries / stakeholders. Disabled children/young people are children with high support needs. With short break support they: 1. Journey towards independence in adulthood 2. Have improved emotional and physical health (health and well-being) Parents, families and carers of disabled children/young people: 3. Experience reduced stress and reduced worry 4. Have time for themselves and for their other children
2.7 The provision of short breaks aims to improve outcomes for disabled children by: Encouragement to keep active(inside and outside), eat a healthy diet, support their own self-care where possible and establish a restful pattern of sleep
71 Accessing and attending range of social activities – developing self- esteem and confidence out of the home setting Positive engagement supporting development into adulthood enabling transition and ensuring ongoing participation in education, employment or training
2.8 The proposals seek to make best use of available funding and resources by focussing on directly supporting families through a personal budgeting approach based on an understanding of need and aims to reduce administration costs.
3. Financial Implications
3.1 Expansion of Direct Payment Scheme total budget of £1.7 million. Budget made up of:
£1,110,000 to commission specialist group based provision and home- sitting arrangements.
Proposal is to use the current budget for commissioning specialist short breaks on a block contract basis and convert to direct payments budget for individual families and children and young people
The current Direct Payment scheme has a total budget of approximately £600,000 funding Personal assistants and manged with the CWD Social work teams and the Access and Services Team. The proposed expansion of Direct Payments would enable this budget to be used for wider short breaks provision as detailed above and enable direct payment to be used to purchase personal assistants where the assessment determines that this is not required (personal choice), but would provide for a premium to be added to the personal budget where the services of a personal assistant is assessed as required.
3.2 Proposal is for 4 bands of support payment approach as detailed in above proposal:
Band 1 up to £500 Band 2 up to £500 up to maximum £1400 Band 3 up to £2000 plus other commissioned services based on child in need assessment Band 4 up to £2000 with additionality of residential short breaks, family support including personal care – supported by social worker.
3.3 The cost of developing, implementing and ongoing management costs associated with expanded Direct Payment scheme (2.1 above) and the Dynamic Purchasing System (2.2 above) have yet to be calculated but will need to be included as part of development if agreed to ensure the system works for children and families.
3.4 Children’s Services budget savings of approximately £220,000 have already been agreed and committed from the disabled children’s short breaks commissioning budget from 2016/17.
72
4. Issues, risks and innovation
4.1 The above proposals and recommendations are intended to transform how we currently fund and provide short break services for disabled children and their families in Norfolk.
4.2 Where families self-manage their allocated individual budget (Direct Payment) there is the potential for providers to agree costs on an individual basis which may increase costs for individuals and reduce amount of service/support accessed.
4.3 The move towards a personal budgeting approach based on a Direct Payments will require current short break providers to change their current business models which are based on allocation of hours and have been block contracted over a number of years ensuring regular and known funding. For all providers lack of surety due to move towards flexible, individual contracting and funding will be significant.
4.4 It is anticipated that the proposed changes will have greatest impact on providers who work with small cohorts of children as they will need to consider how greater numbers of children access their provision based on a direct purchasing model.
4.5 Where children and families choose not to use providers there is a risk that those providers become unviable and will not be able to continue operating due to insufficient funding.
4.6 To mitigate against this we will undertake work with providers to understand their costs and associated charging as well as ensuring understanding of user requirements going forward to inform business changes. In addition links within localities will be made as part of local commissioning arrangements and to develop the relationship between user needs and provision within communities.
4.7 In addition given that those children accessing support and services do so based on assessments which in turn allocate support on an hours work will need to be undertaken with the CWD Social Work teams to transition cases from one system to another.
4.8 Further work with social work and early help teams will be required to enable the proposed new model to develop and function.
4.9 Our ambition to increase the numbers of disabled children accessing services from the current 1200 to in excess of 2000 will provide a challenge to the current allocated budget of £1.7 million for this proposal.
4.10 The current commissioned service model is nearing capacity especially at peak times of school holidays and weekends therefore to transform the service model will enable new ways of working and delivery options to meet increased use.
4.11 Due to the long established commissioned model and relationships between providers, children and families the transition from existing to proposed new ways of working will need planning and a level of complaint should be anticipated.
4.12 To mitigate against this the Access and Services Team will work with disabled children, families and providers in developing and informing the proposed new Direct Payments model and with individuals to manage transition. 73
4.13 Due to the transformational change required and the need for of co-production with children, families and providers the staffing and capacity to implement within timescales will need reviewing and additional resource may be required to assist.
5. Background
5.1 Short breaks are commissioned in line with our legislative duty to: Provide short breaks under the breaks for parent carers’ regulations 2011. Provide services to disabled children under the Children’s Act 1989, to all children with assessed needs who are physically, learning or mentally disabled.
5.2 The duty to provide short breaks also articulates that short breaks must be provided to: Enable parents to undertake regular activity session. Enable parents to meet the needs of other children in the home more effectively. Enable parents to carry out day to day tasks which they must perform in order to run their household.
5.3 The LA also has a duty to provide the following support. Provide day time care in the home of disabled children or elsewhere. Overnight care in the homes of disabled children or elsewhere. Educational or leisure activities for disabled children outside their homes Services to assist carers’ in the evenings, at weekends, or during the school holidays.
5.4 The local authority also has a duty to update its short breaks statement regularly detailing information about eligibility criteria, how decisions are made and what is available through a short breaks statement, which must be published on the local offer.
5.5 Currently children receive services and support from a range of short break providers (22 contracts) based on a need and eligibility assessment resulting in allocation of hours. Children access short breaks based on their annual allocated hours with one or more providers. All of the providers are within the voluntary and charity sector and range in size both in terms of number of children worked with and contract value.
5.6 Short break services and support are accessed by 1200 children with 450 of those children and young people accessing specialist short breaks.
5.7 NCC CS currently commission a range of short breaks on a block contract basis broadly categorised as:
1. Play and Leisure Community based short breaks 2. Personal support home-sitting and community based 3. Home-based personal care services 4. Residential over-night short breaks
5.8 The proposal and recommendations within this report are in relation to 1 and 2 above with a total budget of approximately £1.1 million.
74 5.9 NCC Children’s Services currently provides Direct Payments to disabled children and their families with an annual budget of approximately £600,000. Direct Payments are used by families to fund and employ personal assistants.
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with:
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name: Tel No: Email address: Christopher Butwright 01603 638049 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
75 Children’s Services Committee Item No……
Report title: Developing Norfolk’s self-improving school system in the light of the White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’
Date of meeting: 10 May 2016
Responsible Chief Michael Rosen Officer: Executive Director of Children’s Services Strategic impact
The Education and Adoption Act 2016 specifies the consequences for maintained schools1 that are judged by Ofsted to be ‘inadequate’ or designated by the Secretary of State to be ‘coasting’. It confirms the formal collaboration that will be required for such schools from the Council and from Governing Bodies.
Committee received a paper in July 2015 that identified the implications of the Act for Norfolk’s school system and the responses already being considered by the County Council’s partners, particularly Governors and Headteachers. The paper established the context within which the shared ambition for there to be ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’ would be realised including through harnessing new developments.
Published on 17 March 2016, the White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ sets out the Government’s prospectus on further potential developments in the national education landscape over the course of the next six years.
Norfolk County Council’s refreshed strategy for supporting education improvement ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’ – which should form the basis for any further development - was approved by Committee on 10 March 2015. It has been further developed in Committee Papers on 7 July 2015 and 17 November 2015. The refreshed strategy confirmed the County Council’s three areas of responsibility in relation to education namely: as champion of children and young people in promotion of high standards, provision of good learning places and ensuring a good deal for vulnerable children and young people. These three core purposes for Local Authorities are reiterated in general terms in the new White Paper. (See 2.2.4 below)
‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’ emphasises the need to ensure that all Norfolk children and young people benefit from excellent education whether in a school2 of whatever kind, a college, a training provider, alternative education, an early years setting or at home. The strategy contributes to the Council’s ambition to have ‘Excellence in Education’ and emphasises the need for all schools and education providers to have strong and sustainable leadership. The strategy recognises the need for all Governing Bodies to forge strong and enduring links across multiple institutions whether through multi academy trusts (MATs) or through federations.
1 The term ‘maintained schools’ is usually used to refer to those schools maintained by the Local Authority rather than being maintained by central government’s Education Funding Agency. ‘Maintained schools’ include voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, foundation and community schools. 2 In this paper, unless specifically stated, the term ‘school’ refers to all kinds of school whether voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, foundation, community, academy or free school.
76
Executive summary
This paper summarises the new White Paper alongside other recent changes in the education landscape. It highlights issues that will be relevant to ongoing efforts to provide ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’. This includes consideration of how the approach to self-improvement ‘Norfolk Better to Best’ might enable the development of an associated multi-academy trust.
Following discussion at the Norfolk Education Challenge Board in May, further recommendations will be brought to Committee on 28 June 2016 regarding future developments of ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’ in the context of the White Paper.
Recommendations: Members are asked to note the implications of the White Paper, to comment on these and on developments described in this paper.
1. Proposal
1.1 It is proposed that issues arising from the recent education White Paper as well as from the Education and Adoption Act are considered so that appropriate development takes place of Norfolk’s strategy to support school improvement ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’.
1.2 Discussions take place about Norfolk’s educational landscape with Members of Norfolk Primary Headteachers’ Association, Norfolk Secondary Education Leaders, Norfolk Governors’ Network and with the Department for Education’s Regional Schools’ Commissioner. Such discussions continue routinely.
2. Evidence
2.1 The Education and Adoption Act 2016
2.1.1 The Education and Adoption Act fulfils various pledges made in the Conservative Party Manifesto. Royal Assent was granted on 16 March 2016 and many of the provisions came into force on 18 April 2016. In relation to schools, the Act introduces various measures, including provision about schools in England that are causing concern, about their conversion into Academies and about intervention powers.
2.1.2 Maintained schools judged to be inadequate by Ofsted will become sponsored Academies. The Secretary of State makes an Academy order for such schools without the need for consultation and it is incumbent upon the Governing Body and Local Authority to facilitate the conversion.
2.1.3 Schools deemed to be ‘coasting’ by the Secretary of State become ‘eligible for intervention’ giving the Secretary of State discretion on whether to insist that the school accepts support from successful leaders of other schools or to issue an Academy order. Consultation would not be needed in such cases. The definition of ‘coasting’ remains to be clarified but is likely to be about schools that have not
77 ensured sufficient progress for their pupils over three years rather than the school’s Ofsted judgement.
2.1.4 Schools that are ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ that seek to become Academies would need to consult on such a proposal. Such schools are likely to seek the ability to sponsor other schools and so create Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs).
2.1.5 The Secretary of State as well as the Local Authority is now empowered to issue Warning Notices in certain circumstances to maintained schools. Provision is made for how the Local Authority and the Secretary of State should interact in such cases.
2.1.6 The Department of Education’s Regional Schools Commissioners acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in many of the matters identified in the Act.
2.2 The White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’, March 2016
2.2.1 There are seven key areas of policy proposals. In summary these are:
2.2.2 ‘Great Teachers’: reform of the National College for Teaching and Leadership to improve recruitment incentives and attract new teachers; reduce recruitment costs through a teacher vacancy website; increase rigour of initial teacher training and replace ‘Qualified Teacher Status’ with accreditation based on classroom effectiveness; establish an independent College of Teaching to promote research and improved practice.
2.2.3 ‘Great leaders’: new National Professional Qualifications for each level of school leadership; ‘improvement period’ during which schools will not be inspected to allow new leaders to embed improvements; database of those involved in governance and a move to fully skills-based governance.
2.2.4 ‘A school led system with every school an academy’: schools to start the process of becoming an academy – mostly within a multi academy trust – so that by 2022 all schools are maintained directly by the Government and not by the Local Authority; local authorities will be responsible for place planning, supporting vulnerable learners and acting as champion for children and families; 500 new free schools nationally alongside LAs' own new school commissioning responsibilities; LAs will ‘take a lead in crisis management and emergency planning'; a new online Parent Portal will provide parents with information about the school system; a more co-ordinated school admissions system will be developed for local authorities to implement.
2.2.5 ‘Helping schools go from good to great’: Supporting school improvement to be undertaken by strong schools and system leaders as part of an approach to ‘supported autonomy’; 300 more teaching schools and 800 more National Leaders of Education designated where they are most needed; new intensive focus on the most challenging areas through ‘Achieving Excellence Areas’.
2.2.6 ‘World leading curriculum’: No new curriculum or assessment proposal to enable consolidation and stability; funding for 25% of secondary schools to extend their school day; reform of alternative provision (AP) so that mainstream schools are accountable for pupils in AP and for commissioning high quality provision; strategy for improved careers provision for young people; continued Local Authority duty to promote educational outcomes for Looked After Children.
78
2.2.7 ‘Accountability’: Embed existing reforms to primary, secondary and 16-19 accountability and new accountability for MATs; Ofsted inspection to focus on under-performance.
2.2.8 ‘Right resources in the right hands’: National Funding Formula will pass funding directly to schools by 2017 and high needs funding to local authorities; pupil premium will continue.
2.2.9 There has been extensive public discussion about some aspects of the White Paper, particularly concerning future governance arrangements for schools. The link to a House of Commons Briefing Paper which contains a range of comments appears in the Section 5 of this paper.
2.3 Devolution Deal
2.3.1 The proposed Devolution Deal for East Anglia outlines a number of proposed education and training developments, which would be led by the Combined Authority. Some of these build on existing collaboration with the Regional Schools Commissioner as outlined in previous Committee Reports in July and November 2015. Subject to political agreement, a more detailed proposal on the implications of these developments will be outlined in a future committee report
2.4 The Norfolk school system, Summer 2016
2.4.1 Whilst leadership, management and improvement of schools are the responsibility of governors and their Headteacher, the Local Authority maintains an oversight of Norfolk schools of all types and provides the appropriate support and challenge to ensure that our children and young people receive the ‘good’ education to which they are entitled. Working together, there have been notable improvements in the Norfolk ‘system’ with over 85% of schools now deemed by Ofsted to be at least ‘good’ compared to 59% in 2012. And more than 26,000 children are educated in schools that are at least ‘good’ compared to 2012. Indeed, Norfolk’s progress has been positively commented upon including by Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector, in his speech on 15 June 2015, and by Andrew Cook, Regional Director of Ofsted, in an article published on 2 December 2015.
2.4.2 The White Paper proposes that the Local Authority’s role in intervening in schools will cease as schools become academies. As champion of children and families, however, it will be necessary for the Local Authority to maintain its view of and relationship with each education provider and to call for improvement and intervention, as appropriate.
2.4.3 For Members’ reference, appendices to this report give a snapshot of current numbers and types of state funded schools in Norfolk, the range of collaborative arrangements currently in place, the groups currently sponsoring academies and the relative performance of different types of school in Norfolk. These appendices are updated from previous Committee Reports.
2.5 Respective responsibilities in relation to schools of different types
79 2.5.1 It may also be helpful to note current responsibilities in relation to schools of different types. This appears as Appendix Four to this report. As and when elements in the White Paper are enacted, with proposed changes to governance, some aspects of this table will change.
2.5.2 The table demonstrates the complexity of the pattern of state funded schooling, but each type of school provides a different balance of how local autonomy is able to be exercised in the best interests of educational excellence. For example, schools of all kinds must make best use of available land for educational purposes. Voluntary schools are required to exercise their trustee duties in respect of all land held by them. The Local Authority will always be prepared to challenge the stewardship of premises by community schools and by Academy trusts who exercise leasehold control of NCC land and premises.
2.6 Strong local leadership and services for schools
2.6.1 Much has been learnt across Norfolk schools about self-evaluation and self- improvement in the last two years. This is driving better standards for learners and renewed confidence for education leaders. Much external stimulus has been brought to Norfolk and yet there is wide-spread talent locally.
2.6.2 Headteacher and Governor associations seek to ensure that all schools can be part of strong and collaborative leadership arrangements. The task is for sufficient numbers of Norfolk’s strong schools to provide the necessary local support for weaker schools, increasingly as part of multi-academy trusts. The Local Authority will find ways to support the formation and test the efficacy of all such collaborative arrangements.
2.6.3 A successful approach to self-improvement is the approach known as ‘Norfolk Better to Best’. The scheme is largely funded by Norfolk schools and coordinated by the Local Authority. 230 Norfolk schools are participants in the scheme, including maintained schools and academies alike. As a result of the scheme and its predecessor ‘Norfolk to Good and Great’, 88% of participating schools have secured a ‘good’ inspection judgement. Early discussions are underway to consider how the approach to self-improvement embodied in ‘Norfolk Better to Best’ might enable the creation of an associated multi academy trust.
2.6.4 Educator Solutions is a trading enterprise wholly owned by Norfolk County Council. It incorporates most of the essential services traded with schools and other education providers. In addition to business functions such as support for HR and finance, it also incorporates the advice and support for teaching, learning, leadership and governance that schools purchase from Norfolk County Council. Given that Educator Solutions is one of a range of providers in an increasingly vibrant market place, at the appropriate time Norfolk County Council may wish to consider the best future operating model for this service provider.
2.7 Recommendations
2.7.1 Members are asked to note the implications of the White Paper, to comment on these and on developments described in this paper.
3. Financial Implications
3.1 Existing Norfolk County Council budgets including through the Children’s Services re-structure will enable the ongoing development of the education services that underpin the support and challenge implicit in ‘A Good Education for 80 Every Norfolk Learner’. Much of the activity that was pump-primed through the investment of £1.5M is now sustained through funding by schools and other trading. Funding for intervention and challenge work that cannot be funded by schools will continue to be available - albeit on a modest basis - using existing budgets.
3.2 The Education Support Grant that makes up part of the Council’s income from the Government will cease as part of proposed changes to national funding arrangements. The amount of funding received currently also reduces as schools convert to academy status.
3.3 Some of this reduction in funding will be offset by income generation from schools, MATs, federations and government agencies for services provided. This will need to continue in order that core education services to benefit all Norfolk learners are sustained.
3.4 As the changes proposed in the White Paper crystallise through future legislation and national policy, a further analysis will be required. The LA will need to keep under review (a) the services it provides as part of a market place alongside (b) the core services it must afford in order to fulfil statutory and related functions.
3.5 The Government wishes to ensure that land transfers to academy trusts do not hold up conversion. It envisages education land being transferred automatically to the Secretary of State, who will then be in a position to lease land to sponsors.
3.6 Fees for non-statutory responsibilities such as the legal and property costs of conversion are currently passed on to the converting school and can be set against the Government grant provided for such purposes. With greater definition of change to the LA’s statutory duties, it will be important to ensure that any new costs that fall to the LA are fully funded.
4. Issues, risks and innovation
4.1 Ongoing evaluation of our approach to supporting and challenging school improvement is vital given the continuing need for rapid improvement of educational standards in Norfolk. Improved attainment and Ofsted outcomes together with the judgement that the LA’s own arrangements are ‘effective’ must be built upon. Continuity, consolidation and thorough evaluation mitigate against any potential lack of pace and rigour.
4.2 Young people have been involved in considering the best ways for the LA to support and challenge schools, colleges and other providers though the work of the 11-19 Education and Training Strategy Group as well as through the Youth Parliament.
5 Background
White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere, 17 March 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-excellence-everywhere
Every School an Academy: The White Paper Proposals, House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, 11 April 2016 http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7549/CBP-7549.pdf
81
March 2015 Children’s Services Committee papers http://norfolkcc.cmis.uk.com/norfolkcc/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/m id/397/Meeting/283/Committee/8/Default.aspx
July 2015 Children’s Services Committee papers http://norfolkcc.cmis.uk.com/norfolkcc/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/m id/397/Meeting/352/Committee/8/Default.aspx
November 2015 Children’s Services Committee papers http://norfolkcc.cmis.uk.com/norfolkcc/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/m id/397/Meeting/355/Committee/8/Default.aspx
Background materials relating to ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’ http://www.schools.norfolk.gov.uk/School-management/School- Performance/Schoolimprovement/index.htm
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with:
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Officer Name: Gordon Boyd Tel No: 01603 223492 Email address: [email protected]
If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
82
Appendix One: School types and collaborations
Table 1: Numbers and types of state funded schools in Norfolk, April 2016
Community Voluntary Voluntary Academy Community Foundation Phase Special Aided Controlled Total All Through 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Alternative 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 provision Primary 77 0 167 29 38 45 356 Secondary 38 0 10 1 2 0 51 Special 1 9 0 1 0 0 11 Total 119 9 178 31 40 45 422 Percentage 28% 2% 42% 7% 9% 11%
Table 2: Overview of School Collaborations
Partnership Other Trusts (such Federation Academy Trusts as co-operative trust) Number 7 3 37 22 Multi Academy Trusts, 10 Converter Academy Trusts Number of 18 23 86 119 Schools
83
Appendix Two: Collaborations in Detail
Table 3: Academy Trusts in Norfolk
Types and numbers of Schools All Alternative Complex Total Number Academy Trusts Through provision Primary Secondary Needs of Institutions Academy Transformation Trust 1 3 1 5
Cherry Tree Academy Trust 2 2
East Anglia Schools Trust 2 2 College of West Anglia Academies Trust 3 3 6
Creative Education Trust 1 2 3 Diocese of Ely Multi Academy Trust 12 12 Diocese of Norwich Multi Academy Trust 24 1 25
Right for Success Trust 3 1 1 5
Engage Trust 2 2 Evolution Academy Trust 5 5
Inspiration Trust 4 5 9 North Norfolk Academy Trust 1 2 3
Ormiston Academies Trust 1 4 5
Sapientia Education Trust 1 1 St John the Baptist Catholic MAT 3 1 4 Synergie Academy Trust 1 1 The Apollo Trust 1 1 The HEART Education Trust 3 3 Transforming Education in Norfolk 1 5 6
Wensum Academy Trust 1 1 West Norfolk Academy Trust 4 3 7 Wymondham High Academy Trust 1 1 Converter Academy Trusts 4 6 10
Grand Total 1 2 77 38 1 119
A further 16 Academy orders have been issued.
84
Table 4: Federations in Norfolk (37)
Name of Federation Federated Schools No of Institutions Burston and Tivetshall Community Partnership Burston Community Primary School Schools 2 Tivetshall Primary School The Angel Road Schools Federation Angel Road Infant School 2 Angel Road Junior School Hevingham and Marsham Primary Schools Hevingham Primary School Federation 2 Marsham Primary School The Rudham and Weasenham CofE Primary Rudham CE VC Primary School Schools Federation 2 Weasenham VC Primary School Three Rivers Federation Rockland St. Mary Primary School 2 Surlingham Community Primary School The Great Ellingham and Rockland Schools Great Ellingham Primary School Federation 2 Rocklands Community Primary School Harnser Federation Frettenham Primary Partnership School 3 Hainford Primary Partnership School St Faith's CE VC Primary School Ellingham and Woodton Primary Schools Ellingham CE VC Primary School Federation 2 Woodton Primary School The Federation of Bawdeswell Community and Bawdeswell Community Primary North Elmham CE Primary Schools (and School partner with Swanton Morley VC Primary) 3 North Elmham VC Primary School Swanton Morley VC Primary North Walsham Infant and North Walsham North Walsham Infant School & Junior Federation Nursery 2 North Walsham Junior School Pilgrim Federation Kelling CE Primary School 4 Blakeney CE VA Primary School Hindringham CE VC Primary School Walsingham CE VA Primary School Old Catton and White Woman Lane Junior Old Catton CE Junior School Schools Federation 2 White Woman Lane Junior School The Federation of Grove House Infants and Grove House Nursery & Infant School King's Park Infants Schools 2 King's Park Infant School The South Norfolk Primary Federation Manor Field Infant & Nursery School 2 Aslacton Primary School The Wells Schools Federation Alderman Peel High School 3 Wells-Next-The-Sea Primary & Nursery School Burnham Market Primary School Swallowtail Federation Catfield CE VC Primary School 3 Hickling CE VC Infant School Sutton CE VC Infant School Salhouse and Neatishead Federation Salhouse CE VC Primary School 2 Neatishead VC Primary School
85
Diss Community and Church Schools Diss CE VC Junior School Federation 2 Diss Infants & Nursery School With Children's Centre Clover Hill VA Infant And Nursery All Angels Federation School 2 St. Michael's Ce Va Junior School Tacolneston and Morley C of E Federation Tacolneston CE Primary School 2 Morley CE VA Primary School Windmill Federation Tilney St. Lawrence Community Primary School 4 Walpole Highway Community Primary School Terrington St. John Primary School West Walton Community Primary School Lionwood Schools Federation Lionwood Infant School 2 Lionwood Junior School Loddon Primary Schools Federation Loddon Infant School 2 Loddon Junior School Highgate St James Federation Highgate Infant School 2 King's Lynn Nursery Bridges Federation St. German's Primary School 3 Magdalen Village School Wimbotsham & Stow Community School All Saints, Hapton and St Andrews Federation Winfarthing All Saints School 3 St. Andrew's Lopham CE VA Primary School Hapton CE VC Primary School The Emneth Federation Emneth Nursery 2 Emneth Primary School The Ormesby Village Schools Federation Ormesby Village Junior School 2 Ormesby Village Infant School Dragonfly Federation East Ruston Area Community Infant 2 Stalham Community Infant School St Mary Federation Brancaster CE VA Primary School 3 Sedgeford Primary School Docking CE Primary School & Nursery The Dove Federation Caston CE VA Primary School 2 Parker’s CE VC Primary School The Wroughton Schools Federation Wroughton Infant School 2 Wroughton Junior School Shelton with Hardwick and Hempnall Primary Hempnall Primary School Schools Federation 2 Shelton with Hardwick Community School The Coastal Federation Bacton Community Primary School 3 Mundesley Infant School Mundesley Junior School The Cantley and Horning Schools Federation Cantley Primary School 2 Horning Community Primary School Great Massingham CE Primary Great Massingham/Harpley Primary Schools Schools 2 Harpley Primary CE VC Primary Schools Blue Sky Federation Erpingham VC Primary School 2 Northrepps Primary School 86
86
Table 5: Other Trusts in Norfolk (3)
Name of Trust Schools No of Institutions Acorn Co-operative Learning Alliance Banham Community Primary School 6 Bressingham Primary School East Harling Primary School & Nursery Old Buckenham Community Primary School Bunwell Primary School Kenninghall Primary School Aylsham Trust Aylsham High School 8 Aldborough Primary School Bure Valley School Buxton Primary School Colby Primary School Erpingham VC Primary School John of Gaunt Infant & Nursery School St Michael’s CE VC Nursery & Infant School Trust Norfolk-SEN Chapel Road School 10 Churchill Park School The Clare School Fred Nicholson School Harford Manor School John Grant School Sheringham Woodfields School Sidestrand Hall School Hall School 23
Table 6: Other Headteacher Partnerships in Norfolk (7)
Partnerships Date of Partnership No of Institutions Carleton Rode CE VA Primary School 01/09/2011 2 Kenninghall Primary School Freethorpe Community Primary School 01/09/2014 2 Flegg CE VC Primary School Blenheim Park Community Primary 01/09/2015 2 St Edmund’s Community Foundation School Alburgh with Denton CE VC Primary School 01/09/2015 2 Brockdish CE VC Primary School Mattishall Primary School 11/04/2016 2 Beeston Primary School Frettenham Primary Partnership School (Fed) 01/09/2015 6 Hainford Primary Partnership School (Fed St Faith's CE VC Primary School (Fed) Old Catton CE Junior School (Fed) White Woman Lane Junior School (Fed) Horsford Church CE VA Primary School Coltishall Primary School 01/04/2016 2 Swanton Abbott Community Primary School 18
87
Appendix Three:
Relative performance of different types of school in Norfolk, April 2016
Current Ofsted outcomes
% % Requiring % Good % % No Inadequate improvement (Grade 2) Outstanding Grades inspection (Grade 4) (Grade 3) (Grade 1) 1 and 2 status (Total) Primary 0% 13% 75% 12% 87% 1 (279) Maintained Primary 0% 19% 67% 14% 81% 34 (77) Academy Secondary 0% 14% 79% 7% 86% 0 (14) Maintained Secondary 3% 28% 52% 17% 69% 10 (39) Academy All 0% 13% 75% 12% 87% 1 (303) Maintained All Academy 3% 21% 60% 16% 76% 44 (119)
All 1% 15% 72% 13% 85% 45 (422)
88 Appendix Four: Current responsibilities in respect of schools of different types
Schools funded (maintained) by the Government via the Local Schools funded (maintained) Authority sometimes known as ‘maintained schools’ by the Government via the Education Funding Agency Community Voluntary Voluntary Other Academy Free School4 School Controlled Aided School Foundation School 3 School School Governance Governing Governing Governing Governing Academy Academy Body Body with Body with Body with Trust Trust minority of majority of majority of Governors Governors Governors appointed by appointed by appointed by a Foundation a Foundation a Foundation Trust Trust Trust Funding Local Local Local Local Local Local formula5 Authority in Authority in Authority in Authority in Authority in Authority in consultation consultation consultation consultation consultation consultation with Norfolk with Norfolk with Norfolk with Norfolk with Norfolk with Norfolk Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Forum Forum Forum Forum Forum Forum Funded by Government Government Government Government Government Government via Local via Local via Local via Local via Education via Education Authority and, Authority and, Authority and, Authority and, Funding Funding for Post 16, for Post 16, for Post 16, for Post 16, Agency and, Agency and, Education Education Education Education for high for high Funding Funding Funding Funding needs, Local needs, Local Agency Agency Agency Agency Authority Authority Formal Local Local Local Local DfE Regional DfE Regional Intervention Authority or Authority or Authority or Authority or Schools Schools DfE Regional DfE Regional DfE Regional DfE Regional Commissioner Commissioner Schools Schools Schools Schools Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner with with with involvement involvement involvement of Diocese of Diocese of Trust Inspection Ofsted Ofsted Ofsted Ofsted Ofsted Ofsted Land Local Local Foundation Foundation Local Academy ownership Authority Authority Trust for Trust for Authority with Trust, DfE or buildings and buildings and 125 year Local Local Local lease or Authority Authority for Authority for Academy playing fields playing fields Trust if land not previously owned by Local Authority Employer of Governors via Governors via Governors Governors Academy Academy staff Local Local Trust Trust Authority Authority Sufficiency Planned and Planned and Planned and Planned and Planned and Planned and of pupil funded by funded by funded by funded by funded by funded by places Local Local Local Local Local Local authority and authority and authority and authority and authority authority admissions admissions admissions admissions and and coordinated coordinated coordinated coordinated admissions admissions by Local by Local by Local by Local coordinated coordinated Authority Authority Authority Authority by Local by Local Authority Authority Admissions Local Local Governors Governors Academy Academy authority Authority Authority Trust Trust
3 including University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools 4 a type of Academy School 5 Consultation on a National Funding Formula is underway 89 Children’s Services Committee
Item No…… Report title: Schools Capital Programme 2016-19 Date of meeting: 10th May 2016 Responsible Chief Michael Rosen Officer: Executive Director of Children’s Services Strategic impact The County Council has a duty to secure sufficient pupil places to meet the demands of the school-age population. It receives schools’ capital grant funding to support its strategic plans for the provision of additional places (Basic Need) and for improving the quality of existing maintained school buildings (Capital Maintenance). The cost-effective provision of high-quality places is central to meeting the County Council’s objective of ensuring high standards of achievement in schools – Excellence in Education and the Council’s strategy ‘A Good Education for Every Norfolk Learner’.
Executive summary This report proposes the annual roll-forward of the schools’ capital programme, originally approved by Cabinet in April 2014 for the period 2014-2017. The report details the new funding allocations received from the Education Funding Agency and proposes how funding should be applied to priority capital schemes The report provides an update on the significant capital investment programme for Great Yarmouth to support the town’s primary reorganisation. The programme is being reviewed on the basis of current admissions patterns and this report proposes the basis for revisions to the investment programme The report is based upon the advice and recommendations of Capital Priorities Group at their meetings in January, March and April 2016. Recommendations: To approve the proposed roll-forward of the schools’ capital programme, as set out in Appendix 1, to become the working 2016-19 programme To approve the proposed revisions to the Great Yarmouth capital investment programme at the schools listed in 4.3, subject to continuing consideration by CPG as indicated To approve the inclusion of funding for the land acquisition at St George’s Primary School in the capital programme land acquisition block fund at Appendix 1.
1. Proposal and Background
1.1 This report proposes the annual roll-forward of the NCC schools’ capital programme 2014-17, originally approved by Cabinet in April 2014 and updated for Children’s Services Committee in May 2015. It forms part of an annual Committee reporting cycle as follows:
90 November – identification of emerging capital pressures and priorities for the forward years January - Growth and Investment Plan (summary of strategic pupil place pressures) May – proposed revisions to capital programme in the light of funding allocations
1.2 The report is consistent with the Council's capital programme approved by County Council in February 2016. Adjustments have been made for subsequent grants, expenditure and re-profiling. If approved, the Children’s Services element of the programme will be updated to reflect new and confirmed funding, and project expenditure as set out in this report. 1.3 The Capital Priorities Group (CPG) continues to support and monitor the progress of the capital programme and considers in detail projects of concern, based on a regular risk assessment. As part of this function, CPG has reviewed the significant capital investment programme for Great Yarmouth supporting the town’s primary reorganisation. The programme is being reviewed on the basis of current admissions patterns. This report sets out proposed revisions to the scope of the overall programme following a review of school admissions patterns since reorganisation. 1.4 With this background, and based upon the advice and recommendations of Capital Priorities Group at their meetings in January, March and April 2016, this report: Details the new financial allocations received from the Education Funding Agency (EFA) Presents a refreshed capital programme for the period 2016-19 Makes specific recommendations for Great Yarmouth programme of investment.
2. New financial allocations
2.1 The following table shows the capital allocations received from the Education Funding Agency and which, from 2016/17 (in bold) are able to be added to the existing schools capital budget:
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Basic Need 2.526 16.135 16.135 8.520 8.946 25.929 (£m) LA Capital tbc Maintenance 12.276 11.508 9.240 8.730 8.730* (£m) VA tbc Schools** 1.482 1.811 1.304 1.198 1.198* (£m)
* Indicative sums only ** Voluntary Aided allocations are not controlled by NCC and do not feature further in this report.
91 2.2 Basic Need capital grant is allocated to LAs for all pupil number growth, whatever the status of the schools in which new pupil places are required; LA capital maintenance is available only for those schools maintained by the LA (other than Voluntary Aided which have their own funding stream as indicated in the table). The Education Funding Agency provides funding directly to academies for capital maintenance. 2.3 The recent White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ proposes to implement Government policy that all schools become academies by 2022. As schools become academies, so Capital maintenance funds transfer to the relevant Trust, based on pupil numbers. In time, this will reduce the scope for major capital schemes to improve the quality of school accommodation systematically across an area – e.g. reorganisation schemes, unless funding is pooled by partners. 2.4 The reduction in the Basic Need allocation for 2018/19 indicates that our housing- derived population growth at primary phase is taking longer to come through than originally forecast – a significant allocation was made in 2017/18 and is discounted for future years’ allocations – i.e. forecast pupil numbers are only counted once. 2.5 The proposed capital programme at appendix 1 is based on there being a total of £52.694m available for allocation up to March 2019, of which £6.78m is carried forward as unallocated from 2015/16 and prior years’ allocations. Of the £52.694m available, some £28.5m is allocated in the proposed programme at this stage.
3. Policy and operational basis for the programme 3.1 The policy basis for the programme remains as approved in April 2014: A - Growth – developing the capacity of the estate to meet pupil number growth B - Implementing specialist, targeted and improvement strategies C – Improving the condition and efficiency of the estate.
3.2 More specifically the programme needs to take account of the following: Priority mobile classroom replacement schemes where further repair is unsustainable Growth area major schemes, including further new primary schools as a consequence of major housing development in Sprowston, Wymondham, Thetford and Hethersett; in addition the proposed hew high school in north-east Norwich will need scoping over the coming year for delivery after 2020 The roll-forward of primary growth numbers into the secondary sector Response to structural changes to school and early years organisation in local areas Capital/accommodation response to the developing Inclusion strategy Emerging admission pressures for school entry in September 2016 and 2017 Implications of the reduction in capital maintenance funding (see above)
3.3 In revising the May 2015 programme we have, with the support of Capital Priorities Group at their March meeting:
92 Updated cost estimates Revised the scope of projects on the basis of revised forecasts or actual numbers Identified a small number of new schemes for feasibility work
3.4 The proposed programme is shown at Appendix 1 showing existing and new allocations to each scheme. Some schemes are allocated an initial sum (typically £50k) for early development work, other new schemes are allocated a larger sum (typically £500k) to take to planning permission stage of development. 3.5 Responding to pupil number growth pressures has to remain the overarching priority. The overall medium term picture for the primary phase in Norfolk suggests a levelling off of recent increases in the birth rate, but forecasts can only offer a five year forward picture. Pressure is likely to remain in urban areas but there can also be very intense pressure on individual schools in more rural areas, sometimes requiring a ‘bulge year’ to be set up 3.6 There may need to be initial calls upon the 2018/19 Basic Need allocations for early growth in high schools (although some needs are already beginning to be met through the application of developer contributions) 3.7 Our programmes and forward planning must therefore be flexible, since anticipated pupil number pressures may change and new ones emerge. All schemes in the programme are kept under review so that if numbers (and/or parental preferences) do not materialise as anticipated, funding can, with CPG advice, be reallocated to other growth areas. 3.8 The next annual cycle of identifying need and priorities will now be begun by Capital Priorities Group in July, leading to further prioritisation for 2017/18 onwards in November (see para 1.1 – annual cycle)
4. Great Yarmouth Primary Reorganisation 4.1 As part of its monitoring work, Capital Priorities Group has reviewed the Great Yarmouth capital investment programme. As the largest single area programme in the budget, it is important to ensure that capital investment is targeted to actual need – that is actual pupil number demand, whilst ensuring sufficient capacity for future growth. Two aspects have been considered in detail: Pupil numbers and school admissions numbers– forecast against actual Land requirements where schools are on constrained sites 4.2 Eight all-through primary schools were formed from the reorganisation processes of 2014 and 2015. Four of these have no issues – admission numbers have matched those anticipated at reorganisation and the planned capital schemes will continue as intended:
Alderman Swindell Primary School Northgate Primary School St Nicholas Priory CEVA Primary School Southtown Primary School 4.3 Four schools are being given detailed attention by CPG on the basis of the two criteria in 4.1 above – admissions and/or site constraints:
North Denes Primary School
93 Edward Worlledge Primary School Great Yarmouth Primary Academy (GYPA) St George’s Primary & Nursery School
A plan of the town showing the schools mentioned above is at Appendix 3. Pupil numbers 4.4 At the time of reorganisation there were nine forms of entry at Yr R in the infant/primary schools in central Great Yarmouth but only eight at Yr 3 entry to junior schools (including GYPA). The schools were reorganised to provide 10 forms of entry in all-through primary schools, based on 11 forms of entry pupil numbers data. A table showing the change in forms of entry and admissions patterns since reorganisation is at Appendix 2. 4.5 There are 9 FE entrants to year R in September 2016, representing as in previous years, around 84% of the children resident in the area. Parental preference to schools outside Great Yarmouth town accounts for the difference. 4.6 In the Southtown area, three forms of entry were formed on reorganisation (Appendix 2) 4.7 CPG’s conclusion was that a revision of the planned admission numbers should be made as follows:
North Denes – 60 to 30 Edward Worlledge – 60 to 45 GYPA – remain at 60, subject to any further bulge year
4.8 Discussions with the schools and the relevant academy trusts will continue to develop an appropriate level of future capital investment on this basis, with final decisions to be taken by CPG. Basis for res-coping capital schemes 4.9 North Denes: In the light of the above pupil number considerations, CPG supported a detailed feasibility on a scheme which would
Progress the early delivery of a nursery unit in existing buildings for September 2017 Re-scope capital works from feasibility stage and to include option for new-build, of a 210 place primary school Reassess the potential for wider use of this large site
4.10 Edward Worlledge Primary: CPG was mindful of the school’s impending transfer to the Ormiston Academies Trust and proposed that consideration of the capital proposals, based around 315 pupils rather than 420, should be discussed with the Trust before a decision is taken. Options for capital schemes are more complex than at North Denes. They need to include consideration of the merits and risks to all parties of the acquisition of additional land and premises from Great Yarmouth College which had been factored into to a scheme for 420 pupils plus nursery because of the land-locked site. CPG noted the representations of the school that any reduction in the proposed capital scheme would be of concern and, with that concern in mind, CPG will consider the options again in May 2016.
94 4.11 Great Yarmouth Primary Academy: Officers will discuss with the sponsor, the Inspiration Trust, the capital implications of remaining at 420 places and report back to CPG. Land requirements where schools are on constrained sites 4.12 The two schools on constrained sites are Edward Worlledge (dealt with above) and St George’s Primary School. St George’s changed at reorganisation from a 180 place infant school to a 210 primary school. The school has been oversubscribed each year and we can therefore take this as the future position year-on-year. This means that under-capacity of site and buildings will remain an issue. 4.13 The current site size of St George’s is 2,686m2 and guidance for a 210 place (1FE) primary school is between 9,366m2 and 10,926m2. The site is fully land-locked. This insufficiency is of great concern to CPG which has considered in detail the possibility of NCC acquiring the site and buildings of an adjacent former restaurant. For its part, the school has expressed serious concerns about the safety of children on site and the inadequacy of the hall for PE etc. now that it has to accommodate more and older children. The long term aspiration will be to demolish the restaurant and construct a full-size hall. 4.14 At its last meeting, CPG asked for an urgent re-valuation by NPS of the restaurant site to inform future consideration. This has been carried out. 4.15 The school has also offered to support the acquisition with up to £30k of its own funds. 4.16 CPG’s conclusion was that the case for acquisition is strong and unlikely to occur again. Therefore financial provision should be made in the Land acquisition block allocation of the capital programme for this scheme to its full value and that discussion with the vendor’s agent should be re-opened on the basis of the new valuation. Approval of any acquisition will be required through the NCC property hierarchy process. Complex and additional needs 4.17 As a result of its current review, CPG has asked officers to assess the sufficiency issues within these sectors in Great Yarmouth and to establish whether there are any opportunities for development. 5. Financial Implications 5.1 As the revised programme is based entirely on grant funding and developer contributions, there are no revenue implications for the County Council. 5.2 Savings that accrue through the more efficient provision of school buildings can be applied by the individual school to teaching and learning. 5.3 The risk of the long-term, fragmentation of capital funding, as more Capital maintenance is transferred from the LA to Multi-Academy Trusts has been referred to above. 6. Issues, risks and innovation 6.1 There are a number of time and financial risks in planning the increase of pupil places to meet changing demand. They include the impact of the economic situation on the housing market, the availability of full funding under the new Community Infrastructure Levy arrangements, the need to accommodate children from the early phases of new housing before a new school comes into operation and the revenue sustainability of a new school in the first years of operation. At
95 present key risks are securing land for necessary expansion and the ability to secure planning consents on expanding the building footprint on constrained school sites. 7. Background reports 7.1 Committee papers: Children’s Services Committee - May 2015, Page 76, Item 10 Children’s Services Committee - January 2016, Page 237, Item 11 Policy and Resources Committee – February 2016, Page 138, Item 7 Policy and Resources Committee – February 2016, Page 223, Item 14 Education Excellence Everywhere – White Paper DfE March 2016
8 Recommendations: To approve the proposed roll-forward of the schools’ capital programme, as set out in Appendix 1, to become the working 2016-19 programme.
To approve the proposed revisions to the Great Yarmouth capital investment programme at the schools listed in 4.3, subject to continuing consideration by CPG as indicated.
To approve the inclusion of funding for the land acquisition at St George’s Primary School in the capital programme land acquisition block fund at Appendix 1.
Appendix 1 – Proposed 2016-19 Capital Programme Appendix 2 – Admissions Numbers at Great Yarmouth Schools Appendix 3 – Map of Great Yarmouth Showing Primary Schools
Officer Contact
Chris Hey Head of Place Planning and Organisation 01603 223467 [email protected]
Gordon Boyd Assistant Director – Education - Children’s Services 01603 223492 [email protected]
Isabel Horner Capital Programme Manager 01603 222246 [email protected]
David Russell Property Review and Client Officer 01603 706225 [email protected]
If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (text phone) and we will do our best to help.
96 Children’s Services Committee 10 May 2016 Proposed 2016-19 Capital Programme Appendix 1, Page 1
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Budget Currently Scheme - Land Purchase (Growth) Previously Previously Previously allocated Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Land Block Allocation 3.159 0.000 0.700 0.000 3.859
Allocations in 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Budget Scheme - Growth Previous Previously Previously Previously Years Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Attleborough Junior Remodelling - 2FE primary 0.300 1.700 1.000 0.000 3.000 Attleborough new school - re-organisation of Infant to Primary 2.219 6.500 2.681 0.000 11.400 Bignold Primary - to 3FE 0.901 1.779 0.000 2.680 Cawston Primary - to 1FE 0.400 0.000 0.000 0.400 Costessey, St Augustine's RC - to 1.5FE 0.870 0.000 0.000 0.870 Drake Infant - to 2FE Primary, Thetford 3.115 2.685 0.000 5.800 Gayton CE VC Primary to 1FE 3.994 1.506 0.000 5.500 Gt Yarmouth Primary Academy - to 2FE 1.400 0.000 0.000 1.400 Henderson Green - to 1FE 1.450 0.550 0.000 2.000 King's Lynn, St Martha's RCP - 2FE 1.937 1.057 0.000 2.994 Mulbarton - consolidate 2FE 1.046 0.614 0.000 1.660 Pulham Market Primary - 180 place permanent 0.650 0.182 0.000 0.832 Queen's Hill - to 3FE 3.399 1.460 0.000 4.859 Roydon Primary - to 2FE 0.624 2.415 0.861 0.000 3.900 St Michael's VA Junior, Bowthorpe - to 4FE 0.656 0.000 0.244 0.000 0.900 Sparhawk Infant - to 2FE permanent 0.750 0.000 0.250 0.000 1.000 Suffield Park - to 3FE permanent 1.050 1.800 0.050 0.000 2.900 Trowse Primary - new 1FE building 1.500 3.500 0.000 5.000 West Lynn Primary - to 1FE 0.955 0.000 0.000 0.955 Wymondham High Academy - add 150 places 1.122 0.000 0.000 1.122 Sub Total Growth 28.338 25.748 5.086 0.000 59.172
97 Children’s Services Committee 10 May 2016 Proposed 2016-19 Capital Programme Appendix 1, Page 2
Allocations in 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Allocation Scheme - Targeted B1 and B2 Previous Previously Previously Previously Years Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Chapel Road - replacement of complex needs school 11.341 1.809 0.000 13.150 Compass Lingwood 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.700 Sidestrand Hall - new sixth form 0.724 0.000 0.276 0.000 1.000 West Norfolk Specialist Academy 2.830 4.100 0.000 6.930 Heartsease 2yr olds 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Woodside One Pre school 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.260 Sub-total Targeted 16.855 5.909 0.276 0.000 23.040
Allocations in 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Allocation Scheme - Condition Previous Previously Previously Previously Years Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Astley Primary School - permanent 0.050 1.950 0.000 2.000 Attleborough Sports Hall - joint use liability 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.020 Blenheim Park - rationalisation scheme and energy reduction 0.050 0.150 0.000 0.200 Brooke VCP - replacement school 3.000 1.500 0.000 4.500 Equalities Act 0.344 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.744 Sites Condition 0.853 0.100 0.000 0.953 Swaffham Sports Hall (joint with EFA) 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.700 Thorpe Hillside (Dining Hall) 0.050 1.150 0.000 1.200 Sub-total Condition 5.067 5.050 0.200 0.000 10.317
98
Children’s Services Committee 10 May 2016 Proposed 2016-19 Capital Programme Appendix 1, Page 3
Allocations in 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Allocation New Schemes - A1 Growth Previous Previously Previously Previously Years Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Attleborough High Expansion 0.000 0.050 0.000 1.207 1.257 Hellesdon 2FE Primary 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.500 Hethersett 2FE Primary 0.000 0.250 0.000 3.750 4.000 Little Plumstead to 2FE 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.050 Poringland Primary to 2FE 0.025 0.250 0.000 0.750 1.025 Sprowston White House Farm 2FE 0.000 0.000 3.700 3.700 Wymondham Secondary expansion 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 Wymondham Silfield 2FE Primary 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.500 Cringleford New 2FE Primary 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.500 A3 Organisation and Partnership Aylsham cluster capacity/organisation 3.141 0.000 3.141 Bowthorpe organisation 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.050 Costessey Infant/Junior to single site (feasibility) 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.050 Dersingham Primary (single-site with LCVAP) 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.050 Diss Infant and Junior capacity/organisation 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.050 East Harling Primary to 1FE 0.000 0.250 0.000 1.000 1.250 Falcon Road Junior to 4FE 0.050 0.000 1.500 1.550 Hethersett capacity/organisation 0.100 0.000 3.000 3.100 Hillcrest Downham Market (permanent) 0.891 0.000 0.800 1.691 North Walsham Infant (consolidate at 3FE) 0.050 0.000 0.500 0.550 Watton capacity and organisation 0.340 0.000 0.050 0.390 Holt Primary (to 1.5 or 2FE) 0.000 0.000 0.050 ` 0.050
99
Children’s Services Committee 10 May 2016 Proposed 2016-19 Capital Programme Appendix 1, Page 4
A4 - Minor Capacity Cromer Junior to 3FE 0.100 0.000 0.100 Fakenham Infant to 3FE 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.050 Mulbarton Infant/Junior 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.300 Admission pressures 16/17 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 Sub- total Growth (new) 4.697 2.100 0.000 17.357 24.154
Allocations in 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Allocation New Schemes - C - Condition Previous Previously Previously Previously Years Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Barford Primary mobile replacement 0.000 0.850 0.000 0.850 Taverham Junior mobile replacement 0.000 0.850 0.000 0.850 Kenninghall Primary remodelling scheme 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 Catton Grove dental clinic demolition 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.150 Essential capital maintenance 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.500 Condition contingency 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Sub-total Condition (new) 1.000 0.000 2.600 0.000 0.000 3.600
Programme Management Capital project management 0.000 0.230 0.400 0.000 0.630 Programme Management Sub-total 0.000 0.230 0.400 0.000 0.630
Allocations in 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Total Project Allocation Previous Previously Previously Previously Years Allocated New Allocated New Allocated New £m Total Funding Allocated 51.460 41.634 11.162 0.000 17.357 0.000 121.613 Total Funding Unallocated 8.572 2.525 11.097
100 Children’s Services Committee 10 May 2016 Admissions Numbers at Great Yarmouth Schools Appendix 2
FE pre No in FE pre reorg reorg FE reorg reception NOR 16 Infant Schools infant junior primary 15 (admissions) Alderman Swindell 2 1 27 30 Northgate 2 2 61 60 St George's 3 1 30 30 Junior Schools St Nicholas Priory 3 2 60 60 North Denes 2 2 41 25 Primary GYPA n/a 2 2 59 52 Southtown Area Southtown Infant 2 1 23 28 Edward Worlledge 2 2 35 40
101 Children’s Services Committee 10 May 2016 Map of Great Yarmouth Showing Primary Schools Appendix 3
102