b
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S SERVICE SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE
Date and Time: Thursday, 19 January 2012 7.00 pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Contact for enquiries: Website: Jacqueline Davy www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee Democratic Services Officer Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 2167 Lambeth Council – Democracy Live Fax: 020 7926 2361 on Facebook Email: [email protected] http://www.facebook.com/
Governance and Democracy @LBLdemocracy on Twitter Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy London, SW2 1RW To tweet about Council agendas, minutes or meetings use #Lambeth Despatched: Wednesday, 11 January 2012
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Councillors BEST (Vice-Chair), COSGRAVE, HARRISON (Chair), MORGAN and MORRIS
CO-OPTED MEMBERS : Voting education representatives [4]
Paulette Roberts, Paul Ebanks, Ms Barbara Lane and Vacancy 1
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors CAMERON, GIESS, MEMERY, OGDEN, J.WHELAN and Vacancy2
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page Nos. 1. Declarations of Interest
2. Minutes (06.09.11) 1 - 10
To approve the minutes of the meeting of 6 September 2011 as a correct record of the proceedings.
3. Scrutiny of the draft revenue and capital budgets 2012/13 - 11 - 224 2014/15 for the Children and Young People's Service
(All Wards) (Report No. 255/11-12)
Contact: Jason Preece, Head of Strategic Planning and Performance, CYPS, 020 7926 8157, [email protected]
Young people have been invited to the meeting to comment on the budget proposals.
4. 2011/2012 Budget Reductions Monitoring and Reporting 225 - 240
(All Wards) (Report No. 256/11-12)
Contact: Dunni Komolafe, Group Finance Manager, 020 7926 9732, [email protected]
5. Special Education Needs in Lambeth - Phase 1 241 - 300
(All Wards) (Report No. 257/11-12)
Contact: Sandra Morrison, Divisional Director Children’s and Young People, 020 7 926 9705, [email protected]
6. Biannual Safeguarding Report 301 - 370
(All Wards) (Report No. 258/11-12)
Contact: Deane Jennings, Head of Service for Quality Assurance and LSCB Manager, 020 7926 4760, [email protected]
7. Work Programme Development and Action Monitoring 371 - 384
(All Wards) (Report No. 259/11-12)
Contact: Claire Butcher, Lead Scrutiny Officer, 020 7926 0024, [email protected],uk
PUBLIC INFORMATION QR CODES (for use with smart mobile phones)
Dates of future meetings, the agenda management timetable and details of past meetings can be found on the Council’s website, if you are viewing this online http://tinyurl.com/cypsdates
Access Information: • Lambeth Town Hall is on the corner of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, 200 metres south of Brixton tube station (Victoria Line) – turn left on leaving the station and look for the clock tower. • If you are viewing this online, http://tinyurl.com/lambethtownhallmap
Facilities for disabled people:
Access for people with mobility difficulties, please ring the bell (marked with the disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance.
Sound enhancement system available in meeting room. Please contact the officer shown on the front page of this agenda to discuss your needs. .
Adapted toilets on the premises.
Meeting papers are available in large print and other formats on request.
For further assistance please contact the officer listed on the front page Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The name, email address and telephone number of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.
Other enquiries: Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information concerning the agenda or meeting.
Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes All public committee papers are available for inspection at Lambeth
libraries, and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner which you can access by logging onto www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee
Or
• Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk • Click on Council and Democracy in the menu on the left hand side • Then click on the third main item in the body of the page– Committee reports, minutes and agendas, and then Council meetings and decisions pages . Click on the relevant committee in the list and then the meeting you require.
If you are unable to locate the document you require, please contact the officer shown on the front page above.
Representation:
Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2131) may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views to the Council: (Liberal Democrats 020 7926 2028) (Conservatives 020 7926 2213) (Labour 020 7926 1166).
This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 2
C&YPSSC b
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S SERVICE SCRUTINY SUB- COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 6th September, 2011 at 7.00 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT: Councillor Shirley Cosgrave, Councillor Mark Harrison (Chair), Councillor Marcia Cameron (Substitute), Councillor Roger Giess (Substitute), Councillor Alex Bigham, Paulette Roberts and Paul Ebanks
APOLOGIES: Councillor Judith Best, Ms Barbara Lane and Councillor Diana Morris
ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Peter Truesdale, Councillor Peter Robbins and Councillor Adedamola Aminu
Action required by
1. DECLARATION OF INTER EST Councillor Marcia Cameron declared an interest in item 8 (Biannual Safeguarding Report – Children Looked After) as she sat on the Adoption Panel but did not consider this to be prejudicial.
2. MINUTES (30.06.11) RESOLVED : That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the meeting.
Page 2
3. PUBLIC NOTICE QUESTI ONS: MED SOC PANEL AND SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACES (All Wards) (Report No. 114/11-12)
Public Notice Question Tabled Addendum Report: – Save Children’s Services Deputation: reduction in opening hours for
Adventure Playgrounds and One O’Clock Clubs submitted by Andrew Tullis, UNISON Convenor Lambeth CYPS
The Chair invited Andrew Tullis from UNISON to address the Sub- Committee. On behalf of other members of the deputation he made the following points:-
• That UNISON had warned the council regarding their failings in its functions in crime prevention to address the provisions
of children and young people. • He felt that the Sub-Committee needed to consider: o The impact and consequences of the cuts in services
for children and young people that had already been made o The further cuts imposed for Phases 3 and 4
o How young people would spend their time when youth workers were dismissed by the council o Where children will play now that Adventure
Playgrounds were only opened once a week o The impact on parents, carers and childminders regarding reductions in opening times of the One
O’Clock Clubs o The co-operative council and early adopters as no evidence existed to suggest that service users and
staff wanted the co-op council model.
A parent also addressed the Sub-Committee outlining his concerns
regarding the reduced opening hours of the One O’Clock Clubs in his area as others were located further away. He felt that would have a long-term affect on children.
Councillor Pete Robbins, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People responded as follows:-
• That the council had not failed in its duty pertaining to the riots.
• The vast majority of young people were ambitious and worked hard at school. • The council wanted to listen to the views of young people and a Youth Summit had been organised for September. • That One O’Clock Clubs were open 3 days per week.
• Adventure Playgrounds were open full-time during school holiday periods. • The co-operative council early adopters programme had Page 3
been designed to make improvements to the Adventure
Playgrounds. • Following the funding cuts by made central government, the council had no choice but to impose cuts.
The Chair thanked Andrew Tullis and other members of the deputation for attending.
Public Notice Question PNQ.11.12.005 submitted by Simon Hooberman
Simon Hooberman was present at the meeting and asked for the MEDSOC issues he raised in his circulated paper, to be considered
as part of the Sub-Committee’s Work Programme.
The Divisional Director, Education Estates and Capital Projects
Division responded that the points raised would be reviewed as part of the upcoming general review into admissions and a meeting held with Simon Hooberman to discuss the issues. An update on the
outcome of the review would be presented to the Sub-Committee in January 2012.
Members made reference to the MEDSOC Outcome Letter and felt that the letter needed to be more clearly worded.
Public Notice Question PNQ.11.12.006 submitted by Councillor Peter Truesdale
Councillor Peter Truesdale was present at the meeting and stated that he was happy with the written answer on the agenda and did not want to ask a supplementary question. However, he still had
concerns regarding the disposal of school sites.
RESOLVED :
(1) That the deputation and questions be noted.
(2) That an update on MEDSOC panel issues to be reported back CYPS/BSF to the Sub-Committee in January 2012.
4. FORMER SHELLEY/OLIVE SCHOOL S ITE PROPOSED DISPOSAL (Prince’s Ward) (Report No. 119/11-12)
The report was presented by the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People (Councillor Peter Robbins).
He stated that due to a number of reasons including the shortage of school places, the increase in late applications that had been submitted and the difficulty in finding even temporary locations for additional classes, a decision had just been made to choose option Page 4
4 and remove the Shelley site from the current disposal list.
A representative from the Save Shelley Group addressed the meeting and made the following points:-
• That she was happy regarding the decision made to have a bulge class on the site. However, a bulge class would not offer a long-term solution to the shortage of school places. • The anticipated developments in Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Opportunity Area (VNEBOA) would impose added pressure of school places to the north of the borough. • She sought a resolution from the Sub-Committee for a permanent solution to move from option 4 to 3.
The Cabinet Member responded as follows:-
• He acknowledged that option 4 did not provide a permanent solution, however, funding was not currently available to take option 3 forward; in addition pressure on school places was greatest in the south of the borough. • He suggested that parents write to the Secretary of State outlining the issues over the funding shortage. • He was keen that a school site should be identified for the VNEB area and work would continue with respect to this, however, there would be no immediate concerns until around 2021.
Mr Rodney Ovenden, lead petitioner addressed the meeting and stated that:
• He had identified 8 sites in north Lambeth that would be developed which would yield an additional 213 primary places. Also, recent sites he had identified increased the figure to over 300 additional primary places resulting from new developments. • It was proposed to bring the Shelley site into use for a 2 form entry primary school (option 3). This option would be cheaper for the council as no alternative site in the Vauxhall area would need to be found.
The Cabinet Member responded that at present, short-term solutions for primary school places was required. However, the above issues raised could be reviewed.
A Governor at the Archbishop Sumner School (ABS) addressed the meeting and made the following points:-
• That expanding the school onto the Shelley site proved sustainable. • The school was unique and various activities were held at the school for children and adults. Page 5
• The school served the Kennington community. • She sought assurance that funding would be secured for the proposal. • The Governing Body preferred the option for both reception classes to be on the Shelley site and not split between the two sites.
The Cabinet Member confirmed that the council would be willing to work with the Archbishop Sumner primary school.
The Divisional Director, Education Estates and Capital Projects Division confirmed that further discussions with the school would be held outside of the meeting on practicalities.
A Member expressed concern regarding the decision-making process and felt it was not appropriate that a decision had been made on the same day of the meeting. In response the Cabinet Member reassured the Sub-Committee that discussions with the school had been undertaken by officers beforehand.
Councillor Truesdale suggested that a meeting between the school, officers and ward councillors should be held towards the end of the summer term next year to discuss matters.
The Cabinet Member wanted to record his thanks to the Divisional Director and his team for finding school places for children during this very difficult time.
Representatives from the London Bilingual Schools Limited (LBSL) (who had submitted an application for a German English free school on the site) addressed the meeting making the following points:
• The school was a mainstream school that would teach in two languages. • The application was currently being considered by the Department for Education. • Meetings had been held with officers in CYPS and he thanked them for their time. • Demand figures showed that 351 children (62 from the borough) had expressed an interest. • The school would admit 25 children per year. At its full capacity, places would be available for at least 100 Lambeth students. • Any places provided would be at no cost to the council. • If approved the LBSL would be willing to work with ABS. • The LBSL was committed to collaborate with other others.
A local parent in support of the LBSL addressed the meeting and stated that:-
• She supported the bid for a free school. Page 6
• Evidence showed that bilingual schools worked well. • The school reflected the borough’s needs. • That spaces existed for German and local children. • There was a real drive for free schools. The borough would benefit from this proposal, as the council would not have to pay for the building.
In response to a question, officers stated that logistical and operational difficulties would exist if the bulge class and free school were placed on the same site and this would put pressure on the small size of many of the spaces.
RESOLVED :
(1) That the report be noted.
(2) That an update on medium and long-term plans for the site be timetabled into next year’s work programme.
(3) To recommend that the council’s disposals strategy and section 106 contributions around school places be revisited by the Cabinet.
(4) To recommend that relevant ward councillors be consulted on decisions about bulge classes.
5. CYPS CAPITAL PROGRAM MES (All Wards) (Report No. 120/11-12)
The report was presented by the Divisional Director, Education Estates and Capital Projects Division.
In answer to questions from Members it was stated that:
• The design build for schools would be more standardised than previous designs. • The council had engaged with various school forums and the
Diocese etc regarding the capital funding for expansion of primary places and details would be fed back to the Sub- Committee.
• Pupils’ data was reviewed on a regular basis. Therefore, the council was confident that the data was robust. • Officers were confident that some Lambeth schools would qualify for PFI funding.
The Cabinet Member felt that the capital funding formula was unfair and needed to be referred to ensure that Lambeth received a fair share of the available funding. He suggested that the committee
write to the Secretary of State urging government to make a quick decision on the additional £500 million capital funding recently announced and lobbying for a reformed funding formula that fairly Page 7
reflects Lambeth’s needs.
RESOLVED :
(1) That the report be noted.
(2) That the Sub-Committee writes to the Secretary of State urging
government to make a quick decision on the additional £500 million capital funding recently announced and lobbying for a FR/GAD reformed funding formula that fairly reflects Lambeth’s needs.
6. COOPERATIVE COUNCIL EARLY ADOPTERS - INTERIM REPORT (All Wards) (Report No. 115/11-12)
The Assistant Director presented the report.
In answer to questions from Members it was stated that:-
• It was felt that the risks outlined in the report are the subject
of control measures which should mitigate them. • That the Invest to Save budget spend would be completed next year (2012).
• There would be high engagement with councillors about the programme, activities and assets in their wards. A small Steering Group might also be considered.
(Councillor Marcia Cameron arrived at this point).
A Member expressed his preference for Option 6 and raised concern regarding the short time-scale. In response the Cabinet Member stated:-
• That the council would have liked to have commenced the
process earlier but the key risk was to get the programme right. • That Public Service Mutuals (PSM) had been very helpful
with the programme. • A shortage of Adventure Playgrounds existed in Norwood and Streatham.
RESOLVED :
(1) That the report be noted.
(2) To recommend that Lambeth councillors take a leadership role
in developing the Co-operative Council model within their wards, for instance, through identifying and supporting appropriate projects to be taken forward through the model.
(3) That this item be revisited at the Sub-Committee’s January FR/GAD Page 8
2012 meeting.
7. 2011/12 BUDGET REDUC TIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING (All Wards) (Report No. 116/11-12)
The report was introduced by the Divisional Director of Resources.
In answer to questions from Members it was stated:
• A timetable for the closure of Adventure Playgrounds based on a locality approach had been devised and risk assessments had been carried out. • The Adventure Playground in Streatham would be opened more frequently as this was the only one in the area. • The council worked closely with the police to ensure that particular ‘hotspots’ were monitored and where these were identified, that sufficient projects and interventions were in place. • The department intended to reduce agency costs and to undertake the Phase 3 restructures at an earlier stage to deter problems and to keep within the existing budget.
The Executive Director of Children and Young People expressed the importance of working jointly with the Youth Mayor and Youth Council pertaining to the services provided by the council for young people. The upcoming Youth Summit presented an opportunity to hear directly from young people about the services that mattered most to them.
RESOLVED :
(1) That the report be noted.
Guillotine
During the discussion of this item, the guillotine fell at 9.00 pm. MOVED by the Chair, and
RESOLVED : That in accordance with Standing Orders 9.5 – 9.7, the meeting continue for a further period of up to 30 minutes.
8. BIANNUAL SAFEGUARDIN G REPORT - CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER (All Wards) (Report No. 117/11-12)
The report was presented by the Assistant Director, Multi-Agency Looked After Children and Corporate Parenting Services.
Page 9
He drew Members attention to paragraph 2.1 of the report and pointed out that the local authority had legal and financial responsibilities to children until they were “25” and not “24” as stated.
In answer to questions fro Members it was stated that:
• Work was underway to develop preventative services to deter children from coming into care. • Difficulties in recruiting foster carers existed across London and more work needed to be done to recruit adopters, especially from the ethnic minorities. • Adoption issues were discussed at the Corporate Equalities Impact Panel and Equalities Diversity Board and key action plans were in place. • The Fostering Adoption Panel determines whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements to either foster or adopt and a variety of people had met the required standards. • The Council hoped to continue to reduce the number of teenagers entering into care.
RESOLVED :
(1) That the report be noted.
9. WORK PROGRAMME DEVEL OPMENT AND ACTION MONITORING (All Wards) (Report No. 118/11-12)
The Sub-Committee considered the work programme and it was -
RESOLVED :
(1) That the report be noted.
(2) That young people be invited to the Sub-Committee meeting in December to comment on departmental savings proposals. FR/GAD
(3) That an update report on the Co-operative Council Early Adopters be brought back to the Sub-Committee meeting in FR/GAD
January 2012.
(4) That an update on MEDSOC Panel issues be brought back to FR/GAD the Sub-Committee meeting in January 2012.
The meeting ended at 9.30 pm CHAIR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S SERVICE Page 10
SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE Tuesday, 6th December, 2011
Date of Despatch : Wednesday, 14 September 2011 Contact for Enquiries : Jacqueline Davy Tel: 020 7926 2167 Fax: (020) 7926 2361 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk
The action column is for officers' use only and does not form a part of the formal record.
Page 11 Agenda Item 3
b
Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub- Committee 19 January 2012
Scrutiny of the draft revenue and capital budgets 2012/13 – 2014/15 for the Children and Young People’s Service
All Wards
Report authorised by : Executive Director Children and Young People’s Service: Debbie Jones
Executive summary
This report sets out:
• The current financial context and position of the department; • The department’s draft provisional savings proposals for years 2012/13 to 2014/15 and how they will continue to contribute to the delivery of the Council’s overall financial and service plan. This does not include those programmes managed as part of the corporate Transformation & Efficiency portfolio.
The Department is proposing new net savings of £6.33m over the 3 years 2012/13- 2014/15. This is in addition to the brought forward growth and savings agreed during last years budget build. Both of these amounts are broken down as follows:
Revenue Growth and Savings Proposals - Summary 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Over Over Over Total 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 Brought Forward Growth 0 0 0 0 Brought Forward Savings 400 400 0 800 Brought Forward Net 400 400 0 800 New Growth 0 0 0 0 New Savings 4,944 515 876 6,335 New Net Savings 4,944 515 876 6,335 Total Savings Proposed 5, 344 915 876 7,135
The Transformation and Efficiency Portfolio contains a number of programmes that affect the whole organisation, and are expected to contribute to the achievement of the savings target as part of Service & Financial Planning. Some of these programmes are managed, and included as savings proposals submitted, by individual departments whilst others are more cross Page 12
cutting in scope - but each has been subject to increased scrutiny through Cabinet and senior managers.
Summary of financial implications
The implications of the new 2012-13 to 2014/15 savings proposals are that the CYPS cash limit budget will be reduced by £7,135k over the three years.
Recommendations That the committee forward any formal recommendations to the Cabinet via the Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee.
Consultation
Name of consultee Department or Organisation Date sent Date Comments response appear in received report para:
Internal Debbie Jones Executive Director of CYPS 14.12.11 28.12.11 Throughout Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director Resources and 14.12.11 21.12.11 Throughout Strategy Dunni Komolafe Head of Finance CYPS 9.12.11 09.12.11 Throughout Alison McKane GD: Legal Services 28.12.11 30.12.11 6.1 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 28.12.11 11.01.12 Section 1 Members of CYPS Children and Young People 14.12.11 21.12.11 Throughout Departmental Service Leadership Team Councillor Peter Cabinet Member for Children & 20.12.11 3.1.12 Throughout Robbins Young People
Report history
Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 20.12.11 06.01.11 11.01.11 255/11-12 (revised version) Report author and contact for queries:
Jason Preece, Head of Strategic Planning and Performance, CYPS 020 7926 68157 jpreece @lambeth.gov.uk
Background documents
July Finance review November Finance review November Budget Monitor and Savings Tracker
Appendices
Appendix 1: CYPS Detailed Savings proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15 and CYPS Equality Impact Assessments of Savings proposals Appendix 2: Transformation and Efficiency portfolio savings
Page 13
Statement in relation to the process for setting the budget and policy framework
Rule 2(b) of the Budget & Policy Framework Procedure Rules (Part 4, Section 3 of the Council's Constitution) states: "The Cabinet’s initial proposals shall be referred to the relevant scrutiny committee or sub-committee for further advice and consideration. The proposals will be referred by sending a copy to the proper officer who will forward them to all Members of the relevant scrutiny committee or sub-committee. That scrutiny committee or sub- committee shall report to the Cabinet on the outcome of its deliberations and shall have six weeks to respond to the initial proposals of the Cabinet unless the Cabinet considers that there are special factors that make this time-scale inappropriate. If it does, it will inform the scrutiny committee or sub-committee of the time for response when the proposals are referred to it. "
All Members will be aware of the challenge facing the Council in reducing our General Fund Budget by £94.5 Million over four years to 2014/2015, over £37m of which is being cut this year alone. The Budget to be agreed in February 2012 will need to agree the target of £29m for 2012/13 and further reductions to close the gap for future years to achieve the overall total. As such, this year’s budget round is as equally difficult as last year for the Council and cannot be achieved within what we would consider the ‘normal’ budget timeframe. The normal cycle of committee and other meetings is therefore having to be rescheduled to ensure budget proposals, equality impact assessments and consultation results are reviewed and finalised for Scrutiny committees to consider. Additionally there has been some further financing matters as a result of guidance issued by Government which have involved medium term policy consideration namely, council tax specific grant and HRA financing reform
Accordingly the chair of this committee is requested to accept the report and respond in the reduced timescales referred to.
Page 14
Scrutiny of the draft revenue and capital budgets 2012/13 – 2014/15 for the Children and Young People’s Service Department
1. Context
1.1 Lambeth’s Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS) plays a vital role in ensuring that children and young people and their families succeed and play a positive role in our communities, and lead healthier, happier, safer lives. The department, working along with schools, partners and the voluntary sector plays a crucial role in achieving the vision of a sustainable borough. Good quality education remains the cornerstone of social mobility, and keeping children safe and engaged helps them maximise their opportunities within Lambeth. The department is pivotal in discharging the Council’s duty to safeguard children.
1.2 The 2012/13 Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement (LGFS), released on 08 December 2011 re-affirmed the Council’s Formula Grant allocation announced in the 2011/12 Provisional LGFS in December 2010. As indicated then and in line with the October 2010 Spending Review (SR2010), the Council’s Formula Grant has reduced by 7.4% over 2011/12. The Council’s Formula Grant had already reduced by 11.3% in 2011/12 over 2010/11.
1.3 Further challenging cuts to the Council’s resources were already envisaged in the final two years of the current Spending Review period (2013/14 and 2014/15) but a series of recent inter-linked events have continued to stall the recovery of the UK economy and it is therefore difficult to foresee any improvements to the Council’s position in the medium term and there is every likelihood that the government will impose even tougher targets than those announced in October 2010.
1.4 The effects of the global downturn on the economy and in turn the Council were visible from the measures in the June 2010 Emergency Budget, October SR 2010 and December 2010 LGFS. However more recently;
• The Euro-zone debt crisis has increased financial instability and uncertainty leading to tightening credit conditions on both consumers and businesses globally. Consequently, the fall in household spending and business investment and employment impacts the Council from both a national and local level. Nationally, if economic growth stalls the Government will for instance receive less from taxation and business rates but will see more demands for expenditure through borrowing costs and welfare expenditure. Locally, the Council can expect to receive reduced Government funding and also experience more demands for Council services.
• Inflation has steadily increased (as at November 2011 CPI and RPI were recorded at 4.8% and 5.2% respectively). The consequence of
Page 15
rising inflation means that contractors will experience higher costs and will seek to mitigate these by passing them onto the Council. Robust contract management is required to manage this risk. 1.5 Coupled with these economic factors are the Government’s measures through policy changes to manage the recession. The Council can expect considerable changes to service expectations in the short-term which will influence the way in which we deliver and administer services. The Localism Bill which gained Royal Ascent in November 2011 contains several of these changes.
1.6 The current financial envelope under which the Council is planning its medium term strategy is to find savings of £94.5m during the Spending Review period – 2011/12 to 2014/15. The proposals contained within this report contribute towards producing a balanced budget for 2012/13 and a remaining target of £1m in 2013/14. Future Local Government Finance settlements will result in a reassessment of these requirements and there is no reason to believe that the position will improve for the Council.
1.7 As well as overseeing a programme of work to develop departmental savings proposals, senior officers have also led and coordinated a portfolio of significant programmes designed to deliver savings. There are six workstreams in the Council’s Transformation & Efficiency portfolio. Three are departmental based (ACS, CYPS and HRE) and are three which are cross-cutting; containing programmes that affect the whole organisation. These workstreams are focused around the themes of customer, workforce and business. Each workstream contains programmes that senior officers identified and agreed that they want assurance on around delivery. This is because they have the most significant impact on the organisation, either because of the extent of transformation to services or because of their contribution to the overall savings requirement.
1.8 The savings to be achieved by cross-cutting programmes in the Transformation & Efficiency portfolio have been treated separately throughout the service & financial planning process and have informed the level of savings to be achieved by departments. As such, they have been subject to increased scrutiny by both senior officers and Members. Savings to be achieved by programmes in departmental workstreams are included in the respective departmental proposals.
1.9 The table attached as Appendix 2 provides a summary of anticipated savings by year against each cross-cutting programme. Throughout the service and financial planning process, the Programme Management Office (PMO) in the Policy, Equalities and Performance (PEP) Division of the Office of the Chief Executive heightened the scrutiny of these programmes in order to give assurance around their delivery and increase confidence in the level of savings they are expected to achieve. For some programmes savings are currently predicted rather than confirmed and programme leads are working to
Page 16
provide greater detail and assurance on the savings to be achieved. The PMO will be working closely with programme leads to ensure that the overall contribution these programmes can make to the council’s savings target is confirmed as soon as possible..
1.10 The Coalition’s Government reforms have and will continue to have a major impact on the role of Local Authority children’s services. Reduction in funding, particularly grant funding will require Lambeth children’s services to fundamentally review priorities and deliver improved outcomes for children and young people with less staff and less funding. Children Service’s will move towards an increased commissioning role with less services being directly provided by the Local Authority.
Proposed changes to health and education will make the planning and delivery of services more complex . The Coalition Government has produced legislation, legislative proposals and reviews impacting on children services, including: • Academies Act 2010 • Education Act 2011 • NHS White Paper, Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS – launched on 12 July 2010
• Health and Social Care Bill
• Green Paper on children and young people with Special Education Needs (SEN) and Disabilities
• Welfare Reform Bill
• Munro Review - ‘Better Frontline services to Protect Children’ - independent review of children’s social work and frontline child protection practice.
• Wolf Review of vocational education for 14- to 19-year-olds
• Allen Review into how early intervention projects can improve the lives of the UK's most vulnerable children.
• Tickell Review of the Early Years Foundation Stage
• James Review into future school building projects
• Marmot Review into health inequalities in England
• Positive for Youth - a new approach to cross-Government policy for young people aged 13 to 19 in England
Page 17
1.11 The service and financial planning approach is shaped by the Vision and priorities of CYPS.
The Vision of CYPS is:
‘To implement the Co-operative Council principles in CYPS to deliver community led, quality assured and sustainable provision that enables children and young people to be happy, healthy and safe and to achieve their full potential.’
The CYPS priorities for 2011-14 are:
1. Safeguard and protect children and young people
2. Target and develop early help and intervention services
3. Reshape CYPS within the cooperative model for service delivery
4. Reduce serious youth crime
5. Increase the number and quality of primary and secondary school places in Lambeth
6. Raise achievement to narrow the gap in outcomes for children and young people
7. Transform Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision
1.12 CYPS is undergoing a significant transformation programme, where the main lever for change was provisionally a reduction in cash limit of £22m over 3 years (by 2014) and a corresponding reduction of grant of at least £15m over the same period. Over £6m in Standards Fund, £6m in Area Based Grant and £5m of Dedicated School Grant have been reduced to date.
The principles guiding the service and financial planning strategy for CYPS is that the approach should ensure that CYPS:
• Support improved outcomes for children and young people • Safeguard children and young people • Support early intervention and preventative working • Remains fit for purpose • Maintains key partnerships and relationships • Survives in a commercial market • Develops and implements the Cooperative Council approach
1.13 The CYPS approach is also guided by the Council’s strategic levers:
• Establishment – reducing staffing levels including the streamlining of management
Page 18
• Contracts- renegotiating contracts to achieve the best value for money
• Income – increasing income through traded services including services to schools such as education psychology service, school improvement service, schools finance and HR, educational research and statistics, professional development centre
• Assets – exploring opportunities for generating income from assets
• Federated –federated/cooperative model approach where possible
2. Current financial position including capital monitoring summary
2.1 The department’s full year revenue budget as at 30 th November is £89.9m. The full year provisional forecast is an overspend of approximately £2.8m. Of the full year overspend, £1.5m is due to the cost related to the delay and unbudgeted costs of implementing Phase 2 of the departmental re-structure. The balance relates to in-year departmental pressures due mainly to the inadequacy of the leaving care grant and rejected cases (18+) by UKBA (UK Borders Agency) in the Specialist Services & Commissioning Division, SEN transport, increase in roll numbers as regards Independent Boarding Schools (IBS) and Statementing costs in the Early Intervention & Targeted Division, and increases in costs/quantity taken up of school meals in the Schools & Education Improvement Division.
The department continues to work very hard to mitigate the underlying budget pressures in order to reduce it’s overspend. Achieving spend within budget is challenging and presents significant risks given the demand-led nature of many of the services.
Current staffing costs for CYPS, funded through cash limit and grants, are:
Division Staffing costs
Specialist Services and Commissioning £18,675,026
Early Intervention and Targeted Services £17,486,641
Schools and Education Improvement £3,620,023
Resources and Strategy £3,272,044
Education Estates and Capital Projects £2,284,766
Residual* £2,261,000
Total £47,599,500
* Residual is pension and premature retirement and severance (PRS) costs
The CYPS budget position for November 2011 is presented in the table below:
BUDGET £'000 YTD ACTUAL £'000 FORECAST £'000 VARIANCE £'000
Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Net Net Net Net Exp Inc Exp Inc Exp Inc Exp Inc Total SEI Div 11,736 (10,162) 1,574 7,564 (6,327) 1,237 11,890 (10,162) 1,728 (154) 0 (154) Total SSC 54,334 (2,281) 52,053 37,717 (1,625) 36,092 55,179 (2,281) 52,898 (845) 0 (845) Div Total EITS Div 55,323 (29,685) 25,638 37,094 (18,466) 18,629 55,765 (29,926) 25,839 (441) 241 (201) Page 19 Total R&S Div 3,732 (1,473) 2,259 2,214 (636) 1,578 3,732 (1,373) 2,358 (0) (100) (100) Total 8,368 (5,659) 2,709 5,555 (3,795) 1,760 8,368 (5,659) 2,709 (1) 0 (1) EECP Div Total 2,900 0 2,900 3,209 0 3,209 4,402 0 4,402 (1,502) 0 (1,502) Residual Total CYPS (excluding CNRPF) 136,392 (49,260) 87,133 93,354 (30,849) 62,506 139,335 (49,401) 89,934 (2,942) 141 (2,801) CNRPF 2,817 0 2,817 902 0 902 2,817 0 2,817 0 0 0 Total CYPS (including CNRPF) 139,209 (49,260) 89,950 94,256 (30,849) 63,408 142,152 (49,401) 92,751 (2,942) 141 (2,801)
Page 20
2.2 Progress against 2011-12 savings target
Of the £12.7m Agreed Savings Proposal for 2011/12, £9.2m has so far been achieved, with a remaining £3.5m left to deliver over the remainder of the financial year.
The overall 2011/12 forecast savings to be achieved by the department by the end of the financial year 2011-12 is currently £11.1m. This represents a predicted shortfall of 1.6m against the savings target of 12.7m. The majority of the predicted shortfall (£1.5m) is as a result of the PRS and delay costs related to Phase 2 of the CYPS departmental reshaping of 2011. The remaining £0.1m of agreed savings identified as being at risk relates to a shortfall in the expected traded services income generation.
2.3 Capital:
The combined capital allocations for primary and secondary school sector in this financial year is £102.112m. The breakdown is as follows:
Sector Available Budgets Primary £63.188m Secondary £38.924m Total £102.112m
The capital budget will be delivering high profile schemes in this year such as:
Henry Cavendish Expansion / Woodfield Centre site Kingswood Early Years section / Old Norwood Pk. School site The New Norwood School for Julian’s expansion The Livity School Stockwell Primary School Expansion Hitherfield Primary School Expansion Sunnyhill Primary School Expansion Dunraven Secondary School Rebuild/Refurbishment Norwood School Rebuild/Refurbishment Lilian Baylis School Extension Capital Maintenance Works (formerly Modernisation)
The combined cumulative profiled budget from the end of April to the end of October for the two sectors was £30.424m. At the end of the same period, the expenditure achieved was £26.839m, which indicates that the department has spent £3.585m less than what it profiled to spend.
Overall, the department has spent 91.2% of what it profiled to spend by October 2011, this represents an 8.8% underspend, which can be attributed to overstated profiling and delays in obtaining planning permission normally associated with larger capital schemes. The
Page 21
underspend is mainly from the profiling of the capital maintenance programme that was estimated at the beginning of the financial year as the final scope of works were not fully defined. This has now been reprofiled and reflects the contracts awarded. The planned construction start date for a couple of projects within the primary expansion programme has slipped leading to an underspend in 2011-12 however, they still remain on programme for delivering the permanent expansion places for September 2012 by when any current underspend will be recovered. The primary sector underspent its profiled budget by £3.026m (14.8%) whilst the Secondary Sector overspent its profiled budget by £0.345m (3.5%).
3 Draft revenue budgets 2012/13 – 2014/15 – proposals and reasons The implications of the new 2012/13 to 2014/15 savings proposals are that the CYPS cash limit budget will be reduced by £7,135k over the three years.
3.1.1 The CYPS savings strategy has been formulated to respond to the dramatically changing children services’ environment. Over the next three years CYPS will be transformed from a provider to a commissioner of services to ensure the Department is agile, responsive to change and fit for purpose. The key elements of this transformation are:
3.1.2 Cooperative Council approach – Lambeth Council has stated its intent to become the UK’s first ‘cooperative council’, as outlined in the report of the Cooperative Commission. This involves sharing power and working more closely with local communities to deliver services. CYPS has a number of early adopters, e.g. Adventure Playgrounds (APG), youth services, and is at the forefront of the council’s move towards co-production and community commissioning.
3.1.3 Shared services – increasingly CYPS will work with neighbouring boroughs to explore potential for shared service provision.
3.1.4 CYPS is already engaging with neighbouring authorities and exploring the potential for shared services moving forward. Currently the Schools and Educational Improvement Service works with the South London Collaborative of boroughs - Lambeth, Lewisham, Greenwich and Southwark - to enhance their offer by working collaboratively. Children’s Social Care works jointly with Southwark on Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP) and is part of a consortium of South East London boroughs advertise children requiring adoption. CYPS is currently at the early stages of working with Southwark on joint procurement of placements for children looked after and care leavers. Potential future areas for discussion are shared services in terms of Emergency Duty Team and Hospital Social work teams.
3.1.5 Reduce direct services provided by CYPS – inevitably CYPS will not have the budget moving forward to deliver services in the way it
Page 22
currently does. There will be a reduction in the services directly provided by CYPS with the Department taking on a commissioning role to ensure services are delivered at the right time, right place and to the right customers. Increasingly partner organisations, such as the Voluntary and Community Sector and community groups will be commissioned to deliver services on behalf of CYPS.
The Cooperative Council early adopters such as APG, One ‘O Clock Clubs, Children’s Centres is the first stage of reducing directly provided services by CYPS. Over the next 3 years, CYPS will identify and implement which services can be provided by a third party.
3.1.6 Increase in traded services and income generation – increasingly CYPS services will move to a traded service relationship with partners, such as schools, whereby services that were previously provided free of charge will now incur a charge. The income generation potential of CYPS services is a real opportunity, although to compete in the commercial market place will require effective marketing, up skilling of staff and a relentless focus on customer service.
A number of CYPS services are already part traded services e.g. Education Research And Statistics, Education Psychology Service, Professional Development Service, Schools Finance and Schools Human Resources. This expertise can be built on to develop traded services excellence within the Department.
3.1.7 Delayering of management structures – CYPS continually strives for efficiency and effectiveness. The management structures in CYPS are being reviewed to ensure they meet the need of the Department moving forward, as well as reducing costs of management. A number of the current savings proposals reflect a reduction in management layers. For example within the Early Intervention and Targeted Services Division, as services move from the Divisions to the cooperative model there will be corresponding reduction in senior management roles.
3.1.8 CYPS proposals demonstrate our approach has been to provide realistic savings target from both cash limit and grants
CYPS is proposing £6.33m of savings and with brought forward savings this, will increase the total savings figure to £7.13m for 2012-15.
It is very difficult to confirm CYPS savings for 2013-15 because of the uncertainty around grant levels post 2012-13 and the number of schools that may convert to academies, which impacts on grant levels available to fund specific services. Savings figures for 2013-15 are speculative and should not be considered guaranteed savings.
Page 23
CYPS will aim to work on potentially a figure of £1.5m savings being achieved for 2013-14 with the potential for up to £4m savings in 2014- 15 from either cash limit or grant. These will result in a fundamental transformation of CYPS services through cooperative council and shared services approaches. It is not possible to determine conclusive savings figures for year 2 and 3 at this stage due to existing dependencies on Government legislation and reviews, as well as uncertainty around grant funding past 2012-13. Year 2 savings (2013- 14) will provide the preparation and groundwork to move to a radical reinvention of the way CYPS delivers services in year 3, where potentially substantial savings can be realised.
The sustainability of any savings achieved through non-ringfenced grant funded services will be dependent upon the continuation of that grant at the current level in the future.
3.1.9 CYPS Cooperative Council approach and savings:
The CYPS early adopters of the co-operative council service model are within the Early Intervention and Targeted Services Division and involve four services - youth centre provision, stay and play one o clock clubs (OOCC), adventure playgrounds (APGs) and young and safe. Plans are underway to ensure that these services are provided by others outside of the council by April 2012. The process has required tie development of policy frameworks that are specific to the co- operative council service model and have required the amendment of policy to take into account the new service models. Polices are being developed in relation to finance, assets, access to the pension scheme and procurement.
The APGs have already been transferred to an interim provider and the lessons learned during that process will inform other services who adopt the co-op service model.
In addition the process for small organisations to become admissible bodies to the Lambeth pension scheme will need to be clarified as the pension fund will be threatened as the number of contributors to the pension is reduced as staff are transferred to new entities.
In relation the service financial planning process the key strategic issue is the provision of a three year funding agreement to outside providers which will lock in resources that will in effect be ringfenced for the next three years and ties the council into a financial commitment to those organisations that take on a service under the new arrangements.
3.2 Each detailed growth and saving proposal is set out in appendix 1 The following table summarises the relevant savings proposals for the budget period 2012/13 to 2014/15:
Page 24
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total
£,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 Brought forward from 2011/12 Brought Forward Growth 0 0 0 0 Brought Forward Savings Education Estates and Capital 250 250 0 500 Projects Resources and Strategy - Professional Development Centre 150 150 0 300 income generation Total Savings brought forward 400 400 0 800
New Growth and Savings
Proposed New Growth 0 0 0 0 New Savings 1. Integrated Youth Support Services including Youth Centres 430 0 0 430 2. Practice development and Multi – agency teams 168 0 0 168 3. Special Education Needs (SEN) – provision transport, recoupment IBS and statementing
400 100 100 600 4. Children’s Centres * 1,375 0 0 1,375 5. CYPS Cooperative Council Early Adopter indicative savings 0 270 244 514 6. Children Looked After and Fostering & Adoption 1,763 0 0 1,763 7. Referral & Assessment, Child Protection and Children with Disabilities 363 0 0 363 8. Independent reviewing officer children looked after/child protection, LSCB, corporate parenting, children`s legal and commissioning 254 0 0 254
Page 25
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 9 -12 . Education Estates and Capital Projects (includes Education Estates, Pupil Place Planning / Admissions, Schools’ ICT) 74 145 532 751 13. Schools & Educational Improvement Service 117 0 0 117 Total New Savings Proposed 4,944 515 876 6,335 Net New 4,944 515 876 6,335 TOTAL POTENTIAL SAVINGS 5,344 915 876 7, 135
* The Early Intervention services are greatly dependent upon Early Intervention Grant continuing in its current quantity and nature, this will need to be reviewed annually to confirm that the savings are sustainable
3.3 The overall target for the Council in respect of General Fund savings is £43.8m for the period 2012/13 to 2014/15. The strategic approach to delivering these savings is summarised by a number of initiatives which are set out below: -
Review of 2011/12 Savings Delivery Tracker – Including brought forward savings, the budget for 2011/12 required the Council to save approximately £41m over the 2010/11 budget. Current projections suggest that these savings are primarily being delivered, with timing issues being the main concern.
Review of existing corporate base revenue pressures – This includes temporary accommodation, supporting people, parking and pupil places and involves ensuring these pressures are considered as part of the whole process rather than just focussing on savings.
Legislation, risks and ‘unknowns’ – This ensures that the Council takes into account the potential impacts of the localism act, welfare reform, potential judicial reviews etc. such that the medium term outlook is robust.
Non-ringfenced revenue grants – Flexibility has been introduced in the use of government grants where the Government has removed constraints. The Council is at liberty to determine how the Early Intervention Grant and New Homes Bonus (amongst others) may be used to further corporate priorities.
Page 26
Task & Finish – moving towards a co-operative council – Project based initiatives such as a review of the Council’s commissioning structure which will facilitate the move towards becoming a co-operative council.
Transformation & Efficiency – Considering the impact of large- scale and, often, cross-cutting initiatives such as Office Accommodation, Support Services, Oracle R12, Customer Access Strategy and Commissioning 2011.
Capital & Assets – The seven area asset review agreed in the July Finance Review 2010 considered the strategic use of a group of assets for service delivery purposes and sought to identify assets for disposal to contribute towards an overall target of £100m over a four year period.
Residual areas – Any other steps necessary to close the savings gap, e.g. stop/reduce
4. Capital Budget Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
4.1 Information in respect of the proposed Capital Investment Programme and pipeline schemes will be reported to Finance & Scrutiny Sub- Committee on 26 th January 2012.
4.2 CYPS is making a total of four bids for council capital funds. Three of the bids are updates of ones previously submitted and already in the pipeline. The first one, detailed below, is a new item for primary expansion, which we have previously advised would be coming forward at this stage.
1. Primary Expansion Programme Phase 2 (£21.25m) 2. Primary Expansion Programme Contingency (£1.9m) 3. Additional funds for appropriation of Samuel House and Morris Stephaney House (£325k) 4. Charles Edward Brooke School (to become St Gabriel’s College September 2012) (Phase1 £130k, Phase2 £1.870mm, Revenue £40k)
5. Consultation and Engagement
5.1 CYPS has been undertaking a range of consultation on specific proposals as detailed in the Equality Impact Assessments contained in Appendix 1.
CYP has engaged service users, partners and stakeholders through:
• Children, young people and parents – via consultation at settings
Page 27
• Schools/Governors – Headteachers Council, Schools Forum, Headteacher Working Together Events, Governors Forum • Proposals related to Cooperative Council – for example Adventure Playgrounds, One O Clock Clubs, Youth Centres - consultation process with users and stakeholders at settings • SEN Transport proposals – via Steering Group, as part of statutory consultation process and through SEN Review consultation exercise • Children Centre’s - There is a statutory requirement as part of the Childcare Act 2006 for the local authority to consult on making any significant change in the services provided through an existing children’s centre. The proposals to date have been informed by detailed consultation with children’s centre heads and leads. Consultation with service users, parents, Governing Bodies, Advisory Boards and strategic partnerships will continue throughout January and February 2012.
The feedback received through the variety of consultation methods used (e.g. forums, workshops, existing service area consultation processes) have informed the formulation and development of the service area proposals.
6. Equalities considerations including equalities impact assessments
6.1 Equality impact assessments have been completed for all savings proposals and are included in Appendix 1.
The ethos of CYPS service provision is the provision of accessible services to all children and young people. Whilst reduction in levels of service is regrettable, the proposals are designed to minimise any barriers to service delivery in terms of equality and diversity. The provision of services though alternative means, with CYPS increasingly having a commissioning role and reduced provider role, is designed to empower local communities and third sector organisations to deliver services in partnership with CYPS according to local needs; implementing the cooperative council ethos.
CYPS will continually monitor the impact of changes in the way services are delivered through customer feedback and compilation and evaluation of customer access data. Specific proposals will impact on equality groups in different ways depending on the customer profile for individual services.
Potential negative impacts of the changes have been minimised as far as possible on equality groups through plans for alternative models of delivery to ensure services will be provided where needed across the borough, albeit not always at current service levels.
Page 28
Ethnicity is the key protected characteristic most affected by the proposals, largely because BME children and young people are overrepresented in those groups requiring specialist services such as children’s social care and also because these groups tend to utilise universal services such as youth services (including youth centres), to a greater degree. Socio – economic factors are a contributory factor in determining the children and young people that require CYPS specialist and targeted services i.e. those in receipt of these services typically come from lower classification of social-economic backgrounds. The CYPS proposals are focused on early intervention and prevention to ensure those children and young people from more deprived backgrounds are given support at the right time to increase their aspirations and life chances.
7. Finance Comments
7.1 Departmental proposals included in this report form part of the Council’s overall budget setting process. This committee is asked to comment on these proposals and these comments will be fed back to Cabinet in February 2012. The Cabinet will then consider the overall budget in the context of available resources.
7.2 The medium-term outlook for local government finances is one of reduced funding coming through from central government, as expounded in the Spending Review announced in October 2010 covering a four year period. This therefore sets the overall context for the Council in terms of its own three year planning cycle; The Chancellor in his autumn statement made it clear that the pressures on public finances will extend beyond the four year period. £1m of savings still need to be identified for 2013/14 and it is envisaged that this will be identified as part of the July Finance Review in 2012. It is critical that transformational activity is well underway in 2012/13 to deliver 2013/14 and future years’ savings.
8. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy
8.1 The Council has a duty to maintain a balanced budget throughout the year and, accordingly, members are required to regularly monitor the Council's financial position in accordance with section 28 of the Local Government Act 2003. In considering the Council’s financial strategy for 2011/12, members will need to balance the proposed level of expenditure in discretionary areas of service provision against that required to ensure that the Council complies with its statutory duties.
8.2 By virtue of section 25, Local Government Act 2003, when the Council is making the calculation of its budget requirement, it must have regard to the report of the Executive Director of Finance & Resources (EDFR) as to the robustness of the estimates made for the purposes of the
Page 29
calculations and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves. It is essential, as a matter of prudence, that the financial position continues to be closely monitored. In particular, members must satisfy themselves that sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure both that savings are delivered and that new expenditure is contained within the available resources. Accordingly, any proposals put forward must identify the realistic measures and mechanisms to produce those savings.
8.3 In reaching decisions on these matters, members are bound by the general principles of administrative law. Lawful discretions must not be abused or fettered and all relevant considerations must be taken into account. No irrelevant considerations may be taken into account, and any decision made must not be such that no reasonable authority, properly directing itself, could have reached. Members must also balance the interests of service users against those who contribute to the Council’s finances. Monies may not be expended thriftlessly and the full resources available to the Council must be deployed to their best advantage. Members must also act prudently and in a business- like manner at all times.
8.4 In considering the advice of officers, and the weight to be attached to that advice, members should have regard to the personal duties placed upon the EDFR as Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer is required by Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 and by the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 to ensure that the Council’s budgeting, financial management, and accounting practices meet relevant statutory and professional requirements. In the event that the Council’s overall financial position worsens considerably during the course of 2012/13, the EDFR will need to have regard to the statutory obligations which are placed on him personally when deciding on any particular actions to be recommended to members to address his concerns.
8.5 Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies at any time to a Member of a local authority or a Member of a committee or sub-committee of a local authority if, at that time, a sum in respect of community charge, or a sum in respect of council tax has become payable by the member and has remained unpaid for at least two months.
8.6 If a Member to whom Section 106 applies is present at a meeting of the authority, the Cabinet, or a committee or sub-committee of the authority or the Cabinet, at which any of the following matters is the subject of consideration:
••• any calculation required by Chapters III, IV or IVA of the 1992 Act i.e. budget requirement, tax base and tax, or
••• any recommendation, resolution or other decision which might affect the making of any such calculation, or
Page 30
••• the exercise of any functions in relation to the administration, collection and enforcement of community charge or council tax –
The Member shall as soon as practicable after its commencement disclose the fact that this section applies to her/him and shall not vote on any question with respect to that matter.
8.7 If or to the extent that any matter listed above is the responsibility of the Cabinet, no member of the Cabinet to whom Section 106 applies shall take any action or discharge any function with respect to that matter.
8.8 If a Member fails to comply with the requirement to disclose the fact that Section 106 applies and accordingly not to vote then they shall be liable to prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions which carries a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
8.9 In certain circumstances the chair of the meeting may be under an obligation to refuse to count the vote of a Member who has declared that Section 106 applies to him/her, yet still voted. However, the chair would have to be fully satisfied that the declaration was beyond question. In relation to the non-payment of community charge or council tax the person most likely to have the best information as to whether the section applies to them is the individual concerned. If a Member declares an interest in terms of Section 106, as is their duty if the Section applies, they will disqualify themselves from voting and any attempted vote cannot be counted.
8.10 In the event of a Member failing to disclose such an interest, and even though the Chair may have good grounds for believing that the Member is disabled by interest, nevertheless the chair should not refuse to accept a vote by that Member. However, the EDFR will also be in a position to verify whether any particular Member is under a Section 106 duty and if a situation arises whereby the Member in question fails to declare an interest in terms of Section 106, the Chair is under an obligation to take account of the information provided by the EDFR.
8.11 Prior to any meeting at which any of the matters referred above are to be considered, the EDF, or her/his representative, will contact all Members who are, in her/his opinion, in a position where Section 106 applies. The EDFR will carry out a further check on the position prior to the meeting and will ensure that the Chair is informed at or before the commencement of the meeting.
8.12 Once the Chair is in possession of that information the Chair should indicate to the meeting that Section 106 applied to a Member or Members present, based on information provided by the EDFR. It will then be for the individual Members concerned to approach officers from the Finance Department to clarify the position, if necessary. If the position as set out in the information provided by the Finance
Page 31
Department remains unchanged, then the Chair is under an obligation to refuse to count the vote of that Member. The fact that a Member who is disabled by interest has taken part in the consideration of the report and voted on it does not render unlawful the decision of the Committee or Council.
8.13 The Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules, as reproduced in Part 4 of the Council's Constitution, set out the involvement of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and its Sub-Committees in the budget- making process and provide, inter alia, that having considered the report of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Sub-Committees, the Cabinet, if it considers it appropriate, may amend their proposals before submitting them to the full Council for consideration. The Cabinet is also required to report to Council on how it has taken into account any recommendations from the Scrutiny Committees and Sub- Committees.
8.14 Details of the consultation that has been carried out are set out above. The following principles of consultation were set out in a recent High Court case. First, a consultation had to be at a time when proposals were still at a formative stage. Second, the proposer had to give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third, adequate time had to be given for consideration and response, and finally, the product of consultation had to be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals. The process of consultation had to be effective and looked at as a whole and it had to be fair. That required that consultation took while the proposals were still at a formative state. Those consulted had to be provided with information that was accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response. They had to be given adequate time in which to do so and there had to be adequate time for their responses to be considered. The consulting party had to consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision.
8.15 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the public sector equality duty, i.e. that all public bodies are under an obligation to have ‘due regard’ to eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality and fostering good relations in the contexts of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
8.16 Section 149 (1)(b) of the Act states that: a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. Part of the duty to have “due regard” where there is disproportionate impact will be to take steps to mitigate the impact and the Council must demonstrate that this has been done, and/or justify the decision, on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Accordingly,
Page 32
there is an expectation that a decision maker will explore other means which have less of a disproportionate impact.
9. Organisational implications
9.1 Risk management: The key risks that arise from the proposals set out in the plan will be monitored and reviewed at Departmental, Divisional and Business Unit level to ensure that the proposals are achieved. Management of the key risks will allow for effective decisions to be taken across the department. In summary the key risks can be categorised as: • Financial – failure to contain demand and costs within the overall resources available. Control action includes monthly budget and activity monitoring. • Performance – proposals may impact on the department’s ability to meet key performance measures, which could affect the Council’s Corporate Performance Assessment. Control action includes monthly performance monitoring to enable the department to take prompt remedial action. The department has undertaken a risk analysis exercise on Savings Proposals.
9.2 Equalities impact assessment: See paragraph above
9.3 Community safety implications: There are no apparent community safety implications,
9.4 Environmental implications: None.
9.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: These proposals include the cessation or reduction in services which would necessitate restructuring and reorganising under new service delivery models.
The Council’s policy and procedure on Reorganisation, Redundancy and Redeployment will be used by managers to ensure that the changes are made fairly and consistently to enable the delivery of savings targets. As regards the workforce, it is inevitable that the actual headcount reduction may be higher as some posts are occupied by part-time or jobshare workers.
9.6 Any other implications
None
Page 33
10. Timetable for implementation
10.1 Any comments this sub-committee make will be fed into the Council’s budget setting process. The Council’s draft provisional budget 2012/13 to 2014/15 will be considered at the 13 February 2012 Cabinet meeting where they will recommend a budget and council tax level to the Council meeting on 29 February 2012.
______
Page 34
Appendix 1: Detailed Growth and Savings proposals 2011/12 to 2013/14
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison 69705 Director
Proposal title Business Unit 440 – Youth Centres Integrated Youth Ref 1 (440) Support Services 440 and Youth Centres
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing Expenditure
Cash Limit Budget: £2,406,000
Savings : £430,000
Description Background
Lambeth’s Integrated Youth Services includes the direct management of 5 youth centres, the provision of a borough outreach and accreditation programme and the management of the Connexions Service delivery in schools, colleges, one stop shops and community setting. This includes the matrix management for the Targeted Youth support provided to young people through the Multi agency Teams (MATs) and the management of targeted projects for young people who are Not in Education, Employment and Training (NEET). Lambeth is successful and one of the top London Borough performers in reducing the number of NEET children and young people.
Lambeth own and run five youth centres. All five are early adopters of the co-operative council model and are expected to have transfer to the new cooperative arrangements by 01.04.12.
Lambeth own and run five youth centres, namely;
• Old Library Centre in West Norwood,
• Marcus Lipton Youth Centre in Brixton,
• Willington Road Youth Centre in Clapham North
• Lansdowne Youth Centre in Stockwell
• Living Space Youth Centre in Waterloo
The budgets of the five youth centres have historically been projected separately.
Page 35
However, it is estimated by
CYPS resources and strategy division that the total budget for all five youth centres is £1.751 million. This includes the £300,000 (60% of the £500,000 to the entire youth service) mitigation funding for 2011/12 only. However, as it is expected that the co operative modelwill require approximately three years of ongoing funding, for prudence in the climate on uncertainty of central government grants, savings can only be guaranteed when counted as cash limit.
Along side the uncertainty of future grant funding there are three other significant unknowns pertinent to youth centres that make this proposal difficult to accurately quantify. They are relating to HR and TUPE, vital renovations required and the appetite of the market place.
1. The TUPE employment transfer rights of the Lambeth council employees needs to be fully evaluated in terms of legal and Human Resources implications.
2. Therefore, there is an unknown quantity in regards to the cost involved in ensuring that the youth centres remain safe and fit for purpose in preparation for the adoption of the cooperative model of service delivery.
3. The expectations of the cooperative market place of community and faith groups is entirely unknown. The innovative and pioneering spirit of the cooperative model also provide an uncertainty where there is nothing to benchmark against. The risk is that the expectations of the marketplace are not met and the youth centres are not considered an attractive proposal.
Savings proposal
The saving proposed is £430,000.
1. Reducing the business support and performance capacity of the service - £200k
The reduction to business support is in keeping with the changing role of the council from a deliverer to a commissioning organisation. There will not be any impact to front line services as a result of these changes as these relate to salary costs supporting the youth centres. As the size of the Division reduces to reflect the cooperative programme and reduction in service, these proposals will reflect a corresponding reduction in back office support. Much of the performance management function will be transferred to the new providers and Local Authority monitoring will be undertaken via the contract monitoring process and the use of outcome frameworks.
2. Reducing the number of Early Intervention Youth Advisers who provide targeted support for young people - £166k
The reduction of 4 Early Intervention Youth Advisers - 3 in the MAT and 1 leading specifically on NEET work –will reduce the capacity to work with young people. There are 12 EIYAs across the three MATs, a further three working solely on education training and employment as well as one within the YOS. Therefore, a reduction of four represents a 25% reduction of the sixteen in post.
The resource will focus on the young people with greatest need and supporting the step
Page 36
down approach from Social Care. Although this will not create a trickle up impact on the capacity of Social Care, by narrowing the focus more towards border line child protection matters, the thresholds for accessing this one to one support will increase and lower threshold families will ultimately be refused a service from the MAT.
3. Reduce the budget for youth commissioning - £64k The reduction in the youth commissioning budget next year will lead to reduced funding allocation for the commissioning of universal and youth commissioning in 2012/13. This will likely result in less universal youth provision and a greater focus focusing on targeting the most vulnerable young people. However, the exact impact of the reduction will not be known until the community trust is in place and taking a greater responsibility for commissioning. £64k reflects the minimum impact to the commissioning budget This is enabled through back office posts being removed and front line posts reduced as far as possible to enable the services to be continued. The £64k to be reduced from the commissioning budget has been proposed to preserve outreach activities as far as possible and to protect the capacity to engage with the voluntary and community sector (VCS) in the delivery of services.
Achieving the required savings through these proposals ensures that all 5 local authority managed youth centres continue to remain open at the current service level.
Funding for three years for youth centres have been presented to Cabinet as part of the strategic financial planning process and sets out the funding for the programme for three years with a 10% reduction in each subsequent year. There is an expectation that the funding provided by the council is enhanced through the leveraging of additional funding that is not available to the council such as lottery funding and innovation funding.
Disaggregated budgets are being developed for each service and site to support the business planning process. In addition the costs for staffing and maintenance and servicing are being interrogated.
It is proposed that the funding available in 2012/13 is £1,259,121 which includes a proportion of the addition £430k youth support services savings required in Phase 3 of CYPS Service and Financial Planning. The funding reduces by 10% year on year for the following two years. The total three year funding commitment from the Council would be £3,412,218.
In addition to the saving in 2012/13 there are ongoing savings for a further two years as outlined in Table 1 below:
Page 37
Table 1
BUDGETS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (reduced YC budget by 45% of £430k)
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Youth £ £ £ £ £ Clubs 1,860,000 1,751,000 1,259,121 1,133,209 1,019,888 (direct delivery) (1,471k + (1,471k – (1,259,121 (1,133,209 300k) 45% of 430k – 10%) – 10%) & 10%)
1,471k - 193.5k – 19.35k
This saving would be met by reducing the funding allocated to each of the five youth centres evenly and transparently.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Net (No.) budget budget budget (%) (No.) budget budget (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) tbc 5.835 2.406 0.430 tbc 5.405 2.212
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Current All actions in line with the corporate plan for early adopters of the co- operative council.
Page 38
Expected impact on service
The impact on the service is difficult to project due to the unknowns of the co- operative council model. It is reasonable to expect that the new centre managers will not be able to reduce the fixed costs associated with the maintenance of a property asset. Therefore, non fixed costs, namely salaries of staff, will have to reduce, thus the opening times of the centres could be expected to reduce.
However, this could be a short term affect until the co operative model is implemented by the new owners and an enhanced service delivered.
Current service users
The youth service is predominantly used by young people from BME backgrounds.
Expected impact on customer/user of service
It is likely that reduced opening times will be inevitable in the short term during the transition. This may increase the levels of boredom of young people and could increase the incidents of low level offending and anti social behaviour as the young people who previously attended youth centres experience more time with less structure.
Again, this should be expected to be in the transition into the co operative model until the anticipated alternative funding can be sourced.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
Third sector providers have already been affected by previous reductions in the youth service budget. There is now relatively little commissioned out within the youth centres.
Mitigating Actions
• The reductions in the commissioning budget have been kept to a minimum with the majority of savings coming from back office and front line staff. • To provide the third sector with as much security as possible, the LA will be looking to confirm the commissioning strategy in January 2012 and communicate the next commissioning round as early as possible to enable agencies to plan. • The proposals are designed to have a minimal impact on service users. • Service user engagement plans will ensure that service users and key stakeholders are all fully consulted and are aware of the impact of these savings proposals. • Continued collaborative working with children’s specialist services and mental health teams in terms of threshold step-up and step-down procedures • Opportunities that arise from closer integration and joining with early help and intervention initiatives, such as the newly funded support project for families with multiple problems and the early help for under 5’s in children’s centres will ensure the proposed reductions in Early Intervention Youth Advisers will be managed through a holistic approach.
Page 39
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
The youth centres are early adopters of the co operative council as there is an existing market place of successful, sustainable and value for money youth centres across the borough managed externally. All youth centres contribute to an aspiring and safe borough. By enabling local community groups to take control of the design of their facilities, there will present the opportunity to develop bespoke services to suit.
The Local Authority will no longer directly manage any youth centres.
Page 40
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure)
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Transfer running of youth centres 430 0 0 430 TOTAL 430 0 0 430
Capital impact (new annual expenditure)
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project desc. 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact
N/A
Strategic levers
Contracts – reduced commissioning budget
30
Page 41
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison Director
Author Dean Contact Assistant Director Targeted Youth Woodward details Tel: 020 7926 2613
Email: [email protected]
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: 22 December 2011 the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: 4 January 2012 process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Integrated Youth Services Background and context Proposal detail The Government has recently published ‘Positive for Youth’ a new approach to cross- Government policy for young people aged 13 to 19 in England. Positive for Youth sets out a shared vision for how all parts of society – including councils, schools, charities, businesses – can work together in partnership to support families and improve outcomes for young people, particularly those who are most disadvantaged or vulnerable.
Lambeth Council is committed to becoming a commissioning council by 2014 and to providing its services in a new way. A co-operative council commission was undertaken in 2010 and a comprehensive report published in January 2011. All departments across the council were asked to identify services that could be early adopters of this new way of delivering services and are known as the ‘early
31
Page 42
adopters’. In CYPS, 5 Youth Centres were identified as early adopters of the Cooperative Council model
Lambeth’s Integrated Youth Services includes the direct management of 5 youth centres, the provision of a borough outreach and accreditation programme and the management of the Connexions Service delivery in schools, colleges, one stop shops and community setting. This includes the matrix management for the Targeted Youth support provided to young people through the Multi agency Teams (MATs) and the management of targeted projects for young people who are Not in Education, Employment and Training (NEET). Lambeth is successful and one of the top London Borough performers in reducing the number of NEET children and young people..
The service is funded through both Cash Limit and the Early Intervention Grant. The total 11/12 budget is: £6,107,244.
In 2011/12, there has been a £1 million reduction on the previous year to the youth service council cash limit. Through the phase 2 reshaping, there was a reduction to staffing levels across the service. This year the centres have reduced to 3 day per week opening during term time, with a greater focus on developing partnerships and enabling access to the centres for other users.
The five, council managed, youth centres are to be early adopters of the co-operative council model and are expected to transfer to the new Cooperative Council management arrangements by April 2012.
Service proposal
The proposal is to save £430k across the Integrated Youth Services budget in 2012/13, by:
1. Reducing the business support and performance capacity of the service - £200k
The reduction to business support is in keeping with the changing role of the council from a deliverer to a commissioning organisation. There will not be any impact to front line services as a result of these changes as these relate to salary costs supporting the youth centres. As the size of the Division reduces to reflect the cooperative programme and reduction in service, these proposals will reflect a corresponding reduction in back office support. Much of the performance management function will be transferred to the new providers and Local Authority monitoring will be undertaken via the contract monitoring process and the use of outcome frameworks.
2. Reducing the number of Early Intervention Youth Advisers who provide targeted support for young people - £166k
The reduction of 4 Early Intervention Youth Advisers - 3 in the MAT and 1 leading specifically on NEET work –will reduce the capacity to work with young people. There are 12 EIYAs across the three MATs, a further three working solely on education training and employment as well as one within the YOS. Therefore, a reduction of four represents a 25% reduction of the sixteen in post.
The resource will focus on the young people with greatest need and supporting the step down approach from Social Care. Although this will not create a trickle up impact on the capacity of Social Care, by narrowing the focus more towards border line child protection matters, the thresholds for accessing this one to one support will increase and lower threshold families will ultimately be refused a service from the MAT.
32
Page 43
3. Reduce the budget for youth commissioning - £64k The reduction in the youth commissioning budget next year will lead to reduced funding allocation for the commissioning of universal and youth commissioning in 2012/13. This will likely result in less universal youth provision and a greater focus focusing on targeting the most vulnerable young people. However, the exact impact of the reduction will not be known until the community trust is in place and taking a greater responsibility for commissioning. £64k reflects the minimum impact to the commissioning budget This is enabled through back office posts being removed and front line posts reduced as far as possible to enable the services to be continued. The £64k to be reduced from the commissioning budget has been proposed to preserve outreach activities as far as possible and to protect the capacity to engage with the voluntary and community sector (VCS) in the delivery of services.
Achieving the required savings through these proposals ensures that all 5 local authority managed youth centres continue to remain open at the current service level.
Current Saving Propose d FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expendi income budget budget (%) (No.) expendit incom budget ture (£m) (£m) (£m) ure e (£ (£m) (£m) (£m) m ) tbc 5.835 - 2.406 0.430 17.8 tbc 5.405 - 2.212
Impact on statutory responsibilities This will not impact on the local authorities statutory duties.
33
Page 44
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Around two in five Lambeth residents (38%) are from ethnic minority groups, and the majority of these are black (28%). Lambeth’s child population is even more diverse, with 58% from ethnic minority communities compared with 38% of the general population and even higher numbers of ethnic minority children attending Lambeth’s schools - 82% of the pupil population is from ethnic minority backgrounds which includes, Portuguese, black Caribbean, black African, Spanish, Vietnamese and white pupils. There are over 150 languages spoken in Lambeth schools which provide an indication of diversity of the young population. There is an overrepresentation of BME pupils in all data that relates to high levels of vulnerability and need. This need and vulnerability is characterised by:
• High number of children coming into care from BME groups
• Increasing exclusions - namely young black boys
• High levels of youth crime that are reducing - young black people of both genders
• High demand for services to support children in need, with disabilities and SEN
• And those who are underachieving - Somali, black Caribbean and white boys and Portuguese children
In June 2009 there were 815 children under the age of 19 years with disabilities on the voluntary ICOUNT register; 43% of whom have Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), showing an increase of nearly 12% over the last five years. Just over a quarter of Lambeth’s school children (27%) are recorded at some time in their school career as having Special Educational Needs.
The proposed changes to the Integrated Youth Service will impact on BME groups, as they are high volume users of the service.
Current users A breakdown of users by age, gender and ethnicity is listed below for: • The council managed youth centres • The work of the Early Intervention Youth Advisors, working in MAT teams and NEET projects • The youth commissioned providers
5 council managed youth centres
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 1 67 9 10 4 9
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 % Total 13 81 5 1
Gender Male Female % Total 60 40
34
Page 45
Youth commissioned projects
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 2 51 12 19 5 11
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 % Total 24 69 6 1
Gender Male Female % Total 60 40
MAT Team (Inclusive of the work carried out by NEET project advisers)
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 4 60 18 4 10 4
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 Total 2 88 9 1 0 Gender Male Female % Total 49 51
Overview : • Three of the 5 youth centres are located within areas of high or medium to high deprivation as measured by the number of Super Output areas within their respective catchment areas that fall within the 25% most deprived. As such they serve communities of high need, with high levels of disadvantaged socio-economic groups. • From our evaluation, it appears that ethnicity is the key equality group that are most affected by the proposals, because these groups tend to utilise universal services such as APGs, youth services (including youth centres). However, there is no conclusive evidence that unlawful discrimination will result from the CYPS reshaping proposals. • Potential negative impacts of the changes have been minimised as far as possible on ethnicity, disability and socio-economic equality groups, particularly through plans for alternative models of delivery to ensure services will be provided where needed across the borough, albeit not always at current service levels. • Targeted early intervention and prevention is a key approach of CYPS to ensure those children, young people and families most in need receive support in a timely and effective way. This approach
35
Page 46
combined with a commitment to protect frontline services is the key drivers for reducing adverse impact of the proposals on the equality strands
Future users The aim is for Integrated Youth Services to continue to provide universal access to services where possible through the Youth Centres while focussing targeted support on the neediest families.
Analysis undertaken Service user data is entered on the Integrated Youth Support Services Programme.
Involvement and consultation process
Consultation: During the development of the Lambeth Youth Strategy, a comprehensive consultation programme was undertaken with young people, the community, the third sector and across the council, which has been taken into account in this proposal.
Through the Cooperative Council Programme, open and targeted consultation meetings have taken place across the 5 youth centres, in order to discuss service priorities and operating models from 2012 and beyond. The attendees have included users of the service, local residents, partners and stakeholder and wider VCS representatives. These were promoted widely throughout the Borough.
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups Yes
General Focus Groups Yes
Other Methods
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these? Young people who were users of each of the youth centres.
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
36
Page 47
Consultation Findings
The main priorities identified through the Youth Strategy consultation are as follows: • Better communication about what’s on offer for all young people • Integrated working at the locality level • Early intervention and targeted support for those that need it and a focus on particular groups eg young offenders, LAC and care leavers, LGBT • Strong focus on improving services for young people with disabilities • Information, advice and guidance and accreditation • Widespread opportunities at all levels for consultation involvement of young people in developing services
The main feedback from the Cooperative Council consultation programme is as follows: • The importance of the youth centres being accessible and offering a good range of activities, with high quality staffing • Request for more creative programmes and education and training provision at the centres • Greater focus on community involvement in the centres, and developing them a community hub
Gaps in data
Data is not available for the following groups: Gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
There is a lack of data around religion or sexual orientation for Lambeth’s resident population; this is an area for development. The Lambeth State of the Borough Report 2011 reports that in 2011 Lambeth council has commissioned further research on gender identity to quantify the transgender population within the borough and better understand their needs.
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / us er of service
• In relation to the youth centres, with the adoption of Cooperative Council model, there will inevitably be a period of transition when the service is at its greatest risk of reducing the provision. However, the co operative model also presents the only viable and sustainable model to continue and improve this non statutory provision in the context of the economic environment. • In relation to the reducing NEET function, there will be a reduction in capacity of about 33%. Although this is a significant reduction it must be noted that Lambeth excel at getting school leavers into Education Training and Employment and consistently out perform most other London boroughs. It is anticipated that although the provision will reduce, Lambeth will continue to be one of the top London Borough performers in reducing NEETs. • In relation to the reduction in Early Intervention Youth Advisors in the MATs. The capacity will reduce by approximately 25%. This will affect the lower threshold families as the MATs focus on the most complex families with the greatest risk to slip into statutory child protection agencies. The work of Early Intervention Youth Advisors will be integrated joined with early help and intervention initiatives, such as the newly funded support project for families with multiple
37
Page 48
problems and the early help for under 5’s in children’s centres. • In relation to the reduction in the commissioning budget. This will reduce the value of the overall contracts by approximately 8%. Obviously this will be extenuated in the third sector with the removal of many other funding sources. However, with the development of the community trust, the commissioning should be more affective and targeted as the community take a key role in participation.
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic 1 NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic 6 X X X X X Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council departments or public bodies
The reduction in the commissioning budget will reduce the overall value of the contracts commissioned and this may affect the very viability of some third sector agencies given the reductions in funding outside of the LA.
Expected impact on council workforce
The proposals will reduce staffing in the Integrated Youth Service.
Section 3 Mitigating actions • The reductions in the commissioning budget have been kept to a minimum with the majority of savings coming from back office and front line staff. • To provide the third sector with as much security as possible, the LA will be looking to confirm the commissioning strategy in January 2012 and communicate the next commissioning round as early as possible to enable agencies to plan. • The proposals are designed to have a minimal impact on service users. • Service user engagement plans will ensure that service users and key stakeholders are all fully consulted and are aware of the impact of these savings proposals. • Continued collaborative working with children’s specialist services and mental health teams in terms of threshold step-up and step-down procedures • Opportunities that arise from closer integration and joining with early help and intervention initiatives, such as the newly funded support project for families with multiple problems and the early help for under 5’s in children’s centres will ensure the proposed reductions in Early Intervention Youth Advisers will be managed through a holistic approach.
Section 4 Links to other proposals This EIA relates to the reductions in the commissioning of services for 5 – 19 year olds. The proposals also link to the Multi-Agency Team (MAT)/Practice Development proposal, as both will impact on the capacity of the MAT.
38
Page 49
Section 5 – Conclusion • Potential negative impacts of the changes have been minimised as far as possible on equality groups through plans for the services to continue where needed across the borough, albeit not always at current service levels.
• The proposals ensure that all 5 local authority managed youth centres continue to remain open at the current service level.
• Ethnicity is the key equality group that are most affected by this proposal, largely because BME children and young people are overrepresented in the young people who access integrated youth service
• Gender, disability and age equality groups are not substantively affected by the proposals.
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer Corporate - 13 January Specify what third sector Assistant Director Equality Board 2012 Targeted Youth agencies viability will be 21 December threatened in section 3 2011 Corporate - Completed Specify what % reduction of Assistant Director Equality Board Targeted Youth total Early Intervention 21 December Youth Advisers will result 2011 with 4 post reduced Corporate Completed Expand reference to national Assistant Director Equality Panel Targeted Youth and local context around 4 January 2012 youth services Corporate Completed Include more context on what Assistant Director Equality Panel Targeted Youth business support and 4 January 2012 performance capacity is being reduced and impact
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Dean Woodward Assistant Director, Targeted Youth 21/12/11 Sandra Morrison Divisional Director Early Intervention and 21/12/11 Targeted Services Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
39
Page 50
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison 69705 Director
Proposal title Business Unit 484 – Practice development Ref 2 (484) and Multi – agency teams (MAT)
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing Expenditure
Savings Proposal: 11.7%
Budget: £1,438,105
Savings : £168,262
Description This savings proposal covers the delivery of targeted multi agency support via 3 locality based teams, the teams are configured to provide targeted services for families and children aged 0-19.
These services include both family support and early intervention social work services to families across the age range with a particular emphasis on early help and identification via close working with children’s centres and schools and universal health providers and on providing a step down from social care interventions.
The multi agency teams also deliver intensive support to families with multiple problems and will provide the link with European Social Fund (ESF) / Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) funded services to ensure that these families are supported to enter the workforce and lead on the delivery of evidence based parenting support.
An element of integrated youth support via the early intervention youth advisors is located in the MATs to allow intensive support to be provided to vulnerable young people who are Not in Employment Education or Training (NEET) or at risk of becoming NEET or excluded from school.
The savings on this template are proposed to both achieve the savings required to deal with the reduction in allocated funding and also to address the current budget which is overspent –this will require further reductions in staffing and reduction in service delivery.
40
Page 51
Specific proposals
Total savings proposed in 484 – £168,262 against staffing reductions for 2012-13.
This savings proposal covers the delivery of targeted multi agency support via 3 locality based teams, the teams are configured to provide targeted services for families and children aged 0-19. It is proposed to deliver an overall saving in the Practice development and multi-agency teams by reducing staffing in back office support and streamlining management structures. The number and range of evidence based parenting programmes will need to be reviewed to reflect capacity. Historically most delivery has come from MAT staff and until alternative practitioners can be trained, found or commissioned and funding identified to do this there will be a gap.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross income Net Net Cha FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- (£m) budget budget nge (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (%) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 73.4 1.438 -1.274 0.164 0.168 11.7 68.4 1.270 -1.270 0.000 %
Timetable for implementation
Date Action
41
Page 52
Expected impact on service
The proposed structure reduces staffing at every level and as such the service we offer will need to reduced and reconfigured
These staffing reductions will have a significant effect on capacity and this will inevitably mean that some vulnerable young people, children and families will receive a reduced service. Criteria will need to be reviewed and a much greater level of prioritisation will need to take place.
Demand for all these services is high and referrals to the MATS for support are increasing month on month, with some seasonal fluctuation. Increased pressure on families and factors like poverty and unemployment and poor housing has increased demand for support in families where parents are increasingly under pressure. A reduction in prevention type services at a time of increased demand will affect our ability to intervene early and referrals to specialist services may rise accordingly. Reduced capacity will affect our ability to offer step down interventions from social care
Choices will need to be made in the delivery of services and it may be that we decide to prioritise early years for example, as this is where early intervention is likely to have the most impact.
The number and range of evidence based parenting programmes will need to be reviewed to reflect capacity. Historically most delivery has come from MAT staff and until alternative practitioners can be trained, found or commissioned and funding identified to do this there will be a gap.
Consideration was given to alternative savings options in this area and it was concluded that they were not the preferred approach for the following reasons:
The Attendance service – 3 Education Welfare Officers (EWO) and a manager cannot be reduced any further as we will not be able to discharge our statutory functions and the Triage service with its effect on FTEs has been retained. Both services were significantly reduced in previous rounds and further reductions would render them unviable.
Likewise a reduction in the Parent Advisor (parent partnership) role, with a focus on Special Education Needs (SEN), is unadvisable as it may result in increased SEN activity and will be heavily censored by parents. These posts will need to be allied closely to future discussions now taking place as part of the SEN review.
Early help by multi – agency teams is seen as an important element of the drive to support vulnerable children and keep them safe. In Lambeth this is provided to a great extent by our MATs which are increasingly aligned both to children’s centres to assist with identification and targeting of the most vulnerable and with children’s social care to ensure cases are stepped down to less expensive interventions and to ensure that children who are on or just under the threshold for statutory intervention are offered preventative support to prevent this becoming necessary. Numbers at every level are high and in comparison to other boroughs , where there are many less requests for assistance and much lower levels of overall deprivation the spend on Multi –Agency Locality teams is much lower. The Intensive Support Workers have been retained and placed under one manager, the service is required to meet
42
Page 53
national expectations to provide a service to families termed as having multiple and complex needs and to provide an intensive service to vulnerable children under 5 in an attempt to reduce our Child Protection numbers in this group. Neither of these are statutory obligations but we would be something of an exception if we did not retain this service. - national evidence clearly shows that cashable savings can be made using this approach with high cost, high needs families.
Other Considerations
Allen Review and Munro Review
Both the Government’s Allen Review on Early Intervention and Munro Review on Child Protection highlight the importance of early help for vulnerable children, young people and families. The Government’s most recent response to Professor Munro’s review on ‘early help’ is to remind Local Authorities that the existing legislation is sufficient (but needs to be clarified) and therefore there will be no new statutory duty.
The proposed structure will limit our ability to build up an evidence base of what works and to upscale currently successful programmes like FAST, Triple P and SFSC because there is reduced capacity to deliver or plan and support increased delivery. It may be argued that in the medium to long term we should move from providing these to commissioning them but it is a reasonable assumption that while we move from our present arrangements to new ones there will be a gap.
The argument for commissioning, mutualisation and co production could also be applied to the MATs as a whole and over time this will be tested as we move towards a fully co-operative council but such a drastic reduction in budget in the face of high demand will make this a less attractive proposition.
Lambeth has declared itself to be an Early Intervention Place and as such will required to lead the way in both the delivery of services which can build up an evidence base for early intervention and also a pilot in new commissioning and funding arrangements such as social impact bonds and other payment by results based methods. Lambeth will be under a national spotlight and there is an expectation that we will begin a gradual shift from late to early intervention in the way we allocate resources.
The MATS are not the only service which can contribute to this but they are an important element of our offer. We will need to look more closely at the interface between MAT and our family support services within Social Care in order to take advantage of any and all opportunities for further efficiencies and reconfiguring the way in which services are delivered; to take account both of ‘early help’ responsibility and the capacity that has been built in and around schools. .
Current service users
The service is used by a wide cross section of parents and families across the borough. There is a high percentage of those from BME communities and from families experiencing poor health, SEN and also economic disadvantage.
43
Page 54
Expected impact on customer / user of service
As detailed above the preventative services available to children and families in Lambeth will be much reduced
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
There is expected to be minimal impact on commissioned providers of MAT services.
Mitigating actions
• The proposed change in practice development and multi-agency teams will impact on those children and young people and families who are or will be working with Multi-Agency Teams and mitigating options are limited. CYPS will deliver most of the mitigating actions, although partnership working with health and CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) will assist in exploring further opportunities for joint working to mitigate negative impacts.
• It may be decided to prioritise early years as early intervention is likely to have the most impact and will ensure over time that less children/families require MAT support. The criteria for receiving MAT support will be reviewed regularly to ensure resources are targeted at those most in need.
• Collaborative working with children’s specialist services and mental health teams in terms of threshold step-up and step-down procedures
• Closer integration and joining with early help and intervention initiatives, such as the newly funded support project for families with multiple problems and the early help for under 5’s in children’s centres will ensure the proposed reductions in Early Intervention Youth Advisers will be managed through a holistic approach.
• Retention of Parent Advisor (parent partnership) role.
• Parents and children and young people affected by any changes will be fully informed, provided with sufficient advance notice and supported in sourcing and using alternative support.
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
MAT contribute to all 3 overarching priorities of a caring, safe and secure and aspirational borough.
44
Page 55
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 168 0 0 168 TOTAL 168 0 0 168
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact None
Strategic levers
Establishment - reduction in service area staffing
45
Page 56
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison, Divisional Director Early Intervention and Director Targeted Services
Author Sandra Contact Divisional Director Early Intervention and Targeted Services Morrison details
Nanda Sirker Assistant Director, Targeted Interventions and Support
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: 22 December 2011 the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: 4 January 2012 process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Business Unit 484 – Practice development and Multi – agency teams (MAT)
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing Expenditure
Savings Proposal: 11.7%
Budget: £1,438,105
Savings : £168,262
Background and context: Proposal
46
Page 57
detail The Multi-Agency Teams (MAT) support children and young people with complex needs, children looked after (CLA), children with disabilities, statemented pupils with SEN, children on the child protection register.
The multi-agency team approach allows a range of different professionals, for example council social workers, police and school nurses, to work together to develop care plans for children with additional needs in a multi-agency working environment. This is led by a single professional who is designated the Lead Professional during the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) process. This is a proactive approach to caring for Lambeth children to support early intervention. These services include both family support and early intervention social work services to families across the age range with a particular emphasis on early help and identification via close working with children’s centres and schools and universal health providers and on providing a step down from social care interventions.
The multi agency teams also deliver intensive support to families with multiple problems and will provide the link with European Social Fund (ESF) / Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) funded services to ensure that these families are supported to enter the workforce and lead on the delivery of evidence based parenting support.
An element of integrated youth support via the early intervention youth advisors is located in the MATs to allow intensive support to be provided to vulnerable young people who are Not in Employment Education or Training (NEET) or at risk of becoming NEET or excluded from school.
Service proposal: This savings proposal covers the delivery of targeted multi agency support via 3 locality based teams, the teams are configured to provide targeted services for families and children aged 0-19. It is proposed to deliver an overall saving in the Practice development and multi-agency teams by reducing staffing in back office support and streamlining management structures. The number and range of evidence based parenting programmes will need to be reviewed to reflect capacity. Historically most delivery has come from MAT staff and until alternative practitioners can be trained, found or commissioned and funding identified to do this there will be a gap.
Consideration was given to alternative savings options in this area and it was concluded that they were not the preferred approach for the following reasons:
The Attendance service – 3 Education Welfare Officers (EWO) and a manager cannot be reduced any further as we will not be able to discharge our statutory functions and the Triage service with its effect on FTEs has been retained. Both services were significantly reduced in previous rounds and further reductions would render them unviable.
Likewise a reduction in the Parent Advisor (parent partnership) role, with a focus on Special Education Needs (SEN), is unadvisable as it may result in increased SEN activity and will be heavily censored by parents. These posts will need to be allied closely to future discussions now taking place as part of the SEN review.
47
Page 58
Total savings proposed is £168,262 against staffing reductions for 2012-13:
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net budget (No.) expen income budget budget (%) (No.) expendi income (£m) diture (£m) ture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 73.4 1.438 -1.274 0.164 0.16 8 11.7 68.4 1.270 -1.270 0.00
In addition, it is proposed in the separate Integrated youth Service savings proposal that there will be a reduction of 3 Early Intervention Youth Advisers located in MAT teams – the impact is detailed in the EIA for that proposal.
Impact on statutory responsibilities
The proposals do not impact on statutory proposals as resources relating to the statutory function of attendance have been protected. Support Service fulfils the statutory duty of the Local Authority in enforcing regular school attendance. In doing so it enables schools and parents to meet their respective responsibilities. Schools and the LA have the duty to support parents and carers in meeting their responsibilities and, where necessary, to take action to enforce attendance.
The Government’s most recent response to Professor Munro’s review on ‘early help’ is to remind Local Authorities that the existing legislation is sufficient (but needs to be clarified) and therefore there will be no new statutory duty. announcements suggest that the duty to provide early help is recommended to become a requirement on local authorities.
Therefore although the proposals will not impact on statutory duties, there will be an impact on the Local Authorities ability to progress the national agenda on early intervention and prevention.
Both the Government’s Allen Review on Early Intervention and Munro Review on Child Protection highlight the importance of early help for vulnerable children, young people and families.
In the context of increased pressures on budgets, Lambeth has declared itself to be an Early Intervention Place and as such will required to lead the way in both the delivery of services which can build up an evidence base for early intervention and also a pilot in new commissioning and funding arrangements such as social impact bonds and other payment by results based methods. We will be under a national spotlight and there is an expectation that we will begin a gradual shift from late to early intervention in the way we allocate resources.
The MATS are not the only service which can contribute to this but they are an important element of our offer. Reduction in capacity and the loss of expertise on every level may impede our progress in this area. We will therefore need to look more closely at the interface between the MATs and our family support services within social care to mitigate the impact of the proposed reductions. Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
48
Page 59
Current and potential service users
The service is used by a wide cross section of parents and families across the borough. There is a high percentage of those from BME communities and from families experiencing poor health, SEN and also economic disadvantage being supported by the service.
Current users
The Lambeth MAT team has supported children and young people with 718 CAFs between April and September 2011. For the period April 2010 to March 2011, children and young people received support through 1506 CAFs.
In terms of equality strands, an analysis of CAF between April-September 2011 demonstrates:
Gender:
The MAT service has received CAFs for a higher number of males (226) than females (154) between April-September 2011.
CAF Analysis 2011 - 2012: Gender Analysis:Quarter 2
250
200
150
226 100
No No of children/young people 154
50
0 3 1 Female Male Not specified Unborn
Age:
Analysis for April-September 2011 shows that the age of children and young people supported by a CAF is highest for the 5-10 (142) and 11-15 (133) age ranges and lower for
49
Page 60
the under 5 (82) and 16-18 (25_ age ranges. Please refer to the chart below:
CAF Analysis 2011 - 2012: Age Analysis: Quarter 2
160
140
120
100
80 142 133 60 No ofchildren/young people
40 82
20 25
0 2 Under 5s 5-10s 11-15s 16-18s Not specified
Age Analysis of CAFs Received in Quarter 2 of the Year 2011-2012
Ethnicity:
Analysis shows that we continue to receive more CAFs for children and young people with a Caribbean ethnicity (98) between April-September 2011. White British (68) and African (55) represent the next highest ethnic groups being supported through the CAF and Multi-Agency
50
Page 61
Team. ; This represents a continuing trend when compared to 2010-11 (as detailed in the table below).
The chart below shows Ethnicity Analysis of CAFs received April-September 2011-2012:
CAF Analysis 2011 - 2012: Ethnicity Analysis:Quarter 2
120
100
No of children/young people Caribbean White British 80 African Any other White background White & Black Caribbean 60 Any other Mixed Background Any other Black background 98 Indian 40 Any other ethnic group 68 Not given 55 Pakistani
20 36 31 27 13 11 9 8 8 0 Caribbean White BritishAfrican Any other WhiteWhite & BlackAny other MixedAny other BlackIndian Any other ethnicNot given Pakistani background Caribbean Background background group
Ethnicity Analysis of CAFs Received in 2nd Quarter of the Year 2011-2012
The table below shows the detailed breakdown of all CAFs received by Ethnicity in the first two quarters of 2011-12 and how this compares to the end of quarter 2 (September) 2010. For both
Ethnicity Quarter 2 2011 -2012 Quarter 2 2010 -2011 Analysis Ethnicity 2011 - 2012 Percentage 2010-2011 Percentage African 55 14% 66 18% Any other Asian background 4 1% 0 0 Any other Black background 13 3% 31 8% Any other ethnic group 9 2% 10 3% Any other Mixed background 27 7% 15 4% Any other White background 36 9% 33 9% Bangladeshi 3 1% 4 1% Caribbean 98 26% 84 23% Chinese 2 0.6% 1 0.2% Indian 11 3% 4 1% Not given 8 2% 9 2% Pakistani 8 2% 4 1% White & Asian 2 0.6% 2 1%
51
Page 62
White & Black African 6 2% 4 1% White & Black Caribbean 31 8% 25 7% White British 68 18% 71 19% White Irish 2 0.6% 3 0.8% Gypsy/Roma 1 0.2% 2 1% Grand Total 384 100% 368 100%
Disability:
A very small percentage of the CAFs undertaken between April-September relate to a disability – less than 2%.
Data is not available or relevant for the following equality categories:
• Gender reassignment • Religion and belief • Sexual orientation • Marriage/civil partnership
Future users
MAT services are demand-led service, based on the number of children and families requiring early intervention and targeted support. It is particularly difficult to predict future demand for service. However, given that the CYPS strategy is to identify need and provide targeted support at an early stage to prevent a child or young person requiring specialist services, for example by developing services for under 5s, including early identification, information giving, support to families and preparation for school; it is not unreasonable to assume that the demand for support from the MAT teams will increase.
Involvement and consultation process
52
Page 63
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups staff
General Focus Groups No
Other Methods
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Consultation Findings
No consultation has taken place with the public and service users as it is intended to make savings from the management structure to minimise the impact on service users Gaps in data
CAF Data is not available or relevant for the following equality categories
• Religion and belief • Sexual orientation
Information on these equality areas may become apparent during the CAF process, however it is not routinely collected and recorded because of sensitivities and challenges in obtaining such information form the customer group.
The following equality categories are not applicable to the customers of the MAT:
• Gender reassignment • Marriage/civil partnership
53
Page 64
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
54
Page 65
Expected impact on customer / user of service
The proposals represent a reduction of staff within the MAT team which will have a significant effect on capacity and this will inevitably mean that some vulnerable young people, children and families will not receive the same level of service as presently. However, despite staffing reduction the MAT can continue to target services appropriately through the CAF and Lead Professionals approach with the majority of service users receiving the same level of service.
Criteria for support will need to be reviewed and a much greater level of prioritisation will need to take place. The locality link will be more difficult to sustain in future and we will need to review this with partners especially within our school clusters.
The proposals will limit our ability to build up an evidence base of what works and to upscale currently successful parenting programmes like FAST, Triple P and SFSC because there is no capacity to deliver or plan and support increased delivery. It may be argued that in the medium to long term we should move from providing these to commissioning them but it is a reasonable assumption that during the move from our present arrangements to new ones there will be a gap.
Demand for all these services is high and referrals to the MAT for support are increasing month on month, with some seasonal fluctuation. Increased pressure on families and factors like poverty and unemployment and poor housing has increased demand for support in families where parents are increasingly under pressure. A reduction in prevention type services at a time of increased demand will affect our ability to intervene early and referrals to specialist services may rise accordingly. Reduced capacity will affect our ability to offer step down interventions from social care.
Negative Impact:
Ethnicity: The proposal will have high impact on children and young people from BME backgrounds. This is because BME children and young people, specifically those with a Caribbean and African ethnic background are the highest and third highest group, respectively, receiving MAT support -see CAF data analysis in section 1).
Socio-economic: It is estimated that many of the parents and children and young people receiving MAT support are from lower income backgrounds, therefore the reduction in service will impact on this group and equality strand.
Parents: The proposals include a reduction in parenting programmes which will result in the reach of such support being reduced, which will impact on the number of parents that are able to access such support.
Positive Impact:
Commissioning, mutualisation and co production could also be applied to the MATs as a whole and over time this will be tested as we move towards a fully co-operative council, however this significant reduction in budget in the face of high demand will make this a less attractive proposition. There is the potential of increasing community engagement in early intervention and preventative services, over time it is envisaged that communities will be engaged to shape MAT teams by local need.
55
Page 66
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disabilit Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g y reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civi Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment l partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic X X
Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council departments or public bodies
MAT contribute to all 3 corporate overarching priorities of a caring, safe and secure and aspirational borough. There is expected to be minimal impact on commissioned providers of MAT services.
Expected impact on council workforce
The proposals include staffing reductions for 2012-13.
Section 3 Mitigating actions
• The proposed change in practice development and multi-agency teams will impact on those children and young people and families who are or will be working with Multi-Agency Teams and mitigating options are limited. CYPS will deliver most of the mitigating actions, although partnership working with health and CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) will assist in exploring further opportunities for joint working to mitigate negative impacts.
• It may be decided to prioritise early years as early intervention is likely to have the most impact and will ensure over time that less children/families require MAT support. The criteria for receiving MAT support will be reviewed regularly to ensure resources are targeted at those most in need.
• Collaborative working with children’s specialist services and mental health teams in terms of threshold step-up and step-down procedures
• Closer integration and joining with early help and intervention initiatives, such as the newly funded support project for families with multiple problems and the early help for under 5’s in children’s centres will ensure the proposed reductions in Early Intervention Youth Advisers will be managed through a holistic approach.
• Retention of Parent Advisor (parent partnership) role.
• Parents and children and young people affected by any changes will be fully informed, provided with sufficient advance notice and supported in sourcing and using alternative support.
56
Page 67
• Explore the interface between the MAT and family support services within social care to mitigate the impact of the proposed reductions.
• This will be complemented by exploring opportunities for better use of shared multi-agency services across the borough and with other boroughs.
• The MAT may be an option for commissioning, mutualisation, co-production or alternative models of delivery by third sector agencies – this has yet to be explored in any great level of detail at this stage. However, over time this will be tested with the move towards a fully co- operative council. Although reductions in budget in the face of high demand will make this a less attractive proposition for alternative modes of service delivery.
• Exploring opportunities for linking with Community budgets and community commissioning
• The service will regularly monitor impact of the proposals through review and updating of the Equality Impact Assessment.
The timeframes of the proposal will follow the Corporate timetable following the issuing of the Section 188 notice.
Section 4 Links to other proposals Key information to include: The CYPS proposal on Children’s Centres will include similar customer groups to the MAT for parents and children and young people under 5 years and shared savings in the reduction of staffing. The Integrated Youth Service proposal is linked through the proposed reduction of 3 Early Intervention Youth Advisers located in MAT teams.
Section 5 – Conclusion
Early help by multi–agency teams is as an important element of the drive to support vulnerable children and keep them safe. Government announcements suggest that the duty to provide early help is recommended to become a requirement on local authorities. In Lambeth this is provided to a great extent by our MATs who are increasingly aligned both to children’s centres to assist with identification and targeting of the most vulnerable and with social care to ensure cases are stepped down to less expensive interventions and to ensure that children who are on or just under the threshold for statutory intervention are offered preventative support to prevent this becoming necessary.
Numbers at every level are high and in comparison to other boroughs, where there are many less requests for assistance and much lower levels of overall deprivation the spend on Multi–Agency Locality teams is much lower. The Intensive Support Workers have been retained and placed under one manager , the service is required to meet national expectations to provide a service to families termed as having multiple and complex needs and to provide an intensive service to vulnerable children under 5 in an attempt to reduce our Child Protection numbers in this group. Neither of these are statutory obligations but we would be something of an exception if we did not retain this service. - national evidence clearly shows that cashable savings can be made using this approach with high cost,
57
Page 68
high needs families.
Consequently it is proposed that number and range of evidence based parenting programmes will need to be significantly reduced. Potentially this may impact on families from specific BME ethnicity and with lower family incomes. However, given the savings required by the Department it was decided that there was no option other than taking this approach (as detailed in the ‘proposal detail’ section).
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer More details on what Corporate - Completed Assistant services will be reduced as a Equality Board Director, result of the proposals 22 December Targeted 2011 Interventions and Support
Clarify whether the Corporate - Completed Assistant proposals impact on Equality Board Director, providers commissioned to 22 December Targeted deliver parenting programme 2011 Interventions and
Support
Include the timeframes for Corporate - Completed Assistant implementing the proposals Equality Board Director, 22 December Targeted 2011 Interventions and Support
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Sandra Morrison Divisional Director Early Intervention and 21/12/11 Targeted Services Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
58
Page 69
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison 69705 Director
Proposal title Business Unit 494 – Special Education Needs Ref 3 (494) (SEN) – provision transport, recoupment IBS and statementing
Proposal – Retendering, reduce placement costs, reduction in the use of taxi provision
Savings Proposal: 20.7%
Cash Limit Budget: £2,910,000
Savings : £600,000
Description This covers the provision of home to school transport for children with SEN statements, the funding to provide support for statemented children in maintained schools, the provision of out of borough placement in maintained schools and the use of independent provision where this has been made necessary either to lack of suitable provision in the maintained sector or where we have been directed to make such provision by SENDIST tribunal.
The whole of SEN related service is subject to a wide ranging review which is currently being scoped by an external consultant – this will provide the opportunity for more far reaching change to reduce costs in this area.
In addition the SEN green paper will necessitate further change in this area – this template is confined to in year savings which can be realised ahead of more far reaching transformation in this area.
Specific proposals
Total savings proposed in 494 – £600k between 2012-15 with £400k in 2012-13.
Lambeth has high SEN transport costs compared to other London Boroughs. Work is underway to reduce the SEN transport costs through the revision of the SEN transport policy and criteria and working closely with Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and ACS to explore opportunities for personalisation and access to other resources by families that we may be duplicating e.g. the provision of notability versus SEN transport from the Local Authority. The change in policy will
59
Page 70
review the provision of vehicular transport for young people aged 14 and over.
This will be complemented by exploring opportunities for better use of shared routes either by bus or taxi with neighbouring boroughs, reducing the use of taxi provision by more flexible use of our fleet bus services and the re – tendering exercise for taxi services currently being discussed with Adults and Community Services Department and other boroughs.
This approach combines a range of measures to reduce SEN Transport costs whilst ensuring the provision is targeted at those children and young people most in need of the service, in the context of the reducing financial viability of providing SEN Transport in its current form.
The proposal will incorporate a change of Local Authority policy on SEN transport with two key policy changes proposed that relate to an ambition to increase independent travel for young people and prepare them for adulthood:
1. It is proposed that secondary aged pupils with SEN 14+ and above who are ambulatory – (where ambulatory is defined as those young people who are able to walk unaided without support) - should not continue to receive home to school vehicle transport, with the exception of those with severe learning difficulties or profound and multiple learning difficulties. This will include children with moderate learning difficulties and emotional difficulties.
The needs of the child/young person will be assessed on a case by case basis with family circumstances and consultation with the individual and family informing the Local Authorities decision. The ability of the affected children and young people to use alternative means of transport to and from school and their safety in doing so will be a fundamental part of decision-making.
2. A change in the way that eligibility for SEN transport is assessed which would take into account the consideration of whether families are in receipt of any other form of support towards travel (including disability living allowance), particularly, where a motability vehicle has been provided for the benefit of the child or young person.
These proposed changes in policy are designed to support independence training in young adults as part of their preparation for adulthood and to support transition arrangements between children’s services and adult services as well as ensuring we use our limited resources more effectively and closely aligned with transition to adult services arrangements.
The proposal forms part of the wider proposals being developed in the SEN review which will be reviewing types of provision and support functions.
Aspirationally the Council is committed to ensure all young people are supported to become independent young adults and these proposals
60
Page 71
reflect this ambition and will spearhead inclusive activity to support independent travel for young people with SEN.
Consideration of the safety of young people is key in developing the proposals. The views of parents/carers and young people have been taken into account especially concerns regarding bullying and harassment of vulnerable young people on public transport. This is why the case by case approach will be taken and support put in place for young people. An assessment of the vulnerability of each young people impacted by the proposal will take place and support for any young people transferring to independent travel will be put in place, for example the use of escorts.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross income Net Net Cha FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expendit (£m) budget budget nge (No.) expenditur income budget ure (£m) (£m) (%) e (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 16.147 -13.237 2.910 0.60 0 20.7 15.547 -13.237 2.310
Timetable for implementation
Date Action April 2012 to To achieve a 400k reduction in the cost of SEN transport, March 2013 Independent Boarding School (IBS) placement, statementing budget, out borough placements
2013- 2014 To complete phase 2 of the SEN review and identify how further savings can be made going forward. • Achieve additional 100k on SEN transport, IBS placement, statementing budget, out borough placements
2014-2115 As phase 2 decisions and changes in policy are implemented further savings will be realised • Additional 100k on SEN transport, IBS placement, statementing budget, out borough placements
61
Page 72
Expected impact on service
Many of the proposed changes will be managed to minimise the effect on service delivery and would not be directly felt by clients as they relate to support functions.
However, changes in the SEN transport service will impact directly on users as we will need to change access criteria and some users who would have previously been eligible for a service may no longer be eligible and this will need to be carefully negotiated.
Changes in the way that we respond to referrals and requests for support and joint working with children’s social care will allow us to provide a more co-ordinated response to vulnerable children and their families while delivering the required level of savings.
As part of the SEN review it is recommended that parent conciliation and partnership work is reviewed which will enable parents to be involved in all stages of the SEN statementing process therefore reducing the risk of parents deciding that going to SENDIST tribunal is the only way to negotiate with the council. The reduction in these costs is included in the proposed savings of the statementing costs.
Current service users
The service is used by a wide cross section of parents and families across the borough. There are a high percentage of those from BME communities and from families experiencing poor health, SEN and also economic disadvantage. Many of the young people who are supported by the service have severe disabilities and their rights are covered by the DDA.
Expected impact on customer / user of service
There is a need to ensure that the requirement to reduce costs does not create a rise in SENDIST appeals, this will be done by the effective use of negotiation and conciliation with parents.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
Work is already underway to retender our framework contract for the use of taxis – to achieve an overall saving. Work is also taking place to examine how we can renegotiate with providers of IBS placements.
Mitigating actions
Enhancing work on services for under 5s, including early identification, information giving, support to families and preparation for school will ensure over time that less children require SEN statements and SEN home to school transport.
To ensure parents and children and young people affected by the change in policy are fully informed, provided with sufficient advance notice and supported in sourcing and using alternative modes of transport.
This will be complemented by exploring opportunities for better use of shared routes either by bus or taxi with neighbouring boroughs, reducing the use of taxi provision by more flexible use of our fleet bus services.
The Local Authority will work in partnership with local bus and train companies to brief drivers and other staff to raise awareness regarding the needs, behaviours support for pupils with SEN 14+ whilst using public transport
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
Page 73
The service contributes to the Aspirational borough and the safe and secure borough. High expectations are expected of young people with disabilities and or SEN and provision is expected to be at least good if not outstanding. All arrangements for children and young people with disabilities and SEN are expected to be safe and safeguard a very vulnerable population.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 400 100 100 600 TOTAL 400 100 100 600
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact None
Strategic levers
Establishment - reduction in service area staffing
Page 74
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison, Divisional Director Early Intervention and Director Targeted Services
Author Nanda Contact Assistant Director, Targeted Interventions and Support Sirker details Head of SEN Michael Donkor 0207 926 9450
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: 22 December 2011 the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: 4 January 2012 process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Special Education Needs (SEN) Transport
Proposal Background and context detail The SEN service covers the provision of home to school transport for children with SEN statements, the funding to provide support for statemented children in maintained schools, the provision of out of borough placement in maintained schools and the use of independent provision where this has been made necessary either due to lack of suitable provision in the maintained sector or where we have been directed to make such provision by SENDIST tribunal.
The whole of SEN related service is subject to a wide ranging Local Authority SEN and Disability Review which is currently being progressed by an external consultant – this will provide the opportunity for more far reaching change to reduce costs in this area.
In addition the SEN green paper will necessitate further change in this area – the Green Paper
Page 75
approach is to simplify processes, reduce bureaucracy, and give more control to parents and more power to frontline professionals and local communities. Proposals include replacing the present SEN assessment and statement with a new single assessment process leading to an ‘Education, Health and Care Plan’; the option of personal budgets by 2014 for all families with children with a statement of SEN or Education, Health and Care Plan; strengthening parents’ choice of (state-funded) school; introducing greater independence of the assessment process through a possible role for the voluntary and community sector; and improving support for families with children who have the most complex or serious needs. The savings proposals are confined to savings which can be realised ahead of more far reaching transformation in this area. This EIA focuses on the savings proposals around SEN Transport for 2012-13 and thereafter.
Service proposal
It is proposed to deliver an overall saving in the SEN area by the following measures:
• Better use of shared routes either by bus or taxi with neighbouring boroughs • A reduction in the use of taxi provision by more flexible use of our fleet bus services • Savings to be realised via the re – tendering exercise for taxi services currently being discussed with Adults and Community Services Department and other boroughs • Better conciliation and partnership work with both parents and school to avoid recourse to and direction by SENDIST • Improved success rate at SENDIST by improved presentation and presentation of the LA case • Better support for children with SEN via improved links with Mats which will improve our conciliation and mediation services and satisfaction with local school places for children with SEN • Work with commissioning team to reduce placement costs where use of IBS placement is unavoidable. • These budgets are all currently overspent and have been so for a considerable time and corrective action is being taken to control expenditure within the current framework. • Further savings are predicted as part of the current SEN review which is looking at all aspects of current provision
Savings for 2012-13 are focused on SEN transport.
Lambeth has high SEN transport costs Compared to other London Boroughs High transport costs. Work is underway to reduce the SEN transport costs through the revision of the SEN transport policy and criteria and working closely with Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and ACS to explore opportunities for personalisation and access to other resources by families that we may be duplicating e.g. the provision of notability v SEN transport from the Local Authority. The change in policy will review the provision of vehicular transport for young people aged 14 and over
This will be complemented by exploring opportunities for better use of shared routes either by bus or taxi with neighbouring boroughs, reducing the use of taxi provision by more flexible use of our fleet bus services and the re – tendering exercise for taxi services currently being discussed with Adults and Community Services Department and other boroughs.
This approach combines a range of measures to reduce SEN Transport costs whilst ensuring the provision is targeted at those children and young people most in need of the service, in the context of the reducing financial viability of providing SEN Transport in its current form.
The proposal will incorporate a change of Local Authority policy on SEN transport with two key policy changes proposed that relate to an ambition to increase independent travel for young people and prepare them for adulthood:
1. It is proposed that secondary aged pupils with SEN 14+ and above who are ambulatory –
Page 76
(where ambulatory is defined as those young people who are able to walk unaided without support) - should not continue to receive home to school vehicle transport, with the exception of those with severe learning difficulties or profound and multiple learning difficulties. This will include children with moderate learning difficulties and emotional difficulties.
2. A change in the way that eligibility for SEN transport is assessed which would take into account the consideration of whether families are in receipt of any other form of support towards travel (including disability living allowance), particularly, where a motability vehicle has been provided for the benefit of the child or young person.
If the proposals are accepted , families with SEN children and young people aged 14+ who are ambulatory and/or in receipt of any other form of support towards travel (including disability living allowance, motability vehicle provided for the benefit of the child or young person ) may not receive local authority funded home to school transport. The needs of the child/young person will be assessed on a case by case basis with family circumstances and consultation with the individual and family informing the Local Authorities decision. The ability of the affected children and young people to use alternative means of transport to and from school and their safety in doing so will be a fundamental part of decision-making.
These proposed changes in policy are designed to support independence training in young adults as part of their preparation for adulthood and to support transition arrangements between children’s services and adult services as well as ensuring we use our limited resources more effectively and closely aligned with transition to adult services arrangements.
The proposal forms part of the wider proposals being developed in the SEN review which will be reviewing types of provision and support functions.
Aspirationally, the Council is committed to ensure all young people are supported to become independent young adults and these proposals reflect this ambition and will spearhead inclusive activity to support independent travel for young people with SEN.
Consideration of the safety of young people is key in developing the proposals. The views of parents/carers and young people have been taken into account especially concerns regarding bullying and harassment of vulnerable young people on public transport. This is why the case by case approach will be taken and support put in place for young people. An assessment of the vulnerability of each young people impacted by the proposal will take place and support for any young people transferring to independent travel will be put in place, for example the use of escorts.
Expected savings from implementing this proposal:
The current budget for SEN is £2.91m and the proposed savings through SEN Transport in 2012-13 is £400k.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expend income budget budget (%) (No.) expend income budget iture (£m) (£m) (£m) iture (£m) (£ (£m) (£m) m ) 16.147 -13.237 2.910 0.60 0 20.7 15.547 -13.237 2.310
Impact on statutory responsibilities
The Education and Inspections Act 2006 places a duty on Local authorities to make necessary travel arrangements for all 'eligible children’ and a discretion to make travel arrangements for other children .
The proposals to amend the SEN Transport policy will change the eligibility criteria for SEN Transport. This will not impact on the Local Authority discharging its statutory duty in respect of
Page 77
SEN Transport. These proposed arrangements will enable the LA to consider other alternatives for supporting transport to schools and a range of options have been considered such as providing a family member with a paid travel card – travel for young people is free on public transport and London buses are fully accessible.
The proposed change impact on the council’s statutory responsibilities. Although the proposal will impact on a specific customer group, it is not envisaged that it will contravene equalities and human rights legislation, Disability Discrimination Act and any other legislation related to the service. Legal advice has been received during the formulation of the proposals and it is concluded that the proposed policy change will not be unlawful.
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Children with 'special educational needs' (SEN) have learning difficulties or disabilities that make it challenging for them to progress in schools at the same rate as their peers. Children with special educational needs may need extra support in a number of areas such as schoolwork, communication and understanding other people, personal behavior and overcoming barriers caused by sensory or physical disabilities.
Current users
Currently Lambeth has 1545 (2010) of children with SEN statements and 438(2010) are in receipt of Local Authority funded SEN home to school transport. Currently the Local Authority expenditure on SEN Transport costs is £3.373,797
Children and young people with SEN statements:
Currently there are 1545 young people who have a statement of special educational needs
• Age – the graphs attached as appendix show the number of young people who receive transport broken by age the majority of who are aged between 5 – 10 closely followed by those who are aged 16-19 and those aged 11-13. • Disability – the graphs attached also shows the breakdown by need of those who receive transport the largest category of need that receive transport are those with a Moderate learning difficulty (MLD) and those with a severe learning difficulty (SLD) • Gender – of the 1545 young people who currently have a statement of SEN 1163 are male and 382 are female • Race- the largest ethnic groups with a statement are as follows Black African 335 (21%); black Caribbean 281 (18%) and white British 333(21%)
Data is not available or relevant for the following equality categories
• Gender reassignment • Pregnancy and maternity • Religion and belief • Sexual orientation • Marriage/civil partnership
Future users
SEN is a demand-led service, based on the number of children with a SEN statement. It is particularly difficult to predict future demand for service. However, given that the population of children and young people in Lambeth is predicted to increase, it is not unreasonable to assume that children with SEN statements will also increase as currently 3.7% of young people in Lambeth have a statement of SEN.
To mitigate against such an increase the Local Authority is further developing services for under 5s, including early
Page 78
identification, information giving, support to families and preparation for school. The Local Authority SEN and Disability Review will include a realignment of budgets to reflect the planned charges over the next 5 years, including a detailed analysis of the shift from Out to In Borough provision, the changes to transport arrangements and the redistribution of resources to In Borough schools.
Analysis undertaken
• Equality date is collected as part of the statementing process and cross referenced with the data provided for January census by schools and with health data. The data is provided by parents and carers and placed on the SEN database called SENATE. The equality data was obtained from the SENATE – SEN management information system and analysed by officers.
Involvement and consultation process
Page 79
Consultation Method Written consultations
Residents Survey NO
Targeted Focus Groups 1. Head teachers /SENCO’s of all Lambeth schools 2. Lambeth Parent Advisory group 3. Lambeth Legal Services 4. Parents Forum 5. Lambeth Special Heads Group 6. Lambeth Learning Difficulties & Disability Group 7. Independent schools/providers;-
Alpha Plus Group Limited, Barnardos (Meadows School), Blossom House Brantridge School, Bryn Melyn Care, Caldecott Community, Cambian Autism Services , Canbury School, Cavendish School, Centre Academy, Chelsea Group of Children, Eagle House School Fairley House, Hesley Group, Grafham Grange School, High School Close, LVS Hassocks, Mary Hare Primary School, Mill Hall, McRae Residential Care Services, More House School, New College Worcester. New School at West Heath – The North Hill House School, Orchard Hill College Papillon House School, Paray House School, Penhurst School (Action for Children), Penn School Philip Green Memorial Trust/ Boveridge House, Pied heath RC School, Priory Lodge School, RNIB - New College Worcester, Rutherford School - Garwood Foundation, Slindon College, St Edward's School, St John's School & College, St Marys, Bexhill, St. Catherine's School, St. Christopher's School, St. Dominic's School, St. Joseph's School, St. Mary's School, Stanbridge Earls School, Sybil Elgar School (National Autistic Society), Tadley Horizon School, Thames Christian College, The Link Primary School, The Loddon School, The Moat School, The Mulberry Bush School, The Rainbow School, Underley Garden School, Unstead Park Priory, Waldorf School, Wilsic Hall School, Woodcroft School
General Focus Groups - Satnam Verdi - Treverdy & Virdi Solicitors
- CYPS Policy, Performance and Procurement Team
- CYPS Finance
Other Local Authorities (LA)
1. Wandsworth LA 2. Southwark LA 3 Croydon LA 4 Lewisham LA 5 Bromley LA
Other Methods
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
See above How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Consultation Findings
Page 80
Stakeholders were positive about the principles of the proposed policy change of proactively seeking to encourage children with statements of SEN to become independent travellers to enable them be safe, healthy, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution to their community and achieve economic well being. A number of Children with SEN statements have expressed the view that they would prefer to travel on public transport just like everyone else .
Secondary age children with complex needs.
Gaps in data
• Attached are a range of graphs that indicate the wealth of data available we have tried to ensure the data is as comprehensive as.
Section 2 assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Positive Impact:
One of the reasons behind the change in SEN Transport policy is to increase independent travel for young people with less severe SEN and prepare them for adulthood. This will also ensure the individual has an increased sense of independence and the ability to use public transportation systems, a requisite skill for adult life and integrate with the wider community.
The proposal will raise awareness amongst the community of the needs of young people with a disability.
Negative impact:
The proposal will have high impact of the specific customer group of children and young people from BME backgrounds. This is because BME children and young people are the highest group receiving home to school transport -39% of all statemented pupils are either black African or black Caribbean. (see attached graph) As 36%of the population of children and young people in Lambeth are from BME backgrounds and 80% of our school population is from BME groups the population of 0-19 years old the proposal is likely to have an impact on this group.
The proposal is likely to have high impact on male pupils. This is because male are the highest group with SEN statements, of the 1545 young people who currently have a statement of SEN 1163 are male and 382 are female. Therefore there is a potential that of the estimated 109 children that may not receive home to school transport, under the new policy, a majority will be male.
There is the potential that children and young people from lower income families that now do not meet the eligibility for Local Authority funded SEN transport will be highly impacted. However, as public transport is free for school aged pupils this could be minimised by providing support for those adults who escort their children to school, for example providing school staff and/or appropriate adults to accompany pupils to and from departure and destination bus stops.
There is also the potential that the proposed change in policy may impact on the parents/carers of affected children and young people in terms of current travel arrangements for work and childcare of siblings. As each case will take into account family circumstances and involve consultation with the individual and family, it is anticipated these impacts can be resolved through individual plans on a case by case basis.
Page 81
Impact of litigation,
As the provision of transport is written into the statement there is risk of increased numbers of appeals and SEN tribunals
These proposals enable the council to ensure young people with a disability have the opportunity to access public transport as part of the proposal training for young people and the provision of escorts and group travel groups will be established. Training for staff on public transport will be provided if required to raise awareness.
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic X X X X
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic X X X X
Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council departments or public bodies
The proposal will impact on organisations commissioned to deliver home to school transport and taxi firms used to transport
The proposal will not impact or be impacted by savings in other parts of the Council and enhances joint working between Children and Young People’s Service and Adult and Community Service. It will impact positively on young people with a disability enabling them to access resources that available to the rest of the community.
The proposal will impact on the reputation of the Council amongst the parents currently receiving Local Authority funded transport for their children with SEN aged 14+.
Expected impact on council workforce
The impact on the SEN workforce will be minimal.
Section 3 Mitigating actions The proposed change in SEN Transport policy will impact on those children and young people and families affected and mitigating options are limited. CYPS will deliver most of the mitigating actions, although partnership working with Adults and Community Services will assist in exploring opportunities for personalisation and access to other resources by families that we may be duplicating e.g. the provision of motability v SEN transport from the Local Authority.
Enhancing work on services for under 5s, including early identification, information giving, support to families and preparation for school will ensure over time that less children require SEN statements and SEN home to school transport.
To ensure parents and children and young people affected by the change in policy are fully informed, provided with sufficient advance notice and supported in sourcing and using alternative modes of transport.
Page 82
This will be complemented by exploring opportunities for better use of shared routes either by bus or taxi with neighbouring boroughs, reducing the use of taxi provision by more flexible use of our fleet bus services.
The Local Authority will work in partnership with local bus and train companies to brief drivers and other staff to raise awareness regarding the needs, behaviours support for pupils with SEN 14+ whilst using public transport.
The timeframes for implementing the change in SEN Transport policy, if accepted, are:
Presentation to cabinet in January 2012 Individual consultation with parents and carers in February 2012 and a rolling programme of implementation beginning 15 th March 2012 culminating in a saving of 400K by the end of March 2013
Section 4 Links to other proposals These savings will be linked to the overarching SEN review that is looking a range of provision in borough which will contribute to reducing the number of pupils who travel out of borough to receive specialist education.
Section 5 – Conclusion
In conclusion the proposals will support young people being educated in their local area and prepare them for adult hood as well as result in a more efficient use of resources. To ensure this initiative is a success we will need to work in partnership with a range of colleagues in Adult and Community Services, Transport for London and within neighbouring boroughs and with parents to reassure them that this change in policy will not have any adverse effect on children and young people.
There is a risk related to increased litigation as we change the content of statements to reflect new policies
However the long term benefits outweigh the risks as we will be supporting young people with a range of disabilities and SEN to be visible within their local community and responding to the views of young people who would prefer to travel on public transport just like everyone else.
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer Further details on how many Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, children who receive home to Board Targeted school transport now will not 22 December 2011 Interventions and receive it in the future as a Support result of the proposed eligibility change
Include details of alternative Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, options explored and Board Targeted considered 22 December 2011 Interventions and
Support
Include details of how much of Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, the savings of 600k is coming Board Targeted from savings on taxi costs and 22 December 2011 Interventions and how much from savings on Support Veolia bus costs
Page 83
Clarify what support will be put Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, in place to support the child’s Board Targeted transition to using public 22 December 2011 Interventions and transport. Support
Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, Clarify whether there is a risk Board Targeted for children who have out of 22 December 2011 Interventions and borough placements not Support receiving home to school transport under proposed eligibility and the impact on parents in arranging transport
Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, Need to make explicit that Panel Targeted change in policy will be 4 January 2012 Interventions and assessed on a case by case Support basis with consideration to individual circumstances
Corporate Equality - Completed Assistant Director, Acknowledge potential impact Panel Targeted for parents/carers – childcare 4 January 2012 Interventions and for other children and Support employment arrangements
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Sandra Morrison Divisional Director Early Intervention and 21/12/11 Targeted Services Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 84
Ethnicity Distribution - SEN2 (2011) Report / CY 2010
335 333
281
120 99 74 63 61 42 36 27 8 8 11 13 14 3 6 0 2 2 2 1 4 W IR I U N K O V IE A IN D W IR T W BR I N T B R C H N E B A F R B C R B B O T H A P K N M O T H A O T H W T U R O O E G A B A N W P O R W G R E M W B C W R O M M W A S M W B A W O T W
SEN2 (2011) Report / CY 2010 ETHNIC MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL GRAND ETHNICITY DESCRIPTION CODES IN-B OUT-B TOTAL IN-B OUT-B TOTAL IN-B OUT-B TOTAL ABAN Bangladeshi 5 1 6 2 0 2 7 1 8 AIND Asian/Asian British - Indian 6 1 7 1 0 1 7 1 8 AOTH Asian/Asian British - Other 16 7 23 15 4 19 31 11 42 APKN Asian/Asian British - Pakistani 7 2 9 2 0 2 9 2 11 BAFR Black/Black British - African 193 53 246 72 17 89 265 70 335 BCRB Black/Black British - Caribbean 158 53 211 58 12 70 216 65 281 BOTH Black/Black British - Other 42 8 50 20 4 24 62 12 74 CHNE Chinese 9 1 10 3 0 3 12 1 13 MOTH Mixed - Other 23 6 29 7 0 7 30 6 36 MWAS Mixed White/Asian 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 3 MWBA Mixed White/Black African 14 7 21 6 0 6 20 7 27 MWBC Mixed White/Black Caribbean 41 7 48 12 3 15 53 10 63 NTBR Chose not to be recorded 2 2 4 2 0 2 4 2 6 Page 85 OOEG Any Other Ethnic Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OVIE Vietnamese 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 UNK Unknown 61 26 87 16 17 33 77 43 120 WBRI White British(English/Scottish/Welsh) 157 82 239 62 32 94 219 114 333 WGRE Greek (includes Greek & Greek-Cypriot) 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 WIRI White Irish 4 3 7 5 2 7 9 5 14 WIRT Traveler of Irish Heritage 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 WOTW Any other white background 55 14 69 25 5 30 80 19 99 WPOR Portuguese 42 10 52 8 1 9 50 11 61 WROM Gypsy/Roma 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 WTUR Turkish (includes Turkish & Turkish-Cypriot) 3 1 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 TOTAL 843 285 1128 320 97 417 1163 382 1545
75 Page 86
BUS AND TAXI AVERAGE NUMBERS – Graph 5
Appendix 3
BUS AND TAXI COSTS AND TRENDS – Graph 6
Costs for 2009 onwards should be considered against a background of spiralling fuel costs. There has been a trend of steadily increasing pupil numbers in private hire vehicles. There is a trend also of increasing numbers of pupils attending independent boarding schools, out of Lambeth.
Appendix 3
76 Page 87
TOTAL NUMBER OF STATEMENTED CHILDREN RECEIVING SEN TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (ALL MODES) BY AGE AND PRIMARY NEED – Graph 7
Appendix 3
TOTAL NUMBER OF STATEMENTED CHILDREN RECEIVING SEN TRAVEL ASSISTANCE BY AGE AND SCHOOL TYPE – Graph 8
Appendix 3
77 Page 88
TOTAL NUMBER OF STATEMENTED CHILDREN RECEIVING SEN TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (ALL MODES) AS AT PRESENT (457) – Graph 9
Slide 12 of 18
78 Page 89
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison 69705 Director
Proposal title Business Unit 430 – Children’s Centres Ref 4 (430)
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing Expenditure (senior management capacity)
Savings : £1,375,908
Description Background
Lambeth’s network of 27 Children’s Centres and 3 satellite sites that provide borough-wide coverage for under fives and families to deliver integrated childcare, health and family support services. A £23million capital programme supports the delivery of children’s centre services mainly on school sites but with 3 of the 27 in the voluntary sector.
Savings proposal
Children’s Centres are provided with funding according to a formula to resource specific posts at the children’s centre and provide running costs. A number of different options are being considered and will be consulted on but broadly speaking the savings will be achieved by a combination of grouping together children’s centres and reducing management and operational costs. These options will meet the savings target below which equates to 18% of the current directly devolved budget. The savings proposal focus on back office and management functions as well as collaboration and cooperation between children centres. As children centres work more closely together there is an opportunity for streamlining and reducing duplication. Health and family support services delivered in children’s centres are centrally commissioned and it is proposed that this element of the children’s centre budgets is protected to enable preventative and targeted support to continue to be delivered. This element of the budget is therefore not included in the figures below.
The priority for children’s centres is to continue to target vulnerable and hard to reach families and to increase the focus on families with
79 Page 90
multiple and complex needs. All of the proposals retain both the outreach resource in children’s centres and via separate budgets the commissioned services and the early years resource in the Multi- agency teams.
The council remains committed to an agenda of early intervention and preventative working and has been nominated as early intervention place in response to the Allen review. In addition there is ongoing concern about the numbers of 0 -4 years olds who are subject to a child protection plan and who become looked after. The retention of services within children centres for the most vulnerable will enable children centres to play a key role in the provision of ‘early help’ to the most vulnerable and provide diversionary services to prevent families becoming known to statutory services.
The proposals acknowledges this role of the children centres but also reduces the developmental, managerial and coordinating aspects of the service and reflects the fact that the work of the children centres has become embedded across the council and it’s broader partnership.
Implications for posts
The proposed models will each have different implications for the number of posts affected. If a uniform option were to be applied across the borough the net loss of posts would be between 8 and 20 depending on the model.
It may be however that following consultation different models are adopted in different areas of the borough. It is therefore difficult to say at this stage precisely how many posts will be lost in this scenario.
Consultation There is a statutory requirement as part of the Childcare Act 2006 for the local authority to consult on making any significant change in the services provided through an existing children’s centre; or doing anything which would result in a children’s centre ceasing to be a children’s centre, i.e. either closing it or reducing the services provided to such an extent that it no longer meets the statutory definition of a Sure Start Children’s Centre The requirement is supported by guidance on good practice for the consultation including who should be consulted.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net budget Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budg (£m) (%) (No.) expen income budget diture (£m) et -diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) TBC 7.437 -7.437 0 1.375 18 TBC 6.062 -6.062 0
80 Page 91
Timetable for implementation
Date Action
81 Page 92
Expected impact on service
The proposals:
maintain service delivery at all children’s centre sites
Reduce senior management capacity within the children’s centres which is considered achievable now that children’s centres are more established. The number of management posts that will be reduced will be determined by which option is adopted in consultation with providers.
reduce budgets for operating costs which is considered to be achievable
potentially reduce services at some sites if a hub and spoke or satellites model is adopted but will allow for the targeted differentiation of services according to local need and the capacity of local centres to deliver.
meet the council’s statutory duties including
o Childcare Act 2006 duty to make arrangements to ensure integrated provision of early years services and take steps to identify parents not using services and to encourage them to do so,
o Childcare Act 2006 Duty to make arrangements to work with PCT and JC+ in performance of the LA duties
o Childcare Act 2006 Section 5A Duty to secure sufficient Children's Centres to meet local need.
Children’s centres are inspected by Ofsted and the designation by individual centre or by cluster as well as accountability and governance arrangements for the chosen option will need to be carefully considered to ensure that Ofsted requirements are met.
Current service users
From April 2010 to March 2011 8,368 individual children under five visited a Lambeth children's centre (around one third of all under fives in the borough). There were around 88,369 attendances by children in total. First quarter data for 2011-12 is 3260 individual children - projected 13,040 for the year (around 50% of children under 5). It should be noted that there is still considered to be an element of under- reporting by individual children’s centres on the Management Information System.
Evidence from the Evaluation of Lambeth’s Children’s Centres, Shared Intelligence, September 2010, suggests that ‘it is plausible to say that Children’s Centres are increasing access to services for the most excluded groups particularly given that many of the commissioned services are targeted specifically at the most excluded groups’. Evidence to support this includes:
Strong evidence that outreach workers are successfully identifying families in need of services and encouraging take up among these groups. The number of lone parents and teenage parents accessing services is rising and individual commissioned service providers have a much higher take up from target ethnic groups.
82 Page 93
Despite this we are aware through analysis of children on child protection plans that a significant number of vulnerable families are not accessing children’s centres before they are put on a child protection plan and to a lesser extent after they are put on a plan. This is a complex area and requires further analysis to identify the reasons. Any savings proposals must not impact on children’s centres capacity to identify and support this group.
Impact on customer / user of service
Service users will still be able to access children’s centre services at their local children’s centre however they may need to visit other centres for particular services and it will be important to ensure good information and signposting arrangements are in place.
The proposals envisage a greater degree of targeting and closer working with multi- agency teams which will have a beneficial impact on target groups including parents of children with disabilities, vulnerable groups and families with multiple and complex needs.
Children’s Centres are managed by schools and voluntary sector organisations. Depending on the model that is adopted some centres may become spokes or satellites and some may be main centres therefore taking on responsibility for delivery at another site. Centres may also be required to work increasingly in clusters or groups to consider the needs and outcomes for the population of a wider geographical area. We will need to work closely with all providers to negotiate change. A potential risk to this close partnership working is conversion of children’s centres managed by schools that convert to academies.
All of the options under consideration maintain service delivery at all sites and maintain outreach capacity and the delivery of health and family support services. The proposals also envisage closer links with multi-agency teams which will strengthen the capacity of children’s centres to work with families with complex and multiple needs.
Universal access stay and play services will be available at Lambeth’s Stay and Play One O Clock Clubs operating under the Co-operative Council framework.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
Children’s Centres are managed by schools and voluntary sector organisations. Depending on the model that is adopted some centres may become spokes or satellites and some may be main centres therefore taking on responsibility for delivery at another site. Centres may also be required to work increasingly in clusters or groups to consider the needs and outcomes for the population of a wider geographical area.
Mitigating actions
The proposals are designed to have a minimal impact on service users. The proposal aims to increase usage of children’s centres by the most vulnerable groups and groups not currently accessing these services, it will not reduce access for existing users. The proposal protects outreach worker resource to ensure services to families
83 Page 94
are targeted and available to those most in need. A new commissioning round will establish the priorities for services from July 2012.
All of the options under consideration maintain service delivery at all sites and maintain outreach capacity and the delivery of health and family support services. The proposals also envisage closer links with multi-agency teams which will strengthen the capacity of children’s centres to work with families with complex and multiple needs.
This saving proposal is dependent on the Early Intervention Grant continuing in its current quantity and nature, this will need to be reviewed annually to conform savings can continue.
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
Children’s Centres particularly support the Corporate objective of ‘A high quality education for every child and young person in a safe and supportive environment’ and contribute to all 3 overarching priorities of a caring, safe and secure and aspirational borough.
84 Page 95
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 1,375 0 0 1,375 TOTAL 1,375 0 0 1,375
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact Strategic levers
Establishment
Assets
85 Page 96
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison Director
Author Stella Contact Assistant Director Early intervention & Play Clarke details [email protected]
02079268512
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: 22 December 2011 the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: 4 January 2012 process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Business Unit 430 – Children’s Centres
Proposal – Increased cluster and partnership working resulting in protected delivery of frontline services and reduction in staffing expenditure (senior management and teacher capacity) and operational costs
Savings : £1,375,908
Background and context Proposal detail Lambeth’s network of 27 Children’s Centres and 3 satellite sites provides borough- wide coverage for under fives and families for integrated childcare, health and family
86 Page 97
support services. A £23 million capital programme supports the delivery of children’s centre services mainly on school sites but with 4 of the 27 in the voluntary sector.
Children’s centres are inspected by Ofsted and to date Lambeth has had 7 inspections - 4 outstanding, 1 good with outstanding features and 2 good.
Lambeth is one of 26 authorities nationally to be selected for the children’s centre payment by results trial. This means there will be a robust outcomes framework for children’s centres and improved collection of data and evidence about the impact of services will be important.
The council remains committed to an agenda of early intervention and preventative working and has been nominated as early intervention place in response to the Allen review
Service proposal
The aim of this proposal is to protect the delivery of children’s centre services and make savings through reducing management, teacher input and operational costs. The proposals aim to achieve this through strengthening partnership and cluster working across the children’s centre network. The new delivery models are being co- produced with children’s centres to draw on their knowledge of the needs of local communities and what will work in their area. Families will continue to have access to a wide range of children’s centre services in their local area. A review of children’s centre catchments has been carried out to ensure that the numbers that each children’s centre is required to reach are more equal.
The savings proposal focus on back office and management functions as well as collaboration and cooperation between children centres. As children centres work more closely together there is an opportunity for streamlining and reducing duplication.
The proposals:
maintain service delivery at all children’s centre sites
Reduce senior management capacity within the children’s centres which is considered achievable now that children’s centres are more established. The number of management posts that will be reduced will be determined by which option is adopted in consultation with providers.
reduce budgets for operating costs which is considered to be achievable
potentially reduce services at some sites if a hub and spoke or satellites model is adopted but will allow for the targeted differentiation of services according to local need and the capacity of local centres to deliver.
Options The options under consideration include different ways of groups and clustering children’s centres to suit local circumstances. The options will meet the savings target below which equates to 18% of the current directly devolved budget.
An option considered and rejected was to reduce the budget of each of the 27 children’s centres and three satellites. This option was rejected because it would result in a reduced service at each individual children’s centre without the benefits of
87 Page 98
strengthened co-ordination and reduced duplication brought about by partnership and cluster working.
Priorities
The priority for children’s centres is to continue to target vulnerable and hard to reach families and to increase the focus on families with multiple and complex needs. In addition there is ongoing concern about the numbers of 0 -4 years olds who are subject to a child protection plan and who become looked after.
The retention of services within children centres for the most vulnerable will enable children centres to play a key role in the provision of ‘early help’ to the most vulnerable and provide diversionary services to prevent families becoming known to statutory services.
The proposal aims to increase usage of children’s centres particularly of the most vulnerable groups and groups not currently accessing these services, it will not reduce access for existing users.
Health and family support services delivered in children’s centres are centrally commissioned and it is proposed that this element of the children’s centre budget is protected to enable preventative and targeted support to continue to be delivered. This element of the budget is therefore not included in the figures below. The commissioning process will establish priorities for service delivery.. All of the proposals retain both the outreach resource in children’s centres and via separate budgets the targeted commissioned services and the early years family support resource in the multi-agency teams. The proposals retain this element of the role of children’s centres and reduce the managerial and operational budgets of the service reflecting the fact that there has been considerable capacity building over the last three years and that savings can best be made from these areas while retaining frontline service delivery to support the neediest families.
Implications for posts:
The proposed models will each have different implications for the number of posts affected. If a uniform option were to be applied across the borough the net loss of posts would be between 8 and 20 depending on the model.
Following the initial consultation with children’s centres it is clear that different models will emerge in different areas to suit local circumstances. It is therefore difficult to say at this stage precisely how many posts will be lost.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) TBC 7.437 -7.437 0.000 1.375 18.5% TBC 6.062 -6.062 0.000
Impact on statutory responsibilities: Local authorities continue to have duties under the Childcare Act 2006 to consult
88 Page 99
before opening, closing or significantly changing children’s centres, and to secure sufficient provision to meet local need so far as is reasonably practicable. Statutory guidance (published in March 2010) accompanies these duties, which outlines how the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 provisions relate to children’s centres.
The following sections of the guidance are particularly relevant:
• Section 5A of the Act: The duty to make sufficient provision of children's centres to meet local need, so far as is reasonably practicable – pages 7-8 of the guidance, which emphasises that local authorities should ensure universal access to children’s centres is achieved and all children and families can be reached effectively, especially the most deprived.
• Section 5D: The duty to consult before establishing, significantly changing or closing a children's centre – pages 15-18 of the guidance, which emphasises that local authorities should allow adequate time for responses, actively encourage parents from disadvantaged groups to participate, and demonstrate in their decision how they have taken consultation responses into account.
Statutory duties will continue to be met following changes to the service and consultation duties are being addressed as evidenced in the section below: Involvement and consultation process
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: service user profile and consultation results
Current and potent ial service users
Since 2008 around 15,000 under fives have visited a Lambeth children’s centre (two thirds of all under fives in Lambeth. From April 2010 to March 2011 8,368 individual children under five visited a Lambeth children's centre (around one third of all under fives in the borough). There were around 88,369 attendances by children in total. Data from April 2011 to November 2011 shows that over 6,000 individual children have visited a children’s centre. It should be noted that there is still considered to be an element of under-reporting by individual children’s centres on the Management Information System and the actual number is likely to be higher.
Evidence from the Evaluation of Lambeth’s Children’s Centres, Shared Intelligence, September 2010, suggests that ‘it is plausible to say that Children’s Centres are increasing access to services for the most excluded groups particularly given that many of the commissioned services are targeted specifically at the most excluded groups’ The report concluded that there is strong evidence that outreach workers are successfully identifying families in need of services and encouraging take up among these groups.
Teenage parents and lone parents
The number of lone parents and teenage parents accessing services is rising (Shared Intelligence report 2010).
Data provided by health on the number of teenage parents in the borough indicates that children’s
89 Page 100
centres are reaching around 70% of all teenage parents.
Children with disabilities and parents/carers with disabilities
Specialist groups for children with disabilities are well established in every locality and are well used in the children’s centres where they are run. Feedback from parents of children with disabilities who do access the Children’s Centres suggested that they have found the services valuable.
Children subject to Child Protection Plans
Analysis has shown a significant number of vulnerable families are not accessing children’s centres before they are put on a child protection plan and to a lesser extent after they are put on a plan. This is a complex area and requires further analysis to identify the reasons however addressing this is a key priority for the children’s centre programme moving forward.
Gender and Age
Evidence suggests that the majority of adult users are aged 25-39 years and are female (mothers). Among under 5 users the gender balance is almost equal, with only a slightly higher proportion of male under 5 users.
Ethnicity
Data below shows ethnicity of service users by age and ethnicity: 01/04/11-30/11/11
Ethnicity Local Number of Number of under 5s contacts with under 5s
Not recorded 1532 10464 Asian or Asian British - 47 238 Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British - 70 683 Indian Asian or Asian British - 51 642 Pakistani Black or Black British - 643 4906 African Black or Black British - 365 2713 Caribbean Chinese 23 320 Mixed - White/Asian 126 1735 Mixed - White/Black African 168 1535 Mixed - White/Black 209 2241 Caribbean Other Asian Origin 61 502 Other Black Background 51 362 Other Ethnic Group 215 1965 Other Mixed Background 277 2933
90 Page 101
Other White Background 836 7829 Unspecified 70 389 White British 1428 10810 Total 6172 50267
Socio-economic:
The two year early learning offer targets the most economically disadvantaged families to provide 15 hours free early learning. Lambeth currently provides places for around 350 children. Children’s centres are key to identifying the families to benefit from this and families receiving this offer are referred to their local children’s centre for health and family support services.
A range of services is provided for workless families including ESOL, IT, support for progression to training, volunteering and work and family learning activities.
Future users The aim is for children’s centres to continue to provide universal access to services while focussing on the neediest families. In Lambeth a key aim for the service will be to support the reduction in the number of children on child protection plans. This will mean closer partnership working with health professionals, in particular health visitors to ensure early identification of families that need support and intensive outreach to facilitate families’ access to services.
Analysis undertaken
Service user data is entered on the Synergy Connect Management Information System.
Lambeth’s Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS) commissioned Shared Intelligence in 2010 to carry out an evaluation of Lambeth’s children’s centres and commissioned services for the under fives. Information gained from this evaluation helped shape service proposals. Methodology used within this evaluation included: • a review of background documents and data • data analysis • fieldwork – interviews, surveys and focus groups
Involvement and consultation process
91 Page 102
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey NO
Targeted Focus Groups YES
General Focus Groups NO
Other Methods YES
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS) commissioned Shared Intelligence in 2010 to carry out an evaluation of Lambeth’s Children’s Centres and commissioned services for the under fives. Service user feedback informed the evaluation.
Children’s Centre staff and managers are gaining feedback from service users around proposals on an ongoing basis via Parent Forums and parent representation on Advisory Boards.
A satisfaction survey is carried out every year and contributes to service development. The 2011 survey analysis is being used to inform the new service models. If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
Shared Intelligence held focus groups with service users. They attended parent forums at four Children’s Centres 1 and a drop-in session at one Centre 2. This provided an opportunity to explore issues in more depth with service users, providing an additional source of qualitative research to support our findings. Forums discussed parents’ expectations of the Children’s Centres, their experiences of the services delivered from the Centres and of the Centres themselves, and their suggestions for improvements. Issues around access, usability and outcomes were also explored.
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
An issue that arose during consultation was that many families in Lambeth do not speak English as their first language. Shared Intelligence addressed these barriers via the use of interpreters.
Consultation There is a statutory requirement as part of the Childcare Act 2006 for the local authority to consult on making any significant change in the services provided through an existing children’s centre; or doing anything which would result in a children’s centre ceasing to be a children’s centre, i.e. either closing it or reducing the services provided to such an extent that it no longer meets the statutory definition of a Sure Start Children’s Centre. The requirement is supported by guidance on good practice for the consultation including who should be consulted.
The proposals to date have been informed by the consultation described above. More detailed consultation about how the new partnerships and local service delivery should be configured started in October 2011 with consultation with children’s centre heads and leads. This will continue as follows.
1 Clapham Manor, Crown Lane, Larkhall and Coin Street. 2 Sunnyhill Children’s Centre.
92 Page 103
December • Letter to children’s centre users to initiate consultation • Letter to Governing bodies, Advisory Boards, Strategic Partnerships and all children’s centre staff January • Consultation with parent forums • Consultation with governing bodies, advisory boards and strategic partnerships
The changes set out in this proposal are more about the way services are managed and co-ordinated and consultation will vary depending on local decisions about partnership and cluster working. In terms of service delivery, the aim is to ensure that services are appropriate to the needs of the community and to reduce any duplication. The new commissioning round in 2012 will provide an opportunity to work with service users to establish the priorities. Consultation Findings
Children’s centre headteachers (where school based) and leads (where voluntary sector based) have been consulted from October to December via a series of group and individual meetings and by seeking their views via a questionnaire. The key findings are: • Willingness to explore collaborative approaches • Recognition of need for change • Need for equity and fairness to underpin changes • Need for clarity of roles and responsibilities in partnership model • Some concern about potential loss of full time leadership role • Clarity of governance and accountability • Clarity about Ofsted designations • Concern about HR processes including appointments • Some suggestions about managing budget reductions individually
As well as meetings with Heads and Leads analysis carried out in 2010 around user participation was referred to as a source to help identify service user breakdown by equality strand and general service user feedback. Some barriers experienced during the consultation for this analysis included language barriers, confidence, concerns around confidentiality and practicalities of getting out of the house. All potential barriers were addressed in consultation planning.
The parent survey carried out in 2011 shows overall satisfaction levels are high (74% very satisfied and 26% satisfied). 80% of respondents were mums, 27% were lone parents and 55% were of BME origin. The survey has data about the kinds of services accessed, benefits of attending particular activities and suggested improvements. The results are currently being analysed by centre and will be used to continue the consultation at individual centres early in 2012.
Gaps in data
Data is not available for the following groups: Gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
There is a lack of data around religion or sexual orientation for Lambeth’s resident population; this is an
93 Page 104
area for development. The Lambeth State of the Borough Report 2011 reports that in 2011 Lambeth council has commissioned further research on gender identity to quantify the transgender population within the borough and better understand their needs.
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Impact on customer/user of service by equality strands
From the user perspective there will be no difference in the service received. Service users will still be able to access children’s centre services at their local children’s centre however they may need to visit other centres for particular services and it will be important to ensure good information and signposting arrangements are in place.
Universal access stay and play services will be available at Lambeth’s Stay and Play One O Clock Clubs operating under the Co-operative Council framework.
The proposal aims to increase usage of children’s centres by the most vulnerable groups and groups not currently accessing these services, it will not reduce access for existing users. The proposal protects outreach worker resource to ensure services to families are targeted and available to those most in need. A new commissioning round will establish the priorities for services from July 2012.
Positive Impact:
Cooperative Council – increased community engagement. Communities will be engaged to shape children’ centres by local need.
Children’s centres will work together in clusters and pool resources. This will have the positive impact of enhancing collaborative joint working.
The ratings below have been given on the basis that the aim is to protect frontline services as much as possible and to increase the focus on the neediest families. POSITIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassign /civil y & y & belief orientatio econo ment partners maternity n mic hip X X X X X X NEGATIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassign /civil y & y & belief orientatio econo ment partners maternity n mic hip
Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council dep artments or public bodies
Children’s Centres are managed by schools and voluntary sector organisations. Depending on the model that is adopted some centres may become spokes or satellites and some may be main centres therefore taking on responsibility for delivery at another site. Centres may also be required to work increasingly in clusters or groups to consider the needs and outcomes for the population of a wider geographical area.
94 Page 105
We will need to work closely with all providers to negotiate change. A potential risk to this close partnership working is conversion of children’s centres managed by schools that convert to academies
Expected impact on council workforce
Implications for posts
The proposed models will each have different implications for the number of posts affected. If a uniform option were to be applied across the borough the net loss of posts would be between 8 and 20 depending on the model.
It may be however that following consultation different models are adopted in different areas of the borough. It is therefore difficult to say at this stage precisely how many posts will be.
Section 3 Mitigating actions
Mitigating actions
The proposals are designed to have a minimal impact on service users. All of the options under consideration maintain service delivery at all sites and maintain outreach capacity and the delivery of health and family support services. The proposals also envisage a greater degree of targeting and closer links with multi-agency teams which will strengthen the capacity of children’s centres to work with families with complex and multiple needs.
Service user engagement plans will ensure that service users and key stakeholders are all fully consulted and are aware of the impact of these savings proposals.
Section 4 Links to other proposals Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework: Children’s Centres particularly support the Corporate objective of ‘A high quality education for every child and young person in a safe and supportive environment’ and contribute to all 3 overarching priorities of a caring, safe and secure and aspirational borough.
Section 5 – Conclusion
Children’s Centres are a key plank in Lambeth’s early intervention strategy. We have a well established network of centres which have already formed links to ensure a joined up approach to meeting local need. The proposal to make savings of 18% to the directly devolved budget is a significant saving. The benefits of the approach described above are that it protects frontline services for the neediest families as much as possible and makes the reductions to management and teacher input as well as operational costs. The potential negative impact is that there will be reduced management capacity to oversee the delivery of services at each centre and less teacher capacity to work with the private, voluntary and independent nurseries in the surrounding area. However the children’s centre programme has moved beyond the capacity building phase and it is feasible to make these savings while enhancing partnership working across sectors.
95 Page 106
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer Include details of the core Corporate - 13 January Assistant Director offer provided in Children’s Equality Panel 2012 Early intervention Centre currently and 4 January 2012 & Play following proposals
Include details of children Corporate - 13 January Assistant Director centre management structure Equality Panel 2012 Early intervention 4 January 2012 & Play
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Sandra Morrison Divisional Director Early Intervention and 21/12/11 Targeted Services Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
96 Page 107
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison 69705 Director
Proposal title Business Unit – CYPS Cooperative Council Early Ref 5 Adopter
Proposal – Transition to Cooperative Council delivery model
Savings : £514,000
Description Background
Lambeth Council is committed to becoming a commissioning council by 2014 and to providing its services in a new way. A co-operative council commission was undertaken in 2010 and a comprehensive report published in January 2011. All departments across the council were asked to identify services that could be early adopters of this new way of delivering services and are known as the ‘ early adopters’. In CYPS the following services were identified as early adopters; • 5 Youth Centres including Living Space • 7 Adventure Playgrounds (APGs) • 13 Stay and Play One O’clock Clubs (OOCCs) • Young and Safe Service
The service areas that are in the main the early adopters have faced significant reduction in their base budgets. The reduction in resourcing has been used to incentivise and encourage innovation and new ways of working. The economic climate and reduction in public sector funding has identified the need to work in collaboration with others to pool resources that will ensure children and young people in Lambeth continue to have access to good quality play and youth services. However, it is important that it is acknowledged that the council may no longer be the organisation that provides those services.
Using the feedback received from stakeholders 4 service delivery models have been developed from which a preferred model is emerging. The membership of the co- operative which at the moment will focus on services for children and young people has target membership of a 1000 by April 2012. A new post is being developed that will take responsibility for coordination membership and the establishment of our co-operative arrangements.
The early adopter framework includes the notion of a new entity that will over time take responsibility for the quality of the service delivered. Stakeholders overwhelmingly have stated the need for a Local Authority interest in particular the role of elected councillors
97 Page 108
within the framework will need to be articulated and it is proposed to continue to work with public services mutual’s to develop the preferred model and to clarify the relationship with the Local authority and present this to Cabinet for decision in March 2012.
As a consequence it is proposed that in the first year the Local Authority (LA) in collaboration with stakeholders will develop the arrangements for new service models and commission those services. Overtime, the new entity will be expected to commission services on behalf of the community; again the role of the LA will need to be clarified.
Savings proposal
The saving proposed is £514k over 3 years (2012-15) achieved through transfer of Adventure Playgrounds, Youth Centres, OOCC and Young and Safe to cooperative council delivery model.
Funding for three years has been agreed for the programme these have been presented to Cabinet as part of the strategic financial planning process and sets out the funding for the programme for three years with a 10% reduction in each subsequent year; Tables 1 to4 below show the agreed funding for Adventure Playgrounds, Youth Centres, OOCC and Young and Safe.
The model reduces the funding by 10% year on year with the expectation that the service provider will lever in at least this amount of additional funding, that is not available to the council such as lottery funding and innovation funding, to at least maintain service provision as a minimum expectation.
Disaggregated budgets are being developed for each service and site to support the business planning process. In addition the costs for staffing and maintenance and servicing are being interrogated.
As many of these services are grant funded the uncertainty of future grants will require the Council to make provision for this commitment.
The following tables detail the three year budgets for early adopters:
Table 1 - Adventure Playground budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 418,700 N/A 2013/14 376,830 41,870 2014/15 339,147 38,683 Total = 1,134,677 80,553
Table 2 – Youth Centres budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 1,259,121 N/A 2013/14 1,133,209 125,912 2014/15 1,019,888 113,321
98 Page 109
Total = 3,412,218 239,233
Table 3 - Stay and play OOCC Budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 570,997 N/A 2013/14 513,897 57,100 2014/15 462,508 51,390 Total = 1,547,402 108,490
Table 4 – Young and Safe Budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 455,000 N/A 2013/14 409,500 45,500 2014/15 368,550 40,950 Total = 1,233,050 86,450
Total Early Adopter Savings 514,726
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Net (No.) budget budget budget (%) (No.) budget budget (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) tbc 0.514 tbc
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Current All actions in line with the corporate plan for early adopters of the co- operative council. April Shadow arrangements are in place to ensure viable service delivery 2012 arrangement from the 1 April 2012.
Where there is no viable provider suitable to receive a three year contract transitions arrangement will be put in place
99 Page 110
Expected impact on service
The impact on the service is difficult to project due to the unknowns of the co- operative council model. It is reasonable to expect that the new managers will not be able to reduce the fixed costs associated with the maintenance of a property asset. Therefore, non fixed costs, namely salaries of staff, will have to reduce, thus the opening times of settings could be expected to reduce.
However, this could be a short term affect until the cooperative model is implemented by the new owners and an enhanced service delivered.
An impact is tthat within the Adventure Playgrounds and Stay and Play One O’clock Clubs there is grant funding. The likelihood is that this will reduce over the next three years and as a result, in making a funding commitment for this period, the Council will need to make provision to cover any reduction in available grant.
Current service users
1. OOCC: The One o’clock club service is widely utilised by parents and carers of children under 5. An average daily Autumn attendance at one of the larger settings is 43 children, with the lowest average being 14. An average daily summer attendance for one of the larger settings is 57 children.
The most recent Stay and Play OOCC parents survey shows:
• 60% of users are parents and 31 % are carers • 92% are women • 45% are single parents • ethnicity breakdown of respondents to survey - White (49.2%), Black (26.5%), Asian (8%), Mixed (9.8%), Other (4.9%), Chinese (1.6%)
2. Adventure Playgrounds:
The seven local authority managed APGs are very well used. The attendance does however vary across the sites and is significantly higher (80%) during holiday periods. An overview of the usage figures is provided below:
• The average monthly attendance for term and holiday time are 507 and 2067 young people respectively, which equates to approximately 70,000 attendances each year. • A snapshot day in August 2010 demonstrated that just over 800 children attended an APG facility. • 83.5% of the users of the council managed adventure playgrounds are from BME groups, which is an over representation compared to the Lambeth population (58%) but is fairly consistent with Lambeth schools population (80%). • 66% of users are black and only 12.5% are from white groups, which is a significant under representation compared to Lambeth’s population (42%).
100 Page 111
• Over half of the users are between 8-11 years, with 14-15 year olds forming only 10% of users. • There is slightly higher percentage of male users. • The APGs in Lambeth tend to be located within areas of high or medium to high deprivation as measured by the number of super output areas within their respective catchment areas that fall within the 25% most deprived. As such they serve communities of high need, with high levels of disadvantaged socio-economic groups.
3. The youth service is predominantly used by young people from BME backgrounds.
Council managed youth centres usage:
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 1 67 9 10 4 9
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 % Total 13 81 5 1
Gender Male Female % Total 60 40
Youth commissioned projects usage:
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 2 51 12 19 5 11
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 % Total 24 69 6 1
Gender Male Female % Total 60 40
4. Young and Safe provides support to predominantly males from BME backgrounds.
101 Page 112
Expected impact on customer/user of service
It is not expected that there will be a significant reduction in service provision for customers/users of the early adopters in the medium to long term. However, It is likely that reduced opening times for settings will be inevitable in the short term during the transition to cooperative council delivery.
For example, the youth centres are early adopters of the co operative council as there is an existing market place of successful, sustainable and value for money youth centres across the borough managed externally. All youth centres contribute to an aspiring and safe borough. By enabling local community groups to take control of the design of their facilities, there will present the opportunity to develop bespoke services to suit.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
The move to the Cooperative Council delivery model will have an impact on third sector organisations currently commissioned to deliver services in the early adopter service areas. Third sector providers have already been affected by previous reductions in the service area budgets.
With the transition to cooperative council delivery model, third sector/VCS organisations may currently commissioned by the Council to deliver services as part of Local Authority managed youth centres, One O’ Clock Clubs, Adventure Playgrounds and Young and Safe will need to re-bid in commissioning rounds managed by the new providers. Third sector organisations will have the opportunity to bid to manage service provision in these areas in the future.
Mitigating Actions
Communications & engagement with users, friends of groups and other community stakeholders through meetings, electronic and other mediums to develop mutual approach.
Reference Group, ongoing engagement through existing partnership forums including VCS forum and local stakeholder meetings to encourage joint working and fund raising
Effective commissioning and monitoring controls put in place
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
The move to Cooperative Council will contribute to the strategic priorities and direction of the Council.
102 Page 113
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure)
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k CYPS Cooperative Council Early Adopters 0 270 244 514
TOTAL 0 270 244 514
Capital impact (new annual expenditure)
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project desc. 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact Many of the services and sites have an associated asset and as part of the development process for the early adopters in conjunction with corporate colleagues the attached policy has been developed which is designed to protect assets and to take into account the health and safety responsibilities of the council .
Strategic levers
Contracts – retendering
Page 114
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division EITS Divisional Sandra Morrison Director
Author Sandra Contact Divisional Director Early Intervention and Targeted Morrison details Services
Tel: 020 7926 9705
Email: [email protected]
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Cooperative Council Early Adopters Background and context Proposal detail Lambeth Council is committed to becoming a commissioning council by 2014 and to providing its services in a new way. A co-operative council commission was undertaken in 2010 and a comprehensive report published in January 2011. All departments across the council were asked to identify services that could be early adopters of this new way of delivering services and are known as the ‘ early adopters’. In CYPS the following services were identified as early adopters; • 5 Youth Centres including Living Space • 7 Adventure Playgrounds (APGs) • 13 Stay and Play One O’clock Clubs (OOCCs) • Young and Safe Service
Page 115
The service areas that are in the main the early adopters have faced significant reduction in their base budgets. The reduction in resourcing has been used to incentivise and encourage innovation and new ways of working. The economic climate and reduction in public sector funding has identified the need to work in collaboration with others to pool resources that will ensure children and young people in Lambeth continue to have access to good quality play and youth services. However, it is important that it is acknowledged that the council may no longer be the organisation that provides those services.
Using the feedback received from stakeholders, 4 service delivery models have been developed from which a preferred model is emerging. The membership of the co- operative which at the moment will focus on services for children and young people has target membership of a 1000 by April 2012. A new post is being developed that will take responsibility for coordination membership and the establishment of our co- operative arrangements.
The early adopter framework includes the notion of a new entity that will over time take responsibility for the quality of the service delivered. Stakeholders overwhelmingly have stated the need for a Local Authority interest in particular the role of elected councillors within the framework will need to be articulated and it is proposed to continue to work with public services mutual’s to develop the preferred model and to clarify the relationship with the Local authority and present this to Cabinet for decision in March 2012.
As a consequence it is proposed that in the first year the Local Authority (LA) in collaboration with stakeholders will develop the arrangements for new service models and commission those services. Overtime, the new entity will be expected to commission services on behalf of the community; again the role of the LA will need to be clarified.
Service proposal
The saving proposed is £514k over 3 years (2012-15) achieved through transfer of Adventure Playgrounds, Youth Centres, OOCC and Young and Safe to cooperative council delivery model.
Funding for three years has been agreed for the programme these have been presented to Cabinet as part of the strategic financial planning process and sets out the funding for the programme for three years with a 10% reduction in each subsequent year; Tables 1 to 4 below show the agreed funding for Adventure Playgrounds, Youth Centres, OOCC and Young and Safe.
The model reduces the funding by 10% year on year with the expectation that the service provider will lever in at least this amount of additional funding, that is not available to the council such as lottery funding and innovation funding, to at least maintain service provision as a minimum expectation.
Disaggregated budgets are being developed for each service and site to support the business planning process. In addition the costs for staffing and maintenance and servicing are being interrogated.
As many of these services are grant funded the uncertainty of future grants will require
Page 116
the Council to make provision for this commitment.
The following tables detail the three year budgets for early adopters:
Table 1 - Adventure Playground budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 418,700 N/A 2013/14 376,830 41,870 2014/15 339,147 38,683 Total = 1,134,677 80,553
Table 2 – Youth Centres budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 1,259,121 N/A 2013/14 1,133,209 125,912 2014/15 1,019,888 113,321 Total = 3,412,218 239,233
Table 3 - Stay and play OOCC Budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 570,997 N/A 2013/14 513,897 57,100 2014/15 462,508 51,390 Total = 1,547,402 108,490
Table 4 – Young and Safe Budget 2012-15:
Year Budget Savings 2012/13 455,000 N/A 2013/14 409,500 45,500 2014/15 368,550 40,950 Total = 1,233,050 86,450
Total Early Adopter Savings 514,726
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Net (No.) budget budget budget (%) (No.) budget budget (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) tbc 0.514 tbc
Impact on statutory responsibilities This will not impact on the local authorities statutory duties.
Page 117
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Around two in five Lambeth residents (38%) are from ethnic minority groups, and the majority of these are black (28%). Lambeth’s child population is even more diverse, with 58% from ethnic minority communities compared with 38% of the general population and even higher numbers of ethnic minority children attending Lambeth’s schools - 82% of the pupil population is from ethnic minority backgrounds which includes, Portuguese, black Caribbean, black African, Spanish, Vietnamese and white pupils. There are over 150 languages spoken in Lambeth schools which provide an indication of diversity of the young population. There is an overrepresentation of BME pupils in all data that relates to high levels of vulnerability and need. This need and vulnerability is characterised by:
• High number of children coming into care from BME groups
• Increasing exclusions - namely young black boys
• High levels of youth crime that are reducing - young black people of both genders
• High demand for services to support children in need, with disabilities and SEN
• And those who are underachieving - Somali, black Caribbean and white boys and Portuguese children
In June 2009 there were 815 children under the age of 19 years with disabilities on the voluntary ICOUNT register; 43% of whom have Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), showing an increase of nearly 12% over the last five years. Just over a quarter of Lambeth’s school children (27%) are recorded at some time in their school career as having Special Educational Needs.
Current users
A breakdown of users by equalities groups is as follows:
1. OOCC: The One o’clock club service is widely utilised by parents and carers of children under 5. An average daily Autumn attendance at one of the larger settings is 43 children, with the lowest average being 14. An average daily summer attendance for one of the larger settings is 57 children.
The most recent Stay and Play OOCC parents survey shows:
• 60% of users are parents and 31 % are carers • 92% are women • 45% are single parents • ethnicity breakdown of respondents to survey - White (49.2%), Black (26.5%), Asian (8%), Mixed (9.8%), Other (4.9%), Chinese (1.6%)
2. Adventure Playgrounds:
The seven local authority managed APGs are very well used. The attendance does however vary across the sites and is significantly higher (80%) during holiday periods. An overview of the usage figures is provided
Page 118
below:
• The average monthly attendance for term and holiday time are 507 and 2067 young people respectively, which equates to approximately 70,000 attendances each year. • A snapshot day in August 2010 demonstrated that just over 800 children attended an APG facility. • 83.5% of the users of the council managed adventure playgrounds are from BME groups, which is an over representation compared to the Lambeth population (58%) but is fairly consistent with Lambeth schools population (80%). • 66% of users are black and only 12.5% are from white groups, which is a significant under representation compared to Lambeth’s population (42%). • Over half of the users are between 8-11 years, with 14-15 year olds forming only 10% of users. • There is slightly higher percentage of male users. • The APGs in Lambeth tend to be located within areas of high or medium to high deprivation as measured by the number of super output areas within their respective catchment areas that fall within the 25% most deprived. As such they serve communities of high need, with high levels of disadvantaged socio-economic groups.
3. The youth service is predominantly used by young people from BME backgrounds.
Council managed youth centres usage
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 1 67 9 10 4 9
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 % Total 13 81 5 1
Gender Male Female % Total 60 40
Youth commissioned projects usage
No Ethnicity Asian Black Mixed White Other Information % Total 2 51 12 19 5 11
8-12 13-19 20 - 25 Over Age range years years years 25 % Total 24 69 6 1
Gender Male Female % Total 60 40
Page 119
4. Young and Safe provides support to predominantly males from BME backgrounds.
Future users The aim is for Integrated Youth Services to continue to provide universal access to services where possible through the Youth Centres while focussing targeted support on the neediest families.
Analysis undertaken Service user data is entered on the Integrated Youth Support Services Programme.
Involvement and consultation process
Cooperative Council Programme Information sessions were held at each site and members of the local communities who live or work within a 2 mile radius were invited to each meeting. In addition sessions were advertised in the local press and Lambeth weekender. From this activity a database of over 300 people has been established of those who have expressed an interest in supporting the programme.
Open and targeted consultation meetings have taken place across the 5 Local Authority managed youth centres, One O’ Clock Clubs, Adventure Playgrounds, and Young and Safe in order to discuss service priorities and operating models from 2012 and beyond. The attendees have included users of the service, local residents, partners and stakeholder and wider VCS representatives. These were promoted widely throughout the Borough.
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups Yes
General Focus Groups Yes
Other Methods
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
Users of the service, local residents, partners and stakeholder and wider VCS representatives
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Disabled access to consultation venues, provision of translation and interpreting services upon request.
Page 120
Consultation Findings
All the feedback from the user and stakeholder consultation to date focuses on increasing opening hours of settings and evidences the need within the community for safe secure play spaces for children and diversionary activities and ‘places to go’ for teenagers.
Specific feedback for service areas included:
Youth Centres:
• The importance of the youth centres being accessible and offering a good range of activities, with high quality staffing • Request for more creative programmes and education and training provision at the centres • Greater focus on community involvement in the centres, and developing them a community hub OOCC and APG’s: • Willingness to explore collaborative approaches • Recognition of need for change • Need for equity and fairness to underpin changes • Need for clarity of roles and responsibilities in partnership model • Clarity of governance and accountability
Gaps in data
Data is not available for the following groups: Gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
There is a lack of data around religion or sexual orientation for Lambeth’s resident population; this is an area for development. The Lambeth State of the Borough Report 2011 reports that in 2011 Lambeth council has commissioned further research on gender identity to quantify the transgender population within the borough and better understand their needs.
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
It is not expected that there will be a significant reduction in service provision for customers/users of the early adopters in the medium to long term. However, It is likely that reduced opening times for settings will be inevitable in the short term during the transition to cooperative council delivery.
In relation to the Local Authority managed youth centres, One O’ Clock Clubs, Adventure Playgrounds with the adoption of Cooperative Council model, there will inevitably be a period of transition when the service is at its greatest risk of reducing the provision. However, the co operative model also presents the only viable and sustainable model to continue and improve this non statutory provision in the context of the economic environment.
Page 121
For example, the youth centres are early adopters of the co operative council as there is an existing market place of successful, sustainable and value for money youth centres across the borough managed externally. All youth centres contribute to an aspiring and safe borough. By enabling local community groups to take control of the design of their facilities, there will present the opportunity to develop bespoke services to suit.
Negative Impact:
Ethnicity:
The proposal will have high impact on children and young people from BME backgrounds. This is because BME children and young people are the highest volume groups using youth services and APG’s and receiving support through the Young and Safe programme (see data analysis in section 1). Therefore any short term reduction in service will impact on these groups.
Socio-economic:
It is estimated that many of the children and young people using youth services, OOCCs and APGs are from lower income backgrounds, therefore the potential short-term reduction in service will impact on this group and equality strand.
Positive Impact:
Implementing the new co-operative ownership model for these services will increasing community engagement in shaping the services according to local needs and requirements.
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic X X NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic X X Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council departments or public bodies
The move to the Cooperative Council delivery model will have an impact on third sector organisations currently commissioned to deliver services in the early adopter service areas. Third sector providers have already been affected by previous reductions in the service area budgets.
With the transition to cooperative council delivery model, third sector/VCS organisations may currently commissioned by the Council to deliver services as part of Local Authority managed youth centres, One O’ Clock Clubs, Adventure Playgrounds and Young and Safe will need to re-bid in commissioning rounds managed by the new providers. Third sector organisations will have the opportunity to bid to manage service provision in these areas in the future. Expected impact on council workforce
The proposals will reduce the number of staff directly employed by the Local Authority youth centres, One O’ Clock Clubs, Adventure Playgrounds, young and safe programme. However while the details of TUPE are yet to be worked through, the likelihood is that all front line and an element of
Page 122
management and support service staff will have TUPE rights as the new structures will run the same services and therefore the staff roles will have the same functions to a high degree. This means that the new organisation will inherit staff with local authority terms and conditions to be covered within the funding.
Section 3 Mitigating actions • The proposals are designed to have a minimal impact on service users.
• Service user engagement plans will ensure that service users and key stakeholders are all fully consulted and are aware of the impact of these savings proposals. Communications & engagement with users, friends of groups and other community stakeholders through meetings, electronic and other mediums to develop mutual approach.
• Community engagement and public interest framework is being developed whereby individual conversations and support packages are being drawn up to support groups coming together to collaborate including staff mutual’s. This work is intensive and capacity within the organisation is an issue as we currently have 124 expressions of interests. The process of considering public interest will also identify proposals that are non- viable.
• It is proposed that in the first year the Local Authority in collaboration with stakeholders will develop the arrangements for new service models and commission those services.
• Throughout the above process the council and CYPS in particular have received support from public service mutual’s. This support has allowed the programme to benefit from a wide knowledge base and years of experience. In addition they have brought a degree of independence at the early stages of the programme and have worked with officer to run information and development sessions to help stakeholders understand the vision of the Council.
• Effective commissioning and monitoring controls put in place
Section 4 Links to other proposals This EIA links to Children’s Centre proposals and EIA on commissioning for 0 – 5 year olds and the Integrated youth services proposal and EIA .
Section 5 – Conclusion • The saving proposed for Local Authority youth centres, One O’ Clock Clubs, Adventure Playgrounds, young and safe programme through transfer to the cooperative council delivery model are achieved in 2013-14 and 2014-15. Funding has been protected for 2012-13 to enable a smooth transition to management by new service providers. New service providers are expected to lever in additional funding that is not available to the council such as lottery funding and innovation funding in subsequent years to maintain service provision,
• It is not expected that there will be a significant reduction in service provision for customers/users of the early adopters in the medium to long term. However, it is likely that reduced opening times for settings will be inevitable in the short term during the transition to cooperative council delivery.
Page 123
• Ethnicity is the key equality group that are most likely to be affected by this proposal in the short term, largely because BME children and young people use youth services, APGs and are receiving support through the Young and Safe programme in higher numbers than other groups.
• Gender, disability and age equality groups are not substantively affected by the proposals.
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Sandra Morrison Divisional Director Early Intervention and 21/12/11 Targeted Services Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 124
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division Specialist Divisional Ade Adetosoye 64787 Services and Director Commissioning
Proposal title Business Unit 451 – Children Looked After and Ref 6 (451) Fostering & Adoption
Proposal - Reduction in Placements and Staffing Expenditure
Savings Proposal: 5%
Cash Limit Budget : £35,261,000
Savings: £1,763,100 Description Description of current service - Specialist Services Children Looked After & Fostering & Adoption Fostering The Fostering Service is composed of the Fostering Recruitment & Assessment Team, Fostering Support Team and Fostering Panel constituted under Fostering Service Regulations. The overall aim of the Service is to provide the best care possible for children in the care of London Borough of Lambeth through placement choice that provides for the most appropriate match of child/ren to carer/s.
Adoption & Permanence This service is responsible for the recruitment and assessments of adoptive parents. Services provided include adoption preparation, training, adoption exchange days etc.
The service is also responsible for the assessment of special guardianship carers, access to adoption records, Intermediary and reunion work regarding adult adoptees and birth relatives, non-agency (step parent adoptions. birth parent support and long term fostering family finding.
Children Looked After/Leaving Care The CLA/leaving care service is responsible for long-term Children Looked After. The teams work in the following way to deliver services:
• Ensuring that all the children it is responsible for have care plans, and that these plans are kept up to date. These plans reflect the child's needs and take account of their wishes and
Page 125
feelings, as well as the views of family and other important people in their life;
• Staff in the Children Looked After service will keep in regular contact with all looked after children, including visiting, ensuring that medicals and dental checks are completed on time, that each child has a PEP and that reviews are held within statutory timeframes.
The service also makes plans to give a child a stable future. Where this cannot be within the extended family or others who are important to them, the service will make plans for adoption, foster care or for a place in a residential home. The teams work with the Corporate Parenting Team to ensure that children looked after receive the best possible corporate parenting from Lambeth, that their views are heard and their achievements are recognised.
Business Support Responsibilities of Business Support staff include: Post management Telephone calls and queries Print requests Minuting meetings (on schedule) Framework front page updates Finance o PO management (raising, top ups, close down), Invoice queries, Care package tracking. Framework maintenance o CIN Census, 903 rota, framework queries, stat checks. Framework Performance Essential expenditure forms Asset registers SARs FOIs Inspection readiness Sickness management
Proposal - Reduce expenditure by £1,763,100 Reduce expenditure by 5% in 2012/13 - this will generate a savings of £1,763,100 and will be achieved by:
- Reduction in placements: The placements budget will be reduced by £1m in 2012/13. This is based on a reduction in the number of children in care by 40 in April 2012 and a reduction in third party payments. We expect a reduction in the number of children entering care as a result of early intervention and intensive family support initiatives, effective permanency plans and an expected net reduction in the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
- Reducing staffing capacity to achieve a saving of £763,100. A reduction in staffing capacity will be achievable due to lower numbers of children looked after.
Page 126
In summary the objectives of the proposed change to the Specialist Division teams are to:
1. Ensure that statutory services continue to be effective, efficient and contribute to good outcomes for children and young people. 2. Ensure that the Division is ready and able to respond to the findings of the Munro Review of Child Protection and the Social Work Taskforce report. 3. Provide economies of scale through integrated and streamlined services and take advantage of natural synergies where joining up of functions enhances the service. This could also include appropriate collaboration with other local authorities. 4. Ensure that there is a consistency of approach by aligning systems and approaches for business support services to ensure a seamless service is provided to each of the fieldwork and service development functions. 5. Ensure efficient commissioning of children’s placements. 6. Ensure a sustainable management structure that can continue to provide strong leadership within an environment of contracting resources and can effectively plan the next phase of the reduction in services.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Chang FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- incom budget budget e (No.) expen- incom budget diture e (£m) (£m) (%) diture e (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 159 36.468 -1.207 35,261 1.763 5 139 34.705 -1.207 33.498
Timetable for implementation
Date Action
Expected impact on service
The inherent risk with any demand led budget is the unpredictable volatility in the numbers of service users and this also applies to the Children Looked After budget. The CLA budget is particularly affected by entries into care from UASC, which the Council has little control over. The Council has to balance budget responsibility with its legal responsibility to safeguard children.
The risks to the Council for reducing Specialist Service provision to vulnerable children and their carers are high.
Page 127
• The Specialist Division is responsible for many statutory functions for ensuring that children are safeguarded. Reducing specialist services staff might place the Council at risk of not being able to deliver its statutory requirements to safeguard children. Key impacts of this proposal might include: o A reduction in capacity to meet Council’s statutory responsibility to safeguard children. o A reduction in capacity to provide quality care to CLA through effective care planning and permanency planning. o A reduced capacity to assess foster carers and adoptive applicants in a timely fashion, leading to some loss of applicants and loss of reputation. Fostering is a competitive industry and this risks applicants going to other agencies where they will receive a better service. o Compromised ability to meet to Court deadlines for completing assessments and filing evidence. This includes a reduction in capacity to meet court demands for Special Guardianship assessments, leading to higher use of agency social workers to fulfil court requirements. o Higher caseloads for social workers compromising the quality of services provided to children looked after.
• The Specialist Division provides many services in partnership with many other agencies through joint working. Reducing services could negatively impact on its reputation amongst partners as joint working could be affected.
• A reduction in numbers of staff will result in increasing pressure on existing staff which may result in occupational health and safety (OH&S) issues including a higher incidence of stress leave, sick leave and a loss of further staff who choose to work for other Councils.
• The long term and successful project to recruit and retain high calibre staff to the Specialist Division could be negatively affected. Staff might chose to leave the Division to work elsewhere because of increasing work pressures or because of repeat re-structure. We know that often the most able and qualified staff leave an organisation as a result of restructuring, simply because they are able to obtain jobs elsewhere. There is also the risk that the Council could acquire a poor reputation if it is constantly seen to be restructuring which may lead to long term difficulties in recruiting staff.
• A reduction in specialist service staff might leave the Council at risk of our services being judged adversely by Ofsted.
• A reduction in staffing capacity will compromise our ability to deliver against Council, CYPS and Divisional priorities and objectives.
• A reduction in Business Support within Specialist Services will have a number of potentially negative impacts including:
o A higher number of social worker’s time will be spent on administrative tasks rather than direct case work, assessment and service provision to children and families. The increasing administrative burden on social workers received considerable attention in the Munro Review of Child Protection. At our recent consultation workshop on the Munro Review of Child Protection Lambeth social workers agreed this is an issue that
Page 128
makes their job more difficult by limiting their capacity to complete other social work duties. o Similarly, Managers and Assistant Directors will receive less administrative support and will be required to complete increasing administrative tasks resulting in an inefficient use of their time. o Specialist Services capacity to pay invoices on time will be compromised. o Delivery on statutory obligations will be compromised including completing returns of SARs, FOIs and complaints within the legal framework. o The council will also have limited administrative support during Ofsted inspections. o Team support will be located away from teams which may contribute to inefficiencies in communication and support provided. o Lack of familiarity of service areas by business support staff as all support staff will be supporting many teams.
Current service users
The most up to date population figures from the Greater London Authority (GLA) indicate that children in Lambeth are more likely to come from ethnic minority backgrounds than the population as a whole. For instance 59% of children and young people aged 0-19 are from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared to 37% of all residents. 3
• 62% of the whole population are from White British backgrounds, but only 41% of 0-19 year olds. • 11.7% of 0-19s are from Black Caribbean backgrounds, compared to 10.3% of the whole population. • 19% of 0-19s are from Black African backgrounds, compared to 11.8% of all residents. • 12.7% of 0-19s are from Other Black backgrounds, compared to 5.1% of the whole population.
Coldharbour (66.9%) and Vassall (66.1%) have the largest non white ethnic populations proportionally of all the wards in Lambeth. This is followed by Stockwell (57.6%), Streatham South (56.7%), Larkhall (56.6%) and Tulse Hill (56.5%).
In terms of the CLA population as at 31 March 2011:
• Young people aged 17 -18 years and over continue to be the largest cohort at 30% of all children looked after, followed by 0-4 year olds at 21%.
• Children from black and minority ethnic groups continue to be over represented in the population of children looked after with 61% of the CLA population from Black or Black British backgrounds at the end of March 2011, similar to 60% at the end of March 2010. The most common ethnicity amongst children looked after continues to be Caribbean comprising 30% (n149) of the population.
3 Source GLA Ethnic group projections 2009. Ethnic minorities includes Black Caribbean, Black African, Black Other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Other Asian and Other ethnic group.
Page 129
• Of the 498 children in care as at 31 March 2011, 290 (58.2%) were male and 208 (41.8%) female.
Expected impact on customer / user of service
• There will be lower levels of specialist intervention and support available to vulnerable children and their families or carers.
• A reduction in staff including business support staff will contribute to an increasing administrative burden on social workers and may compromise the amount of direct social work received by children and families in Lambeth.
• Reduced social work capacity will negatively affect services to children and young people looked after which may in turn reduce the positive outcomes they currently experience both in care and after leaving care.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
Under this proposal there will be no impact on commissioned services.
Mitigating actions
• Ensure Specialist Services structure is efficient and maximises effective working.
• Continue to provide support for social workers and monitor caseloads and effectively address any Occupational Health and Safety issues that emerge.
• Continue to provide sound quality assurance by monitoring performance and compliance with statutory and policy obligations.
• To reduce the increasing administrative burden on Specialist Services staff, changes could be introduced to streamline reporting requirements for all specialist services staff to reduce the time taken to prepare reports and reduce the duplication of information that currently exists. Streamlining assessment templates on framework would reduce duplication for social workers and would be inline with Professor Munro’s recommendation to remove the distinction between initial and core assessments.
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
Specialist Services contributes to the following outcomes identified in the Co-operative Council Corporate Plan:
- Health promotion for children and young people is working and reducing risky behaviour
- Children and young people are safeguarded and protected from harm
- Children and young people enjoy learning and achieve their full potential
- Children and young people are involved in decision making and are involved in positive activities
Page 130
- Young people aged 16 and over are in higher education, employment or training when they leave school
The reduction in staffing within the Specialist Division is likely to have an adverse impact on all performance indicators. However, the extent of the impact is unknown. Specialist services will strive to ensure that children looked after continue to receive appropriate care and support that will enable them to achieve positive outcomes whilst in care and after care.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 1,763 0 0 1,763 TOTAL 1,763 0 0 1,763
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact N/A
Strategic levers
Establishment
Contracts
Page 131
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division Specialist Services Divisional Ade Adetosoye and Commissioning Director
Author Ade Adetosoye Contact Ade Adetosoye 020 7926 4787 details
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: ______the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: ______process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Business Unit 451 – Children Looked After, Fostering & Adoption and Business Support
Proposal - Reduction in Placements and Staffing Expenditure
Proposal Savings Proposal: 5% detail Cash Limit Budget : £35,262,000
Savings: £1,763,100, Background and context Specialist Services Children Looked After & Fostering & Adoption Fostering The Fostering Service is composed of the Fostering Recruitment & Assessment Team, Fostering Support Team and Fostering Panel constituted under Fostering Service Regulations. The overall aim of the Service is to provide the best care possible for
Page 132
children in the care of London Borough of Lambeth through placement choice that provides for the most appropriate match of child/ren to carer/s. Adoption & Permanence This service is responsible for the recruitment and assessments of adoptive parents. Services provided include adoption preparation, training, adoption exchange days etc.
The service is also responsible for the assessment of special guardianship carers, access to adoption records, Intermediary and reunion work regarding adult adoptees and birth relatives, non-agency (step parent adoptions. birth parent support and long term fostering family finding.
Children Looked After/Leaving Care The CLA/leaving care service is responsible for long-term Children Looked After. The teams work in the following way to deliver services:
• Ensuring that all the children it is responsible for have care plans, and that these plans are kept up to date. These plans reflect the child's needs and take account of their wishes and feelings, as well as the views of family and other important people in their life;
• Staff in the Children Looked After service will keep in regular contact with all looked after children, including visiting, ensuring that medicals and dental checks are completed on time, that each child has a PEP and that reviews are held within statutory timeframes.
The service also makes plans to give a child a stable future. Where this cannot be within the extended family or others who are important to them, the service will make plans for adoption, foster care or for a place in a residential home. The teams work with the Corporate Parenting Team to ensure that children looked after receive the best possible corporate parenting from Lambeth, that their views are heard and their achievements are recognised.
Business Support Responsibilities of Business Support staff include general office duties and administration assistance, framework maintenance, SARs, FOIs, PO management and sickness management.
Service proposal
Proposal - Reduce expenditure by £1,763,100 Reduce expenditure by 5% in 2012/13 - this will generate a savings of £1,763,100 and will be achieved by:
- Reduction in placements: The placements budget will be reduced by £1m in 2012/13. This is based on a reduction in the number of children in care by 40 in April 2012 and a reduction in third party payments. We expect a reduction in the number of children entering care as a result of early intervention and intensive family support initiatives, effective permanency plans and an expected net reduction in the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
- Reducing staffing capacity to achieve a saving of £763,363,100. A reduction in staffing capacity will be achievable due to lower numbers of children looked after.
In summary the objectives of the proposed change to the Specialist Division teams are to:
Page 133
7. Ensure that statutory services continue to be effective, efficient and contribute to good outcomes for children and young people. 8. Ensure that the Division is ready and able to respond to the findings of the Munro Review of Child Protection and the Social Work Taskforce report. 9. Provide economies of scale through integrated and streamlined services and take advantage of natural synergies where joining up of functions enhances the service. This could also include appropriate collaboration with other local authorities. 10. Ensure that there is a consistency of approach by aligning systems and approaches for business support services to ensure a seamless service is provided to each of the fieldwork and service development functions. 11. Ensure efficient commissioning of children’s placements. 12. Ensure a sustainable management structure that can continue to provide strong leadership within an environment of contracting resources and can effectively plan the next phase of the reduction in services.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 159 36.468 -1.207 35,261 1.763 5 139 34.705 -1.207 33.498
Impact on statutory responsibilities
The Specialist and Commissioning Division is responsible for delivering statutory specialist frontline social care services to children and young people aged 0-24 years old. The Division’s job is to make sure that the children of Lambeth are protected from abuse or neglect. This is a legal duty for which the Local Authority is held to account by the Government and by the public, and is undertaken in accordance with the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004. To do this we have systems to respond effectively to referrals about vulnerable children and to carry out timely and high quality assessments of children in need. For children who meet our thresholds we put plans in place to meet their needs and review them regularly. For children at the highest risk of abuse or neglect we put in place child protection plans with our partner agencies.
When it is not possible for a child to remain with their families we make arrangements for children and young people to be looked after by the Local Authority. This is a legal duty placed on the local authority under the Children Act 1989. A number of other legislations and court rulings also impact on specific areas of these duties. They include the Leaving Care Act 2000; the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Hillingdon (2003) and Southwark (2009) judgments and the Children Act 2004. For these children looked after we make every effort to ensure that they benefit from their time in care and that they go on to do as well in later life as other Lambeth children.
The Division also ensures that effective commissioning arrangements are in place for Children in Need, Children with Disabilities and Children Looked After to ensure quality services are provided in a way that achieves value for money for the Division.
This savings proposal will enable the Specialist and Commissioning Division to generate savings whilst meeting its statutory responsibilities described above. However, the proposal carries associated risks, including a decline in service quality as a result of reduced staffing capacity. These risks are discussed in Section 2 below.
Page 134
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Current users
Children Looked After
Children looked after (CLA) are those children and young people aged 0-18 years who cannot safely remain with their family and are cared for by the local authority. This includes all unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). The local authority has continuing legal and financial responsibilities to many of these children until they are 21 (or 24 if in full time education).
Below is a summary of the Lambeth Children Looked After population as at 31 March 2011 provided by our Systems Support Team through the September Performance Digest Report for Children Looked After:
Gender: Of the 491 children in care in September 2011, 284 (57.8%) were male and 207 (42.2%) were female.
E
Ethnicity: Children from black and minority ethnic groups continue to be over represented in the population of children looked after with 61% of the CLA population from Black or Black British backgrounds in September 2011. The most common ethnicity amongst children looked after continues to be Caribbean comprising 29% of the population.
Page 135
Age: Young people aged 16 -18 years continue to be the largest cohort at 28.5% of all children looked after, followed by 0-4 year olds at 22.4%.
Disability: In September 2011 there were 23 CLA allocated to the children with Disabilities service. In addition, there are 2 children in the Kings Hospital team.
Page 136
Fostering and Adoption Services
There are a range of children, young people and families who access services from the Fostering and Adoption Service within Lambeth. These include children Looked After, described above. Children are looked after in a variety of settings: in children’s homes, foster care and adoptive families and in residential special schools. The majority of children and young people looked after are in a foster placement (52%) either with connected persons including relatives and friends, or with an authorised foster carer previously unknown to the child.
During 2010/2011 there were 42 children looked after in Lambeth who secured permanent placements through adoptions and Special Guardianship Orders.
The Adoption Services Annual Report 2010/11 provides further information about service users currently accessing adoption services.
In 2010/2011 Lambeth’s Fostering and Adoption Service place 18 children and young people with their adoptive parent(s). Of the 18 adoption matches 14 of the 18 children from black or mixed heritage backgrounds. 4 children are white British.
37 children have been referred for adoption family finding in 2010/11, of these 23 are waiting for a family. 80% of children waiting are black or of dual heritage.
Page 137
Support services to adopters, special guardians and their children or adopted adults are coordinated through the post adoption service within the adoption and permanence team. 340 separate families, children or adults are receiving a service.
Further information on adoption service users by equalities groups is not available.
Business Support
The specific breakdown of business support staff within Specialist Services by equalities groups is currently not available. However, the analysis of London Borough of Lambeth staff as a whole is discussed below: 4
• Ethnicity: Frontline staff and management workforce reflects the ethnically diverse population. The table below provides a breakdown of staff by ethnicity as at October 2010.
Ethnicity %
Asian 6.19%
Black 47.74%
Mixed 3.43%
Other 1.85%
White 40.79%
Unavailable -
total BME 59.21%
• Gender: At present, the gender breakdown for our staff is 61% female and 39% male employees.
• Age: The Council has a limited number of people under 30 and most people working for the Council are in there 40s. The table below provides a breakdown of staff by age as at October 2010.
Age %
Under 30 12
30-39 26
40-49 35
50-59 23
60+ 4
• Religion: The majority of our staff are of Christian faith according to the 2008 Staff survey as detailed in the table below:
Religion Ou r Staff
4 Source – London Borough of Lambeth intranet, accessed at: http://intranet.lambeth.gov.uk/StaffServices/EqualitiesAndDiversity/Understandingthesingleequalityscheme. htm
Page 138
Agnostic 10%
Atheist 11%
Buddhist 1%
Christian 52%
Hindu 2%
Humanist 1%
Jewish -
Muslim 3%
Sikh -
• Disability: The State of the Borough report 2010 identified that residents with a disability comprise 14.9% of Lambeth’s population. As at October 2010 only 6.18% of council employees have declared that they have a disability or long term limiting illness. There a number of reasons why staff may not wish to declare a disability, however the council is committed to creating a working environment where staff are confident in declaring a disability and where the full support available can be provided.
Future users
• Whilst there is a national increase in the numbers of children looked after, Lambeth has maintained effective prevention and early intervention programmes to stabilise the numbers of children entering care and has in fact achieved a reduction in the numbers of children looked after since 2009/10. This decline is likely to continue into 2012/13 however the profile of the CLA population is likely to remain the same, with the overrepresentation of children and young people from black or black British backgrounds being overrepresented in care, due to their overrepresentation in referrals to specialist services and their overrepresentation on child protection plans.
Analysis undertaken • The information on service user groups described above was gathered from a range of sources and these sources are referenced above.
Involvement and consultation process
Page 139
The reduction in placements will be achieved by a reduction in demand for placements in care and will not affect children and young people who are currently in care. We will not be consulting on this aspect of the proposal because there is not a static population to consult with.
While there will be an impact on commissioned providers, in line with the view taken by PEP, we will not be consulting with these providers.
Consultation with staff will be completed through the wider CYPS consultation with staff and their representative trade union.
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups No
General Focus Groups No
Other Methods Yes
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
Consultation with staff will be completed through the wider CYPS consultation with staff and their representative trade union.
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Consultation Findi ngs
Gaps in data
We currently do no analyse children looked after or fostering and adoption service users by certain equalities groups including: Gender reassignment; Pregnancy and maternity; Religion and belief; Sexual orientation; Marriage/civil partnership.
We do not currently maintain data on the composition of the specialist services workforce, either as a whole or by service area. Therefore information on business support staff, or specialist services staff by equalities groups is not available.
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Key impacts of this proposal might include: • Lower levels of specialist intervention and support available to vulnerable children and their families or carers.
Page 140
• A reduction in capacity to provide quality care to CLA through effective care planning and permanency planning. • A reduced capacity to assess foster carers and adoptive applicants in a timely fashion, leading to some loss of applicants and loss of reputation. Fostering is a competitive industry and this risks applicants going to other agencies where they will receive a better service. • Compromised ability to meet to Court deadlines for completing assessments and filing evidence. This includes a reduction in capacity to meet court demands for Special Guardianship assessments, leading to higher use of agency social workers to fulfil court requirements. • Higher caseloads for social workers compromising the quality of services provided to children looked after.
• A reduction in staff including business support staff will contribute to an increasing administrative burden on social workers and may compromise the amount of direct social work received by children and families in Lambeth.
• Compromised implementation of service improvement activities within these services.
• Overall the impact on service users will be low, however as described above, Children Looked After & Fostering & Adoption service users predominantly include children, particularly children from Black and Black British ethnicities and children with a disability.
POSITIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnancy & Ethnicity Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassignment partnership maternity & belief orientation economic
NEGATIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnancy & Ethnicity Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassignment partnership maternity & belief orientation economic X X Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council de partments or public bodies
This proposal involves a reduction in the placements budget by £1m in 2012/13. This is based on a reduction in the number of children in care by 40 in April 2012 and a reduction in third party payments. We expect a reduction in the number of children entering care as a result of early intervention and intensive family support initiatives, effective permanency plans and an expected net reduction in the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
A reduction in the number of children looked after is likely to create a reduced demand for commissioned services for children looked after.
In addition, to effectively manage the placements budget we will be reducing third party payments. In this process we may be required to renegotiate and re-shape services to ensure we are achieving value for money. Commissioned/contracted bodies will need to increase their efficiency in order to deliver services at a lower cost.
Expected impact on council workforce
This proposal involves a reduction in staffing expenditure by 5% across Children Looked After, Fostering and Adoption and Business Support services within specialist services. Therefore the impact will specifically affect the workforce within each of these service areas. However, a reduction of only 5% in staffing costs across three service areas will mean that the impact on each service area will be low. The specific impact of the
Page 141
proposal on particular equalities groups is unknown because this information is unavailable.
Section 3 Mitigating actions • Ensure Specialist Services organisational structure is efficient and maximises effective working.
• Continue to provide support for social workers and monitor caseloads and effectively address any Occupational Health and Safety issues that emerge.
• Continue to provide sound quality assurance by monitoring performance and compliance with statutory and policy obligations.
• Improve the effectiveness of business support services to reduce the administrative burden on Specialist Services staff.
• Wherever possible, avoid deleting front-line social work posts and maintain effective ratios between staff to managers to ensure appropriate practice oversight.
Section 4 Links to other proposals
This proposal links to other Specialist and Commissioning Division proposals, including 450 and 452.
Section 5 – Conclusion This proposal contributes effectively to achieving the desired savings target for the Council whilst minimising the impact on service users.
The proposal involves a reduction in staffing expenditure by 5% across Children Looked After, Fostering and Adoption and Business Support services within specialist services. Therefore the impact will specifically affect the workforce within each of these service areas. However, a reduction of only 5% in staffing costs across three service areas will mean that the impact on each service area will be low. The specific impact of the proposal on particular equalities groups is unknown because this information is unavailable.
A reduction in the number of children looked after is likely to create a slight reduction in demand for commissioned services for children looked after. In addition, commissioning contracts for children looked after may be renegotiated commissioned/contracted bodies will need to increase their efficiency in order to deliver services at a lower cost.
Page 142
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Ti meframe Lead Officer
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Ade Adetosoye Divisional Director Specialist Services and 21/12/11 Commissioning Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 143
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division Specialist Divisional Ade Adetosoye 64787 Services and Director Commissioning
Proposal title Business Unit 450 – Referral & Assessment, Ref 7 (450) Child Protection and Children with Disabilities
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing Expenditure
Savings Proposal: 3.8%
Cash Limit Budget: £9,647,000
Savings : £363,450
Description Description of current service - Specialist Services Referral & Assessment, Children with Disabilities & Children in Need Referral and Assessment The Referral and Assessment Teams take all new referrals of children in need that are not currently allocated or where they have been closed to Social Care services for longer than 3 months. The team typically undertakes initial assessments, child protection investigations/core assessments, care proceedings up to the first hearing and reports for court under s7 and s37 of the Children Act 1989. They also initially deliver accommodation for children if this is identified as a need.
Family Support and Child Protection The Family Support and Child Protection Teams have responsibility for all children and their siblings who are the subject of a core assessment plan and/or are on the Child Protection Register, for pre-birth assessments. They are also responsible for looked after children up to the first Looked After Review where there is no plan for child to cease being looked after within the next 3 months. In addition, the Family Support and Child Protection teams have responsibility for short-term Looked After Children where there is a realistic timeframe in which they will return home. The team is also responsible for carrying out sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989.
Children with Disabilities This team assesses the needs of children with a disability and provides packages of care to meet these needs. It also completes child protection investigations and deals with LAC for this client group.
Services provided may include: • Help with personal and practical care at home; • Access to equipment and adaptations on the home;
Page 144
• Short break care; • Information on benefits; • Information and advice on other services; and • Services for affected by HIV and Aids.
Business Support Responsibilities of Business Support staff are include: Post management Telephone calls and queries Print requests Minuting meetings (on schedule) Framework front page updates Finance o PO management (raising, top ups, close down), Invoice queries, Care package tracking. Framework maintenance o CIN Census, 903 rota, framework queries, stat checks. Framework Performance Essential expenditure forms Asset registers SARs FOIs Inspection readiness Sickness management
Proposal - Reduce staffing expenditure by £363,450
Reduce staffing expenditure by 5% in 2012/13 - this will generate a savings of £363,450.
In summary the objectives of the proposed change to the Specialist Division teams are to:
1. Ensure that statutory services continue to be effective, efficient and contribute to good outcomes for children and young people. 2. Ensure that the Division is ready and able to respond to the findings of the Munro Review of Child Protection and the Social Work Taskforce report. 3. Provide economies of scale through integrated and streamlined services and take advantage of natural synergies where joining up of functions enhances the service. This could also include appropriate collaboration with other local authorities. 4. Ensure that there is a consistency of approach by aligning systems and approaches for business support services to ensure a seamless service is provided to each of the fieldwork and service development functions. 5. Ensure efficient commissioning of children’s placements. 6. Ensure a sustainable management structure that can continue to provide strong leadership within an environment of contracting resources and can effectively plan the next phase of the reduction in services.
Page 145
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Cha FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- incom budget budget nge (No.) expen- incom budget diture e (£m) (£m) (%) diture e (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 192 11.228 -1.581 9.647 0.363 3.8 182 10.865 -1.581 9.284
Timetable for implementation
Date Action
Expected impact on service
The risks to the Council in reducing Specialist Service provision in the areas of Referral & Assessment, Children with Disabilities and Children protection are high. Key potential impacts are listed below;
• The Specialist Division is responsible for many statutory functions for ensuring that children are safeguarded. Reducing specialist services staff might place the Council at risk of not being able to deliver some of its statutory requirements to safeguard children to the current standard. Key impacts of this proposal might include: o A reduction in capacity to assess child protection referrals in a timely and effective way, compromising the Council’s statutory responsibility to safeguard children o Compromised ability to meet Court deadlines for completing assessments and filing evidence. o Higher caseloads for social workers compromising the quality of services provided to children in need and children on CP plans and children looked after.
• The Specialist Division provides many services in partnership with many other agencies through joint working. As such, reducing services could negatively impact on its reputation amongst partners as joint working could be affected.
• A reduction in numbers of staff will result in increasing pressure on existing staff which may result in OH&S issues including a higher incidence of stress leave, sick leave and a loss off further staff who choose to work for other Councils.
• The long term and successful project to recruit and retain high calibre staff to the Specialist Division could be negatively affected. Staff might chose to leave the Division to work elsewhere because of increasing work pressures or because of repeat re-structure. We know that often the most able and qualified
Page 146
staff leave an organisation as a result of restructuring, simply because they are able to obtain jobs elsewhere. There is also the risk that the Council could acquire a poor reputation if it is constantly seen to be restructuring which may lead to long term difficulties in recruiting staff.
• A reduction in specialist service staff might leave the Council at risk of our services being judged adversely by Ofsted.
• A reduction in staffing capacity might compromise our ability to deliver against Council, CYPS and Divisional priorities and objectives.
• A reduction in Business Support within Specialist Services will have a number of potentially negative impacts including:
o A higher number of social worker’s time will be spent on administrative tasks rather than direct case work, assessment and service provision to children and families. The increasing administrative burden on social workers received considerable attention in the Munro Review of Child Protection. At our recent consultation workshop on the Munro Review of Child Protection Lambeth social workers agreed this is an issue that makes their job more difficult by limiting their capacity to complete other social work duties. o Similarly, Managers and Assistant Directors will receive less administrative support and will be required to complete increasing administrative tasks resulting in an inefficient use of their time. o Specialist Services’ capacity to pay invoices on time will be compromised. o Delivery on statutory obligations will be compromised including completing returns of SARs, FOIs and complaints within the legal framework. o The council will also have limited administrative support during Ofsted inspections. o Team support will be located away from teams which may contribute to inefficiencies in communication and support provided. o Lack of familiarity of service areas by business support staff as all support staff will be supporting many teams.
Current service users
The most up to date population figures from the Greater London Authority (GLA) indicate that children in Lambeth are more likely to come from ethnic minority backgrounds than the population as a whole. For instance 59% of children and young people aged 0-19 are from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared to 37% of all residents. 5
• 62% of the whole population are from White British backgrounds, but only 41% of 0-19 year olds. • 11.7% of 0-19s are from Black Caribbean backgrounds, compared to 10.3% of the whole population. • 19% of 0-19s are from Black African backgrounds, compared to 11.8% of all residents.
5 Source GLA Ethnic group projections 2009. Ethnic minorities includes Black Caribbean, Black African, Black Other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Other Asian and Other ethnic group.
Page 147
• 12.7% of 0-19s are from Other Black backgrounds, compared to 5.1% of the whole population.
Coldharbour (66.9%) and Vassall (66.1%) have the largest non white ethnic populations proportionally of all the wards in Lambeth. This is followed by Stockwell (57.6%), Streatham South (56.7%), Larkhall (56.6%) and Tulse Hill (56.5%).
Expected impact on customer / user of service
• There will be lower levels of specialist intervention and support available to vulnerable children and families.
• A reduction in staff including business support staff will contribute to an increasing administrative burden on social workers and may compromise the amount of direct social work received by children and families in Lambeth.
• Reduced social work capacity will affect safeguarding of vulnerable children leaving them at greater risk of suffering abuse and neglect.
• Reduced social work capacity will also negatively affect services to children and young people looked after with a disability which may in turn reduce the positive outcomes they currently experience both in care and after leaving care.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
Under this proposal there will be no impact on commissioned services.
Mitigating actions
• Ensure Specialist Services structure is efficient and maximises effective working.
• Continue to provide support for social workers and monitor caseloads and effectively address any Occupational Health and Safety issues that emerge.
• Continue to provide sound quality assurance by monitoring performance and compliance with statutory and policy obligations.
• To reduce the increasing administrative burden on Specialist Services staff, changes could be introduced to streamline reporting requirements for all specialist services staff to reduce the time taken to prepare reports and reduce the duplication of information that currently exists. Streamlining assessment templates on framework would reduce duplication for social workers and would be inline with Professor Munro’s recommendation to remove the distinction between initial and core assessments.
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
Specialist Services contributes to the following relevant outcomes identified in the Co- operative Council Corporate Plan:
- Children and young people are safeguarded and protected from harm
- Children and young people are involved in decision making and are involved in positive activities
Page 148
The reduction in staffing within the Specialist Division is likely to have an adverse impact on these performance indicators; however, the extent of the impact is unknown. Specialist services will strive to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded and protected from harm through ongoing quality assurance processes and monitoring of performance information.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 363 0 0 363 TOTAL 363 0 0 363
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact Strategic levers
Establishment
Page 149
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division Specialist Services Divisional Ade Adetosoye and Commissioning Director
Author Ade Adetosoye Contact Ade Adetosoye 020 7926 4787 details
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: ______the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: ______process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Business Unit 450 – Referral & Assessment, Child Protection and Children with Disabilities and Business Support
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing Expenditure
Proposal Savings Proposal: 3.8% detail Cash Limit Budget: £9,647,000 Savings : £363,450
Background and context
Referral and Assessment The Referral and Assessment Teams take all new referrals of children in need that are not currently allocated or where they have been closed to Social Care services for longer than 3 months. The team typically undertakes initial assessments, child protection
Page 150
investigations/core assessments, care proceedings up to the first hearing and reports for court under s7 and s37 of the Children Act 1989. They also initially deliver accommodation for children if this is identified as a need. Family Support and Child Protection The Family Support and Child Protection Teams have responsibility for all children and their siblings who are the subject of a core assessment plan and/or are on the Child Protection Register, for pre-birth assessments. They are also responsible for looked after children up to the first Looked After Review where there is no plan for child to cease being looked after within the next 3 months. In addition, the Family Support and Child Protection teams have responsibility for short-term Looked After Children where there is a realistic timeframe in which they will return home. The team is also responsible for carrying out sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989.
Children with Disabilities This team assesses the needs of children with a disability and provides packages of care to meet these needs. It also completes child protection investigations and deals with LAC for this client group.
Services provided may include: • Help with personal and practical care at home; • Access to equipment and adaptations on the home; • Short break care; • Information on benefits; • Information and advice on other services; and • Services for affected by HIV and Aids.
Business Support Responsibilities of Business Support staff include general office duties and administration assistance, framework maintenance, SARs, FOIs, PO management and sickness management.
Service proposal
Proposal - Reduce staffing expenditure by £363,450
Reduce staffing expenditure by 5% in 2012/13 - this will generate a savings of £363,450.
In summary the objectives of the proposed change to the Specialist Division teams are to:
1. Ensure that statutory services continue to be effective, efficient and contribute to good outcomes for children and young people. 2. Ensure that the Division is ready and able to respond to the findings of the Munro Review of Child Protection and the Social Work Taskforce report. 3. Provide economies of scale through integrated and streamlined services and take advantage of natural synergies where joining up of functions enhances the service. This could also include appropriate collaboration with other local authorities. 4. Ensure that there is a consistency of approach by aligning systems and approaches for business support services to ensure a seamless service is provided to each of the fieldwork and service development functions. 5. Ensure efficient commissioning of children’s placements. 6. Ensure a sustainable management structure that can continue to provide strong leadership within an environment of contracting resources and can effectively
Page 151
plan the next phase of the reduction in services.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Chang FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expenditur income budget budget e (No. expend income budget e (£m) (£m) (£m) (%) ) iture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 192 11.228 -1.581 9.647 0.363 3.8 182 10.865 -1.581 9.284
Impact on statutory responsibilities The Specialist and Commissioning Division is responsible for delivering statutory specialist frontline social care services to children and young people aged 0-24 years old. The Division’s job is to make sure that the children of Lambeth are protected from abuse or neglect. This is a legal duty for which the Local Authority is held to account by the Government and by the public, and is undertaken in accordance with the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004. To do this we have systems to respond effectively to referrals about vulnerable children and to carry out timely and high quality assessments of children in need. For children who meet our thresholds we put plans in place to meet their needs and review them regularly. For children at the highest risk of abuse or neglect we put in place child protection plans with our partner agencies.
For almost all children in need we work in partnership with families to ensure that children in need or at risk are safe and thrive within their own families. When this is not possible we make arrangements for children and young people to be looked after by the Local Authority. This is a legal duty placed on the local authority under the Children Act 1989. A number of other legislations and court rulings also impact on specific areas of these duties. They include the Leaving Care Act 2000; the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Hillingdon (2003) and Southwark (2009) judgments and the Children Act 2004. For these children looked after we make every effort to ensure that they benefit from their time in care and that they go on to do as well in later life as other Lambeth children.
This savings proposal will enable the Specialist and Commissioning Division to generate savings whilst meeting its statutory responsibilities described above. However, the proposal carries associated risks, including a decline in service quality as a result of reduced staffing capacity. These risks are discussed in Section 2 below.
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Current users
Referral and Assessment
Lambeth continues to experience some of the highest rates of contacts and referrals across London. Our rates of contacts and referrals are considerably above statistical neighbours. In the year to March
Page 152
2010 the referral and assessment service received 4900 referrals, a rise of 619 or 14.5% from the previous year’s figure of 4281. This is a very high figure, the highest in Inner London and over 50% higher than the Inner London average. Referrals have historically been high and the 14.5% increase is partly due to the ‘Baby P’ effect since early 2009 and the impact of the economic downturn on some vulnerable families.
About 80% of these referrals go on to receive an Initial Assessment (a brief, 10 day assessment of the needs of the child which must be done before a child can access Social Care services). The remaining 20% are provided with advice and information and/or signposted to other services.
Information on the breakdown of children and young people referred by age and ethnicity is available through our monthly Performance Digest reports. The charts below reflect referrals for August 2011 by age and ethnicity. Children and young people of Black or Black British ethnicity are consistently overrepresented in referrals to specialist services.
We currently do no analyse referrals by other equalities groups, for example, Disability; Gender reassignment; Pregnancy and maternity; Religion and belief; Gender; Sexual orientation; Marriage/civil partnership.
Child Protection
Overall the numbers children and young people with Child Protection Plans (formerly “on the CP register”) are again very high compared to other boroughs, and have risen dramatically over the last 18 months due to the death of Baby Peter in Haringey and better understanding of thresholds by our partners. At March 2009 the figure was 211, a year later it has risen to 304 and it now stands at 365. Our monthly Performance Digest reports include a breakdown of all children and young people with a
Page 153
CP plan by age, see the table below for this breakdown from April to August 2011. The majority of children and young people on child protection plans are aged between 5-15 years.
The monthly Performance Digest reports do not currently analyse children on child protection plans by other equalities groups, for example, Ethnicity, Disability; Gender reassignment; Pregnancy and maternity; Religion and belief; Gender; Sexual orientation; Marriage/civil partnership.
Children with Disabilities
There are currently 255 children allocated to a social worker within the Children With Disabilities Teams. As stated above, we do not have information on the number of children with disabilities who are the subject of referrals to Specialist Services. A recent report from the LSCB team analysed the number of children with a disability with a child protection plan and the information contained in this report is discussed below.
The number of children in Lambeth Children with Disability (CWD) Teams with a child protection plan has always been small, as there are less than 300 children in the team. Between 2007 and 2011, three to eleven children in CWD Teams had a Child Protection plan.
Children in the CWD team seem on average 5.9 times more likely to have a child protection plan than children who are not in the CWD team. Small group sizes mean that it is not possible to trace a pattern over time as there is a large natural variation in percentages. The high number of children in CWD teams with a CP plan is most likely because Children with a disability are often the most vulnerable children and are at a higher risk than their same-age peers who do not have a disability.
Numbers of children with child protection plans in CWD teams and general Lambeth population
10/02/2007 09/02/2008 09/02/2009 27/10/2009 10/02/2010 10/08/2010 10/02/2011 10/08/2011
No. of children with a Child Protection Plan 229 224 236 290 268 361 350 332 No. of children with a Child Protection Plan, 222 218 232 279 264 353 347 323 not in CWD Teams (0.41%) (0.40%) (0.43%) (0.52%) (0.49%) (0.65%) (0.64%) (0.60%) No. of children in Children with 221 205 175 227 200 192 212 255 Disabilities Teams No. of children in
Page 154
Children with 7 6 4 11 4 8 3 9 Disabilities Teams and have a Child (3.17%) (2.93%) (2.29%) (4.83%) (2.00%) (4.17%) (1.42%) (3.53%) Protection Plan
Business Support
The specific breakdown of business support staff within Specialist Services by equalities groups is currently not available. However, the analysis of London Borough of Lambeth staff as a whole is discussed below: 6
• Ethnicity: Frontline staff and management workforce reflects the ethnically diverse population. The table below provides a breakdown of staff by ethnicity as at October 2010.
Ethnicity %
Asian 6.19%
Black 47.74%
Mixed 3.43%
Other 1.85%
White 40.79%
Unavailable -
total BME 59.21%
• Gender: At present, the gender breakdown for our staff is 61% female and 39% male employees.
• Age: The Council has a limited number of people under 30 and most people working for the Council are in there 40s. The table below provides a breakdown of staff by age as at October 2010.
Age %
Under 30 12
30-39 26
40-49 35
50-59 23
60+ 4
6 Source – London Borough of Lambeth intranet, accessed at: http://intranet.lambeth.gov.uk/StaffServices/EqualitiesAndDiversity/Understandingthesingleequalityscheme. htm
Page 155
• Religion: The majority of our staff are of Christian faith according to the 2008 Staff survey as detailed in the table below:
Religion Our Staff
Agnostic 10%
Atheist 11%
Buddhist 1%
Christian 52%
Hindu 2%
Humanist 1%
Jewish -
Muslim 3%
Sikh -
• Disability: The State of the Borough report 2010 identified that residents with a disability comprise 14.9% of Lambeth’s population. As at October 2010 only 6.18% of council employees have declared that they have a disability or long term limiting illness. There a number of reasons why staff may not wish to declare a disability, however the council is committed to creating a working environment where staff are confident in declaring a disability and where the full support available can be provided.
Future users • Whilst demand for our services continues to increase, the profile of our service user groups as described above is likely to remain fairly consistent for 2012/13 to 2014/15.
Analysis undertaken • The information on service user groups described above was gathered from a range of sources and these sources are referenced above.
Page 156
Involvement and consultation process
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups No
General Focus Groups No
Other Methods Yes
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
Consultation with staff will be completed through the wider CYPS consultation with staff and their representative trade union.
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Consultation Findings
Gaps in data
The CWD, Referral and Assessment and the Child Protection Service areas within the Specialist Service Division each have different service user groups.
Referral and Assessment We currently do no analyse referrals to specialist services by equalities groups, for example, Disability; Gender reassignment; Pregnancy and maternity; Religion and belief; Gender; Sexual orientation; Marriage/civil partnership. However, information on referrals by some of these equalities groups may be possible to obtain through a data request to our systems support team.
Child Protection The monthly Performance Digest reports do not currently analyse children on child protection plans by other equalities groups, for example, Ethnicity, Disability; Gender reassignment; Pregnancy and maternity; Religion and belief; Gender; Sexual orientation; Marriage/civil partnership. Additional information on Children in Need would also be relevant as the Child Protection teams service both Children in Need and children on Child Protection Plans. Additional information on children who receive services from our Child Protection Teams by some equalities groups may be possible to obtain through a data request to our systems support team.
Children with Disabilities Further information on children receiving services from the children with disabilities teams by some
Page 157
equalities groups may be possible to obtain through a data request to our systems support team.
Business Support We do not currently maintain data on the composition of the specialist services workforce, either as a whole or by service area. Therefore information on business support staff, or specialist services staff by equalities groups is not available.
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
The proposal involves a reduction in staffing across Specialist Services. Given that the 5% reduction will be across four service areas, the proposal is unlikely to have a disproportional impact on specific equalities groups within our service users.
The risks that reduced staffing capacity will have for service users include:
• Lower levels of specialist intervention and support available to vulnerable children and families.
• Increased administrative burden on social workers which may compromise the amount of direct social work received by children and families in Lambeth.
• Compromised implementation of service improvement activities within these services.
• Increased caseloads for social workers which may affect safeguarding of vulnerable children leaving them at greater risk of suffering abuse and neglect, including those in care with a disability.
• Overall the impact on service users will be low, however as described above, Referral & Assessment, Child Protection and Children with Disabilities service users predominantly include women who are pregnant, children, children from Black and Black British ethnicities and their families and children with a disability. Families of lower socio-economic status may also be affected as their need for family support services might increase as a result of the national welfare reforms.
POSITIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnancy Ethnicity Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassignment partnership & maternity & belief orientation economic
NEGATIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnancy Ethnicity Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassignment partnership & maternity & belief orientation economic X X X X
Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council departments or public bodies
Under this proposal there will be no impact on commissioned services.
Expected impact on council w orkforce
This proposal involves a reduction in staffing expenditure by 5% across Referral and Assessment, Child Protection, Children with Disabilities and Business Support services within specialist services. Therefore the impact will specifically affect the workforce within each of these service areas. However, a reduction of only 5% in staffing costs across 4 service areas will mean that the impact on each service area will be low. The specific impact of the proposal on particular equalities groups is unknown because this information is
Page 158
unavailable.
Section 3 Mitigating actions
• Ensure Specialist Services organisational structure is efficient and maximises effective working.
• Continue to provide support for social workers and monitor caseloads and effectively address any Occupational Health and Safety issues that emerge.
• Continue to provide sound quality assurance by monitoring performance and compliance with statutory and policy obligations.
• Improve the effectiveness of business support services to reduce the administrative burden on Specialist Services staff.
• Wherever possible, avoid deleting front-line social work posts and maintain effective ratios between staff to managers to ensure appropriate practice oversight.
Section 4 Links to other proposals
This proposal links to other Specialist and Commissioning Division proposals, including 451 and 452.
Section 5 – Conclusion This proposal involves a reduction in staffing expenditure by 5% across Referral and Assessment, Child Protection, Children with Disabilities and Business Support services within specialist services. This proposal contributes effectively to achieving the desired savings target for the Council whilst minimising the impact on service users.
Given that the 5% reduction will be across four service areas, the proposal will have a low impact on service users and is unlikely to have a disproportional impact on specific equalities groups.
The proposal will impact the Council’s workforce the most. However, given that the 5% reduction in staffing costs will be made across the four service areas, the impact of the proposal on each service area will be low.
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer
Page 159
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Ade Adetosoye Divisional Director Specialist Services and 21/12/11 Commissioning Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 160
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Director details
Division Specialist Divisional Ade Adetosoye 64787 Services and Director Commissioning
Proposal title Business Unit 452 –Independent reviewing Ref 8 (452) officer children looked after/child protection, LSCB, corporate parenting, children`s legal and commissioning.
Savings Proposal: 5%
Cash Limit Budget: £5,084,000
Savings: £254,200
Description Description of Service – Specialist Services Commissioning Commissioning is the systematic process of specifying; securing and monitoring services to meet identified and prioritised needs, including both immediate and anticipated needs. Statutory guidance issued under the Children Act 2004 require local authorities and other key agencies to develop an integrated approach to delivering services to improve the well being of children and young people. The commissioning team works with partner agencies to ensure: - services address identified needs effectively and in an outcome- focused way - resources are allocated and utilized efficiently in order to secure those services - services are provided consistent with the guidance and expectations set out in Every Child Matters and the Children Act 2004 - agreements, contracts and monitoring arrangements are put in place in order to ensure effective delivery and influence future planning activity. Recent strategies produced include the Commissioning Strategy for CLA, Commissioning Strategy for CWD and the Commissioning Strategy for CIN is currently being updated.
Savings Proposed £254,200
Proposal - Reduce commissioning budget by £254,200 The strategy is to reduce the expenditure in respect of private sector commissioned and third party payments by renegotiating existing contracts with providers and re-commissioning some existing services. The Contract Management Toolkit will be a useful tool in the process and an option appraisal of each contract will be conducted in order to
Page 161
achieve savings which will review the opportunities for: Collaboration Existing Frameworks Amalgamation Re-scoping/shaping of services Decommissioning
In summary the objectives of the proposed change to the Specialist Division teams are to:
1. Ensure that statutory services continue to be effective, efficient and contribute to good outcomes for children and young people. 2. Ensure that the Division is ready and able to respond to the findings of the Munro Review of Child Protection and the Social Work Taskforce report. 3. Provide economies of scale through integrated and streamlined services and take advantage of natural synergies where joining up of functions enhances the service. This could also include appropriate collaboration with other local authorities. 4. Ensure that there is a consistency of approach by aligning systems and approaches for business support services to ensure a seamless service is provided to each of the fieldwork and service development functions. 5. Ensure efficient commissioning of children’s placements. 6. Ensure a sustainable management structure that can continue to provide strong leadership within an environment of contracting resources and can effectively plan the next phase of the reduction in services. The expected savings of £254,200 will be created by:
i) Re-commissioning/review of existing contracts.
ii) Re-negotiate existing service contracts for children with disabilities, including Domiciliary Care, Short breaks and transport.
iii) Review joint arrangements with health and introduce joint funding for care packages and placements of children looked after.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 76 5.633 -0.549 5.084 0.254 5 76 5.379 -0.549 4.830
Timetable for implementation
Date Action
Page 162
Expected impact on service
The immediate impact will see a reduction in spend on both commissioned and third party services.
Process: Reviews will be undertaken and, where applicable, monitoring data will be used to inform option appraisals and ascertain the potential impact on services. The precise impact on the service/contract under review will not be known until options have been considered for individual contracts/group of contracts.
Statutory responsibilities will be assessed for each contract with the aim of ensuring that all minimum statutory requirements are met. The review process will need to strike a balance to ensure that, where possible, preventative services are utilised over statutory services which are traditionally higher in cost.
Current service users
The service users of commissioned services vary depending on the contract but include:
- children with a disability and their parents or carers - children looked after, of whom a significant proportion are from ethnic minority backgrounds - young people in Lambeth who require mental health services.
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Impact on service users is likely to be low and will depend on the contract or commissioning agreement. Equality Impact Assessments will be undertaken and consultation with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the option pursued:
Has a minimal impact on the service user Ensures the needs of the service user is met Meets minimum statutory requirements EIAs will be drafted and assessed, where applicable. This will be done for individual contracts or for groups of contracts impacting on a particular client group. Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
The objective is to deliver value for money and where applicable renegotiate and re- shape services, to ensure we are achieving the outcomes required.
Commissioned/contracted bodies will need to increase their efficiency in order to deliver services at a lower cost. Some commissioned or contracted bodies may no longer deliver services for Lambeth.
We will need to manage any potential risk to the Council both in terms of legal and reputation. The risks associated will be unique and variable to each contract.
Page 163
Interest in the reforms from press, media, commissioned and contracted bodies and the public will have to be managed by the Council.
Mitigating actions
To ensure services to customers are not compromised, Specialist Services Commissioning Team will:
• Ensure Equality Impact Assessments are undertaken for each service agreement. • Utilise monitoring data to review performance regularly. • Ensure statutory responsibilities will be assessed for each contract with the aim of ensuring that all minimum statutory requirements are met.
Expected impact on council’s outcomes framework
Specialist Services contributes to the following outcomes identified in the Co-operative Council Corporate Plan: - Health promotion for children and young people is working and reducing risky behaviour - Children and young people are safeguarded and protected from harm - Children and young people enjoy learning and achieve their full potential - Children and young people are involved in decision making and are involved in positive activities - Young people aged 16 and over are in higher education, employment or training when they leave school
Under this proposal, we expect these outcomes will continue to be achieved. Specialist services will strive to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded and protected from harm and CLA continue to receive appropriate care and support that will enable them to achieve positive outcomes whilst achieving value for money.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Commissioning reductions 254 0 0 254 TOTAL 254 0 0 254
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Asset impact
Page 164
N/A
Strategic levers
Contracts will be re-negotiated or re-commissioned as required to generate value for money.
Page 165
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division Specialist Services Divisional Ade Adetosoye and Commissioning Director
Author Ade Adetosoye Contact Ade Adetosoye 020 7926 4787 details
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: ______the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: ______process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Reduce commissioning budget by £254,200 Background and context – Specialist Services Commissioning Proposal
detail Commissioning is the systematic process of specifying; securing and monitoring services to meet identified and prioritised needs, including both immediate and anticipated needs. Statutory guidance issued under the Children Act 2004 require local authorities and other key agencies to develop an integrated approach to delivering services to improve the well being of children and young people. The commissioning team works with partner agencies to ensure: - services address identified needs effectively and in an outcome-focused way - resources are allocated and utilized efficiently in order to secure those services - services are provided consistent with the guidance and expectations set out in Every Child Matters and the Children Act 2004 - agreements, contracts and monitoring arrangements are put in place in order to ensure effective delivery and influence future planning activity. Recent strategies
Page 166
produced include the Commissioning Strategy for CLA, Commissioning Strategy for CWD and the Commissioning Strategy for CIN.
Service Proposal - Reduce commissioning budget by £254,200 The strategy is to reduce the expenditure in respect of private sector commissioned and third party payments by renegotiating existing contracts with providers and re- commissioning some existing services. The Contract Management Toolkit will be a useful tool in the process and an option appraisal of each contract will be conducted in order to achieve savings which will review the opportunities for: Collaboration Existing Frameworks Amalgamation Re-scoping/shaping of services Decommissioning
In summary the objectives of the proposed change to the Specialist Division teams are to:
13. Ensure that statutory services continue to be effective, efficient and contribute to good outcomes for children and young people. 14. Ensure that the Division is ready and able to respond to the findings of the Munro Review of Child Protection and the Social Work Taskforce report. 15. Provide economies of scale through integrated and streamlined services and take advantage of natural synergies where joining up of functions enhances the service. This could also include appropriate collaboration with other local authorities. 16. Ensure that there is a consistency of approach by aligning systems and approaches for business support services to ensure a seamless service is provided to each of the fieldwork and service development functions. 17. Ensure efficient commissioning of children’s placements. 18. Ensure a sustainable management structure that can continue to provide strong leadership within an environment of contracting resources and can effectively plan the next phase of the reduction in services. The expected savings of £254,200 will be created by: iv) Re-commissioning/review of existing contracts. v) Re-negotiate existing service contracts for children with disabilities, including Domiciliary Care, Short breaks and transport CWD register. vi) Review joint arrangements with health and introduce joint funding for care packages and placements of children looked after.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 76 5.633 -0.549 5.084 0.254 5 76 5.379 -0.549 4.830
Impact on statutory responsibilities This proposal is unlikely to have any impact on the Council’s statutory responsibilities. Under this proposal, we expect these outcomes will continue to be achieved. Specialist
Page 167
services will strive to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded and protected from harm and CLA continue to receive appropriate care and support that will enable them to achieve positive outcomes whilst achieving value for money.
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Current users CYPS Specialist Services and Commissioning Division currently have a range of commissioning arrangements with a number of commissioned/contracted providers. Our commissioned services provide services to a range of people including:
- Children and families receiving child protection and family support services and children with a disability and their parents or carers - Children and young people Looked After
For further analysis of these service users please see proposals for 450 and 451.
Analysis undertaken • Equalities information for service user groups is further analysed in the proposals for Business Units 450 and 451 and the information sources are referenced in these proposals
Involvement and consultation process
While there will be an impact on commissioned providers, in line with the view taken by PEP, we will not be consulting with these providers.
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups No
General Focus Groups No
Other Methods No
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these? n/a
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Consultation Findings
Gaps in data
Page 168
• No additional information is required to complete this assessment.
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Impact on service users is likely to be low and will depend on the contract or commissioning agreement. Equality Impact Assessments will be undertaken and consultation with relevant stakeholders will be conducted to ensure that the option pursued:
Has a minimal impact on the service user Ensures the needs of the service user is met Meets minimum statutory requirements EIAs will be drafted and assessed, where applicable. This will be done for individual contracts or for groups of contracts impacting on a particular client group.
POSITIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnancy Ethnicity Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassignment partnership & & belief orientation economic maternity
NEGATIVE IMPACT Age Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnancy Ethnicity Religion Gender Sexual Socio- reassignment partnership & & belief orientation economic maternity
Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodie s, other council departments or public bodies
The objective is to deliver value for money and where applicable renegotiate and re-shape services, to ensure we are achieving the outcomes required.
Commissioned/contracted bodies will need to increase their efficiency in order to deliver services at a lower cost. Some commissioned or contracted bodies may no longer deliver services for Lambeth.
We will need to manage any potential risk to the Council both in terms of legal and reputation. The risks associated will be unique and variable to each contract.
Expected impact on council workforce
• There are no workforce implications associated with this proposal as it applies to commissioned/ contracted bodies.
Section 3 Mitigating actions To ensure services to customers are not compromised, Specialist Services Commissioning Team will:
• Ensure Equality Impact Assessments are undertaken for each service agreement. • Utilise monitoring data to review performance regularly. • Ensure statutory responsibilities will be assessed for each contract with the aim of ensuring that all
Page 169
minimum statutory requirements are met.
Section 4 Links to other proposals
This proposal links to other Specialist and Commissioning Division proposals, including 450 and 451.
Section 5 – Conclusion Under this proposal, we expect these outcomes will continue to be achieved. Specialist services will strive to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded and protected from harm and CLA continue to receive appropriate care and support that will enable them to achieve positive outcomes whilst achieving value for money.
Commissioned/contracted bodies will need to increase their efficiency in order to deliver services at a lower cost. Some commissioned or contracted bodies may no longer deliver services for Lambeth.
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Ade Adetosoye Divisional Director Specialist Services and 21/12/11 Commissioning Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 170
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department Children & Young People’s Executive Director Debbie Contact 69771 Services Jones details
Division EECP Divisional Director Mike Pocock 63220
Proposal Business Unit 475 – Education Capital Projects Ref 9 (475) title Proposal - Reduction in Expenditure on Staffing and Local Education Partnership
Savings Proposal: 29.3%
Cash Limit Budget: £1.478m
Savings : 2012/13 - £16,000 (cash limit), plus £120,000 from brought forward saving
2013/14 - £66,000, plus £165,000 from brought forward saving
2014/15 - £351,000
Total saving - £433,000, plus £285,000 from brought forward saving Division Description The Education Estates and Capital Projects (EECP) Division in CYPS has responsibility for the implementation and delivery of the departmental capital programme. This programme is primarily focused on planning and delivering much needed additional primary school places, investment in secondary schools and capital maintenance across the school and community estate. As well as planning how to meet future demand for school places responsibility for forecasting and all school admissions passed to the division in April 2011. Responsibility for all schools’ ICT passed to the division in October 2010. In spite of these increased responsibilities the division’s cash limit budget has reduced considerably in recent years as shown in the graph below, more than halving since 2007/08 and by 39% in the last year alone.
Page 171
Revenue budget
7
6
5
4 £m 3
2
1
0 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Note that the division committed previously to savings of £250k for 2012/13. The savings in the following sections include this figure which has now been demonstrated to be achievable but are not in addition to this figure.
The division has specific responsibilities in managing capital programmes, estates, admissions and schools’ ICT and with the possible exception of the latter these are not “services” that can be cut as they are volume dependent.
Capital projects The division’s primary responsibility is for the implementation and delivery of the departmental capital programme. This programme is mainly focused on delivering much needed additional primary school places, investment in secondary schools and capital maintenance across the school and community estate. The team is also responsible for the Lilian Baylis PFI project. There is currently about £100m of secured work to be delivered by the team, most of it to critically tight programmes with key phases needing completion in September 2012.
With recent government announcements of basic needs funding, a new PFI scheme, and that funding for the next three years is likely to be similar to previous years, and that any national centralisation of major project delivery is likely to be delayed potentially even to 2015, there is likely to be significant further work coming to the team. Much work can be expected in the next year in initiating key projects and responding to changes in government requirements. Projections of workload show that with currently secured funding 2011/12 will deliver the highest workload ever, and 2012/13 is likely to be higher. It is essential to have sufficient staff to properly manage the projects to avoid delay, insufficient places being available in schools, and additional costs on the projects, which would have to be met by the council.
Page 172
Projected 13/14 Workload projections
60 Projected Cap Maintenance 50 12/13 Projected Primary 40 Exp 12/13
30£m Fenstanton Academy 20 Secondary actual/secured 10 Primary (+Comm) 0 actual/secured 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
There is much uncertainty over the government’s future arrangements for schools capital spending. The continuing need to provide more school places for several years to come is clear, and even if/when it tails off in primary schools it will move to secondary from around 2015. As set out above the government is expected to allocate significant funding over the next year and possibly several years to 2015. At some point it may centralise procurement and management of major projects, but may still allow councils like Lambeth to continue to manage/procure because of its considerable expertise in the field. There is therefore much uncertainty. As resourcing in this division is driven very much by the volume of capital work it is extremely difficult to forecast savings beyond 2012/13.
Specific Proposal for Capital Projects:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below:
Proposed Savings(£000)
Local Total Education General Proposed Service Area Staffing Partnership Expenses Savings Project Delivery £56k £80k £0k £136k* * Includes brought forward savings
Note that this team manages the LBTS PFI contract where there is significant income shown both from the government (ring-fenced) and the school (not shown as ring-fenced), to meet the contracted payments to the PFI provider. There is no discretion in this and no opportunity to improve the income or reduce our related costs as all are subject to long term contracts.
The following assumptions were made regarding cost savings from the division:
• Current structure must be maintained until late 2012 to ensure current vital commitments are met in managing the phase 1 Primary Expansion Programme (PEP) and the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) phase 2. Once the programmes are completed, the division will be expected to reduce its staff
Page 173
numbers, but the extent will depend on the volume of future work. • Staff savings are therefore based on a small proportion of the projected annualised saving. • The Authority is successful in securing further basic need funding to permit the Phase2 PEP to proceed and address the huge demand for pupil places. • One further year of funding for the capital maintenance funding for 2012/13 at a similar level to 2011/12. • A further review of the structure will be necessary early in 2012/13 once it is clear what future funding will be and what are the government’s future plans for delivery of projects. • The proposals assume delayering at the end of 2012 • LEP shareholders agree to revised LEP arrangements with reduction in costs in part off-set by additional costs to Authority.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 19 3.571 -2.093 1.478 0.433 29.3 15 3.138 -2.093 1.045* * Proposed budgets will be reduced by other committed brought forward savings of £285,000.
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Nov 11 Resolve reduction in LEP cost May/July 12 Plan structure and initiate consultation after government announcements Dec 12 Staff reductions begin
Expected impact on service
The project delivery team is responsible for the management and delivery of the capital programme within CYPS. It has a primary responsibility of implementing the authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient and high quality school places. Reducing resources within this section will impact on the authority’s ability to project manage the school capital expansion programmes and the estates capital maintenance (essential major repairs) programme effectively, leading to increased risk of additional places not being available in time or school closure due to insufficient repairs. Ineffective management would lead to additional expense and delays due to increase in contractual claims. This in turn would put the Authority at risk by failing to meet its own obligations and divert scarce capital funds away from other Authority projects.
Page 174
The proposals assume that staffing is reduced late in 2012/13 (bearing in mind the major reductions in 2010/11) as the workload begins to diminish and that actual reductions will be adjusted to the volume with the major savings occurring in 2013/14. As such there should be no increase in risk to the delivery programme, although the existing tight budget and delays in recruitment have increased the risk.
Any further reduction would lead to a substantial risk that projects would not be delivered on programme or to budget causing authority funds being diverted away from other capital projects and insufficient places being available resulting loss of reputation and decrease in education standards.
Current service users
• Early years/Pre-primary services • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Community service providers (eg APGs) • Special Educational Needs • CME (Children Missing Education) • Parents and Guardians
Expected impact on customer / user of service
The reduction in Project delivery resource would follow the expected reduction in capital expenditure. Earlier reduction would have the following effects:
The lack of local primary school places will result in families commuting longer distances to school, educated outside the Borough, or potentially having no school place at all. This would lead to reputational damage to the authority due to increased complaints from parents.
Failure to address deterioration of school building conditions leading to poor staff morale, reduced pupil academic attainment and risk of school closure.
Potential for increase in contractual cost if projects are not properly resourced. Potential for construction delays if projects are not properly resourced.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
The proposal will not affect current construction contracts within the capital programme if resource reduction follows cuts in capital expenditure.
Savings 2013/14 and 2014/15
In spite of the great uncertainty, particularly affecting this division’s activities, an estimate of possible savings in subsequent years has been made. Depending on circumstances the savings are projected to be between £250 and £650k in 2013/14 and between £75 and £550k in 2014/15.
Possible savings are shown in the table below. They are highly speculative and are not to be treated as committed savings.
Page 175
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Capital projects delivery (new savings) 16 66 351 433 Capital projects delivery (b/f savings) 120 165 0 285* TOTAL 136 231 351 718 * Brought forward savings are pro-rated across savings reference 9 and 10.
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 Although the revenue expenditure is at least in part dependent on the capital available they do not create a capital impact as such, or depend on capital investment.
Asset impact Insufficient investment in the school estate will lead to poor quality buildings resulting in low staff morale, a reduction in educational standards obtained by the pupils, increase life cycle maintenance costs and risk of school closure.
Page 176
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department Children & Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Young Director details People’s Services
Division EECP Divisional Mike Pocock 63220 Director
Proposal Business Unit 475 – Education Estates Ref 10 (475) title Proposal - Reduction in Staffing and Security Costs, Income from Traded Services
Savings Proposal: 27.7%
Cash Limit Budget: £743,000
Savings : 2012/13 - £18,000, plus £130,000 brought forward savings
2013/14 - £33,000, plus £85,000 brought forward savings
2014/15 - £155,000
Total Savings - £206,000, plus £215,000 brought forward savings The Education Estates team is responsible for: Description • Management and rationalisation of all the CYPS estate including planning for future demands particularly provision of sufficient school places • Asset management and planning for all the CYPS schools and other buildings • Management of accommodation and associated health and safety aspects for all offices occupied by CYPS staff • Monitoring of health, safety and compliance in schools etc, ensuring, for example, compliance with asbestos, fire and Legionella statutory requirements • Securing funding for future investment including preparation of necessary applications, business cases etc A substantial part of the overall costs are in security and building maintenance of small properties.
Specific Proposal for Estates:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below: *The table below includes brought forward committed savings of £130k
Proposed Savings
Page 177
Traded Total Security Services Proposed Service Area Staffing (£000) (£000) Savings Estates £18k £90K £40k 148*
The following assumptions were made regarding cost savings from the division:
• Current structure must be maintained until late 2012 to ensure current vital commitments are met in planning the next round of school expansion projects, bidding for future funding and initiating the new arrangements once announced by the government.
• Substantial recovery of costs from schools in traded services relating to building management and safety compliance.
• The security cost are recovered from the disposal proceeds of the Beaufoy Centre and substantially reduced for the future.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 9.5 0.811 -0.68 0 0.743 0.206 27.7 8.5 0. 605 -0. 68 0 0.537* * Proposed budgets will be reduced by other committed brought forward savings of £215,000.
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Oct/Sept 11 Initiate plans for trading services Dec 11 Publicise plans for traded services and begin taking orders March 12 Reduction in ongoing security costs implemented May-July 12 Planning and consultation for revised structure
Expected impact on service
These plans are largely based around reducing security costs and trading services. There is a small increase in risk of squatters, damage etc from reduced security costs. Trading services related to safety and compliance introduces risks as we need to ensure compliance regardless of payment, and will need to be more commercial in our approach than has been necessary hereto. However, other council services are beginning to successfully meet these challenges and this team must do likewise.
Page 178
Further reductions would create serious risks, particularly in the planning and creation of additional school places, bidding for funding and assessing maintenance requirements. Good asset management will also help reduce overall costs in the council. The estates team within the division also ensures that the division comply fully with statutory requirements on fire, asbestos and legionella within the school and community estates. Cutting this service will compromise health and safety within our schools and lead to unnecessary legal challenges.
Current service users (and those that rely on the work of the team)
• All Lambeth parents with children of statutory school age • Early years/Pre-primary services • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Special Educational Needs • Community estate teams e.g. APGs 1 O’Clock Clubs • Parents and Guardians, particularly in the planning of school provision
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Refer to expected impact on service
Savings 2013/14 and 2014/15
In spite of the great uncertainty, particularly affecting this division’s activities, an estimate of possible savings in subsequent years has been made. Possible savings are shown in the table below. They are highly speculative and are not to be treated as committed savings.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service – Estates 206 (new savings) 18 33 155 Service – Estates 215* (b/f savings) 130 85 0 TOTAL 148 118 155 421
* Brought forward savings are pro-rated across savings reference 9 and 10. Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 Although the revenue expenditure is at least in part dependent on the capital available they do not create a capital impact as such, or depend on capital investment.
Page 179
Asset impact Insufficient investment in the school estate will lead to poor quality buildings resulting in low staff morale, a reduction in educational standards obtained by the pupils and increase life cycle maintenance costs.
Strategic levers
Establishment
A reduction in staff structure is projected to achieve a £18k saving in 2012-13, with more in subsequent years.
Contracts
£90k saving proposal from security in 2012-13 will be in part through renegotiating the current security contracts
Income
Traded services are expected to generate a total of £40k in 2012-13 through providing asset and health and safety compliance by the Estates team.
Page 180
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department Children & Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Young Director details People’s Services
Division EECP Divisional Mike Pocock 63220 Director
Proposal Business Unit 475 – Pupil Place Planning / Ref 11 (475) title Admissions
Proposal - None
Savings Proposal: 14%
Cash Limit Budget: £328k
Savings : £0 (2012-13)
£29,500 (2013-14)
£16,500 (2014-15)
£46,000 (Total Saving) This team consists of a strategic lead, a pupil planning officer and the Description admissions team (9FTE). They are responsible for the educational input into all construction projects, projecting demand for school places (including providing information to DfE to obtain funding) to ensure sufficient provision, and school admissions.
The School Admissions Service provides a statutory service with regards to:
• Formulating and producing a Lambeth coordinated admission procedures for 3 Pan-London Admission processes (secondary transfer, primary and junior admissions) as well as 2 other coordinated procedures (primary & secondary in-year admissions.
• Process between 35,000 – 45,000 preference applications per year
• Online admissions (a facility through which we receive up to 55% of our application for the Pan-London procedures).
• Attend between 80 plus (normally much higher) statutory admission appeal hearings per year.
• Produce statistics concerning coordinated admissions yearly
Page 181
for the Adjudicator, DfE and other stakeholders.
• Administer the child employment, child entertainment and chaperone licensing procedures
As a Local Authority, it is our duty to provide statutory education for all children of statutory school age who live in the local authority area. We must also, by law, provide a robust process for Lambeth resident families, so they are able to apply through Lambeth so as to access a school, regardless if the school is in Lambeth or not.
The admissions team is largely funded from the DSG
Specific Proposal for Pupil Place Planning / Admissions:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below:
Proposed Savings 2012 - 13
School School Admissions Admissions Service Area (£000) Savings Admissions/Pupil planning 0 0
Pupil place planning is vital to the council to ensure both that we make sufficient provision in the right place but also that we secure the funding from government for the necessary expansion to reduce the need to draw on council resources. This is an issue vital to parents and both a council and a CYPS core priority.
The admissions service is currently increasing its resources, despite the general reductions, in recognition of the significantly increased workload and that the team has not been able to deliver to the standard required without more staff. We are currently going through an improvement programme to improve the processes and equipment. This service is vital to parents and its work is greatly increased, and much more vulnerable to complaint, when there is a shortage of places, as at present. It would be a mistake to cut the resources in 2012/13 until it has caught up on all backlog, embedded improved practices and a proper efficiency plan can be instigated. It is also possible that from 2013 the government will reduce its role in in-year applications allowing a reduction in resource, but this will not be known for some time.
Page 182
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 13 0. 702 -0. 374 0.328 0.046 14 13 0.656 -0. 374 0.282
Impact on Service
The consequences of the proposed reduction would likely be:
• A reduction in pupil planning resource would lead to inaccurate projections for school demand
• Reduced funding for school expansion from government
• A reduction of admissions staff will impact on our ability to ensure children are placed in school in a timely fashion.
• Increase the risk of input error, maladministration and, as a result, breaching our statutory obligations regarding coordinated admissions.
• Increased complaints and reputational damage
Current service users
• All Lambeth parents with children of statutory school age • Legal & Democratic Services (appeals) • Early years/Pre-primary services • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Park Campus • Special Educational Needs • CME (Children Missing Education) • Neighbouring LA’s • All other LAs (with regards to the Pan-London Procedures) • Social Care • Employees, the entertainment industry and potential chaperones. • Parents and Guardians
Expected impact on customer / user of service if reduced
Increase the risk of no offers: Fewer children will receive offers and those who do will not get these offers in a timely manner.
Page 183
Untimely processing of applications: This will cause children to be out of school longer and the vulnerable can slip through the net.
The longer children stay out of education the more anxious parents become and the greater the impact on the child. This can have a significant impact on vulnerable children and can exacerbate their vulnerability.
Reputation management. The above will have a negative impact on the LAs reputation.
Inability to provided sufficient casework: All preference application is a potential case. Lambeth would be unable to manage those cases and provide appropriate casework for the benefit of the appeal hearings. This will potentially cause us to lose more appeals. etc
Untimely processing of applications: This will cause major issues when January PLASC is being submitted and vacancies cannot be filled in a timely manner
Reputation Management: Headteachers will have a negative view on the service, especially if their funding is impacted.
Losing appeals: Applications must be processed within a ‘reasonable’ time. If not, schools could be forced to take extra children via the appeal route as this will make the LA more vulnerable to challenge.
Breach of statutory admission arrangements with particular regard to coordinated admissions:
Breach of statutory deadlines: This will produce, what is commonly called, ‘show stoppers’. This simply means the whole of the rest of London may not be able to successfully administer the Pan-London procedures.
Reputation management issues: This would result in the potential investigation by the DfE and Office of Schools Adjudicator (OSA). OSA determinations are released in the public domain.
In respect of Employees, the entertainment industry and potential chaperones. - Inability to process applications for licenses: This would be in breach of the Council’s statutory responsibility. Inability to do on-site inspections/Safeguarding: Children’s safety would be greatly compromised
Savings 2013/14 and 2014/15
In spite of the great uncertainty, an estimate of possible savings in subsequent years has been made. Possible savings are shown in the table below. They are highly speculative and are not to be treated as committed savings.
Page 184
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 0 29.5 16.5 46 TOTAL 0 29.5 16.5 46
Potential reductions from 2013/14, but largely in areas funded by grant. Savings probably between £10k and £30k on cash limit.
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Page 185
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department Children & Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69771 Young Director details People’s Services
Division EECP Divisional Mike Pocock 63220 Director
Proposal Business Unit 475 – Schools’ ICT Ref 12 (475) title Proposal – Traded service income generation
Savings Proposal: 33.3%
Cash Limit Budget: £201,000
Savings : 2012/13 - £40,000
2013/14 - £17,000
2014/15 - £10,000
Total Saving - £67,000
Page 186
The schools’ ICT team is principally responsible for Description • Curriculum ICT in both primary and secondary schools • Management information systems ICT in both primary and secondary schools • Management of the LCLP(Secondary ICT) • Strategic ICT integration in new building projects • Management of broadband and related services through the London Grid for Learning (LGfL) • e Safety – ensuring the safeguarding of all pupils from an ICT perspective including investigations where required The team within this division was originally responsible for just secondary schools but in the phase 1 reshaping took on responsibility for primary schools without an increase in budget. Further pressure has come from the government’s ending of the Harnessing Technology Grant.
Specific Proposal for Schools’ ICT:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below:
Proposed Savings 2012-13
Traded Total Service Services Proposed Area (£000) Savings Schools ICT 40 40
Note that this team manages the LCLP PFI contract where there is significant income shown both from the government (ring-fenced) and the schools (not shown as ring-fenced), to meet the contracted payments to the PFI provider (RM). There is no discretion in this and no opportunity to improve the income or reduce our related costs as all are subject to long term contracts. Similarly there is substantial income shown from provision of the LGfL broadband and related services. There is a very small margin on this service but no opportunity to improve it in the next three years.
The team currently has a small income from managing the broadband services and from running training programmes in International House.
This proposal is to significantly increase the income by • Managing the LCLP contract for academies • Trading services, principally to primary schools, to help them enhance their ICT, especially where expanding • Increasing the existing income from training
Opportunities for income will increase greatly when a new managed service replaces the existing one with RM from July 2013, so the financial position can improve significantly in 2013/14. The full team will need to be maintained to enable a satisfactory procurement.
Current Saving Proposed
Page 187
FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 4.5 3.547 -3.346 0.201 0.067 33 .3 4.5 3. 480 -3.346 0.1 34
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Oct 11 Establish plans for traded services Nov 11 Initiate plans for procurement of new managed service Dec 11 Publish new traded services April 12 New traded services initiated July 13 New managed service commences
Page 188
Expected impact on service
These proposals are planned to create significant income without a reduction in service levels. They will challenge the team but are deliverable.
However a reduction in budget beyond this level would lead to cuts in the Schools ICT service which would impact on teachers, School leaders, and learning outcomes for children and young people in Lambeth schools and thus also have political ramifications. Below are some of the critical work streams over the next 12 to 18 months
• With the deletion of the schools ICT Manager in the Standards team in 2010. Schools ICT support was cut by 1/3. The workload has increased for existing staff and become increasingly complex as Schools, ICT providers and internet service providers react to government policy, funding cuts and a drive for best value. • Lambeth’s Schools ICT team manages a highly successful Secondary ICT Managed Service delivered through our partners RM. Further cuts to Lambeth Schools ICT will put in jeopardy the authority’s contractual requirements which contribute to the success of that service. • In addition the procurement of a self sustaining successor service, which binds all of Lambeth’s secondary schools together beyond 2013 could be compromised. The successor service could also benefit primary schools. • Schools ICT saves schools money through aggregated procurement and purchase of schools Management Information Systems. In order to continue to provide these savings we will need to go to tender. Schools becoming academies and exiting the LA licence have seen a huge increase in these costs. • In April 2011 a complex roll out of new broadband circuits for almost all Lambeth schools started. This rollout requires considerable input from the ICT Technical manager to ensure success. This rollout is unlikely to be complete in Lambeth until June 2012. • Schools ICT currently supports strategic ICT integration in new building projects both BSF and in Primary Capital programme.
Current service users
• All Lambeth parents with children of statutory school age • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Special Educational Needs • Parents and Guardians
Expected impact on customer / user of service
The LA presently procures various ICT services and systems on behalf of schools and negotiate concessional deals, therefore the schools save money through aggregated procurement and the purchase of Management Information Systems. In order to continue to provide these savings we will need to go to tender. Schools becoming academies and exiting the LA licence have seen a huge increase in these costs. These create opportunities for traded services.
Page 189
In April 2011 a complex roll out of new LGFL broadband circuits for almost all Lambeth schools started. This rollout requires considerable input from the ICT team to ensure success. This rollout must be completed in Lambeth by June 2012.
Savings 2013/14 and 2014/15
In spite of the great uncertainty, an estimate of possible savings in subsequent years has been made. Possible savings are shown in the table below. They are highly speculative and are not to be treated as committed savings.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 40 17 10 67 TOTAL 40 17 10 67
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Strategic levers
Income
Traded services are expected to generate a total of £67k over the three (3) years through ICT managed services to schools.
Contracts
The LCLP service with RM is contractual till 2013/14, with the main element ending in July 2013.
Page 190
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Debbie Jones Director
Division ECCP Divisional Mike Pocock, Divisional Director, Education Estates & Capital Director Projects
Author Gerard Contact Programme Office Manager, Education Estates & Capital McCauley details Projects
02079269590 [email protected]
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: ______the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: ______process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title EECP Proposed Savings 2012 - 2015 Business Unit 475 – Schools’ ICT Proposal
detail Proposal – Traded service income generation
Savings Proposal: 33.3%
Cash Limit Budget: £201,000
Savings : £67,000 (cash limit)
The schools’ ICT team is principally responsible for • Curriculum ICT in both primary and secondary schools
Page 191
• Management information systems ICT in both primary and secondary schools • Management of the LCLP(Secondary ICT) • Strategic ICT integration in new building projects • Management of broadband and related services through the London Grid for Learning (LGfL) • e Safety – ensuring the safeguarding of all pupils from an ICT perspective including investigations where required • The team within this division was originally responsible for just secondary schools but in the phase 1 reshaping took on responsibility for primary schools without an increase in budget. Further pressure has come from the government’s ending of the Harnessing Technology Grant.
Specific Proposal for Schools’ ICT:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below:
Proposed Savings
Traded Total Service Services Proposed Area (£000) Savings Schools ICT 40 40
Note that this team manages the LCLP PFI contract where there is significant income shown both from the government (ring-fenced) and the schools (not shown as ring- fenced), to meet the contracted payments to the PFI provider (RM). There is no discretion in this and no opportunity to improve the income or reduce our related costs as all are subject to long term contracts. Similarly there is substantial income shown from provision of the LGfL broadband and related services. There is a very small margin on this service but no opportunity to improve it in the next three years.
The team currently has a small income from managing the broadband services and from running training programmes in International House.
This proposal is to significantly increase the income by • Managing the LCLP contract for academies • Trading services, principally to primary schools, to help them enhance their ICT, especially where expanding • Increasing the existing income from training
Opportunities for income will increase greatly when a new managed service replaces the existing one with RM from July 2013, so the financial position can improve significantly in 2013/14. The full team will need to be maintained to enable a satisfactory procurement.
Business Unit 475 – Education Capital Projects
Proposal - Reduction in Expenditure on Staffing and Local Education Partnership
Savings Proposal 2012/13: 29.3%
Page 192
Cash Limit Budget: £1.478m
Savings : £433,000, plus £285k from brought forward saving The Education Estates and Capital Projects (EECP) Division in CYPS has responsibility for the implementation and delivery of the departmental capital programme. This programme is primarily focused on planning and delivering much needed additional primary school places, investment in secondary schools and capital maintenance across the school and community estate. As well as planning how to meet future demand for school places responsibility for forecasting and all school admissions passed to the division in April 2011. Responsibility for all schools’ ICT passed to the division in October 2010. In spite of these increased responsibilities the division’s cash limit budget has reduced considerably in recent years as shown in the graph below, more than halving since 2007/08 and by 39% in the last year alone.
Revenue budget
7
6
5
4 £m 3
2
1
0 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Note that the division committed previously to savings of £250k for 2012/13, without having projected how they would be secured. The savings in the following sections include this figure which has now been demonstrated to be achievable but are not in addition to this figure.
The division has specific responsibilities in managing capital programmes, estates, admissions and schools’ ICT and with the possible exception of the latter these are not “services” that can be cut as they are volume dependent.
Note in relation to Support Services Review
A number of posts in the division are theoretically part of the support services review, due to involvement in part in financial, procurement or contract management activities. As (with the exception of the DD’s PA who provides essential support) they are all specialised posts forming an integral part of the division’s activities it seems extremely unlikely that, unless the whole of the division’s activities are to be centralised, they would be moved away from the division as it would be likely to actually lead to increased costs. This plan involves annualised savings of £60k amongst the staff theoretically affected so this figure would need to be considered to avoid double counting should any of these posts actually be affected.
Capital projects
Page 193
The division’s primary responsibility is for the implementation and delivery of the departmental capital programme. This programme is mainly focused on delivering much needed additional primary school places, investment in secondary schools and capital maintenance across the school and community estate. The team is also responsible for the Lilian Baylis PFI project. There is currently about £100m of secured work to be delivered by the team, most of it to critically tight programmes with key phases needing completion in September 2012.
With recent government announcements of basic needs funding, a new PFI scheme, and that funding for the next three years is likely to be similar to previous years, and that any national centralisation of major project delivery is likely to be delayed potentially even to 2015, there is likely to be significant further work coming to the team. Projections of workload show that with currently secured funding 2011/12 will deliver the highest workload ever, and 2012/13 is likely to be higher. It is essential to have sufficient staff to properly manage the projects to avoid delay, insufficient places being available in schools, and additional costs on the projects, which would have to be met by the council
Projected 13/14 Workload projections
60 Projected Cap Maintenance 50 12/13 Projected Primary 40 Exp 12/13
30£m Fenstanton Academy 20 Secondary actual/secured 10 Primary (+Comm) 0 actual/secured 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Specific Proposal for Capital Projects:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below:
Proposed Savings(£000)
Local Total Service Education Proposed Area Staffing Partnership Savings Project Delivery 56 80 136
Note that this team manages the LBTS PFI contract where there is significant income shown both from the government (ring-fenced) and the school (not shown as ring-fenced), to meet the contracted payments to the PFI provider. There is no discretion in this and no opportunity to improve the income or reduce our related costs as all are subject to long term contracts.
The following assumptions were made regarding cost savings from the division:
Page 194
• Current structure must be maintained until late 2012 to ensure current vital commitments are met in managing the phase 1 Primary Expansion Programme (PEP) and the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) phase 2. Once the programmes are completed, the division will be expected to reduce its staff numbers, but the extent will depend on the volume of future work. • Staff savings are therefore based on a small proportion of the projected annualised saving. • The Authority is successful in securing further basic need funding to permit the Phase2 PEP to proceed and address the huge demand for pupil places. • One further year of funding for the capital maintenance funding for 2012/13 at a similar level to 2011/12. • A further review of the structure will be necessary early in 2012/13 once it is clear what future funding will be and what are the government’s future plans for delivery of projects. • The proposals assume delayering at the end of 2012 • LEP shareholders agree to revised LEP arrangements with reduction in costs in part off-set by additional costs to Authority.
Current 2011/12 Saving Proposed 2012/13 FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 19 3.571 -2.093 1.478 0.433 29.3 15 3.138 -2.093 1.045* * Proposed budgets will be reduced by other committed brought forward savings of £285,000.
Business Unit 475 – Education Estates
Proposal - Reduction in Staffing and Security Costs, Income from Traded Services
Savings Proposal 2011/12: 27.7%
Cash Limit Budget: £743,000
Savings : £206,000, plus £215k brought forward savings
The Education Estates team is responsible for: • Management and rationalisation of all the CYPS estate including planning for future demands particularly provision of sufficient school places • Asset management and planning for all the CYPS schools and other buildings • Management of accommodation and associated health and safety aspects for all offices occupied by CYPS staff • Monitoring of health, safety and compliance in schools etc, ensuring, for example, compliance with asbestos, fire and Legionella statutory requirements • Securing funding for future investment including preparation of necessary applications, business cases etc A substantial part of the overall costs are in security and building maintenance of small properties.
Page 195
Specific Proposal for Estates:
The 2012/13 savings are detailed in the table below:
Proposed Savings Trade d Total Securit Servic Propose Service y es d Area Staffing (£000) (£000) Savings Estates 18 90 40 148
The following assumptions were made regarding cost savings from the division:
• Current structure must be maintained until late 2012 to ensure current vital commitments are met in planning the next round of school expansion projects, bidding for future funding and initiating the new arrangements once announced by the government.
• Substantial recovery of costs from schools in traded services relating to building management and safety compliance.
• The security cost are recovered from the disposal proceeds of the Beaufoy Centre and substantially reduced for the future.
Current 2011/12 Saving Proposed 2012/13 FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 9.5 0.811 -0.68 0.7 43 0. 206 27.7 8.5 0. 605 -0. 68 0 0.537* * Proposed budgets will be reduced by other committed brought forward savings of £215,000.
Business Unit 475 – Pupil Place Planning / Admissions
Proposal - None
Savings Proposal: 14%
Cash Limit Budget: £ 328k
Savings : £46,000 This team consists of a strategic lead, a pupil planning officer and the admissions team (9FTE). They are responsible for the educational input into all construction projects, projecting demand for school places (including providing information to DfE to obtain funding) to ensure sufficient provision, and school admissions.
The School Admissions Service provides a statutory service with regards to:
• Formulating and producing a Lambeth coordinated admission procedures for 3
Page 196
Pan-London Admission processes (secondary transfer, primary and junior admissions) as well as 2 other coordinated procedures (primary & secondary in-year admissions.
• Process between 35,000 – 45,000 preference applications per year
• Online admissions (a facility through which we receive up to 55% of our application for the Pan-London procedures).
• Attend between 80 plus (normally much higher) statutory admission appeal hearings per year.
• Produce statistics concerning coordinated admissions yearly for the Adjudicator, DfE and other stakeholders.
• Administer the child employment, child entertainment and chaperone licensing procedures
As a Local Authority, it is our duty to provide statutory education for all children of statutory school age who live in the local authority area. We must also, by law, provide a robust process for Lambeth resident families, so they are able to apply through Lambeth so as to access a school, regardless if the school is in Lambeth or not.
The admissions team is largely funded from the DSG
Specific Proposal for Pupil Place Planning / Admissions:
On reflection it is not proposed to make any reductions in 2012/13 for pupil planning or admissions.
Pupil place planning is vital to the council to ensure both that we make sufficient provision in the right place but also that we secure the funding from government for the necessary expansion to reduce the need to draw on council resources. This is an issue vital to parents and both a council and a CYPS core priority.
The admissions service is currently increasing its resources, despite the general reductions, in recognition of the significantly increased workload and that the team has not been able to deliver to the standard required without more staff. We are currently going through an improvement programme to improve the processes and equipment. This service is vital to parents and its work is greatly increased, and much more vulnerable to complaint, when there is a shortage of places, as at present. It would be a mistake to cut the resources in 2012/13 until it has caught up on all backlog, embedded improved practices and a proper efficiency plan can be instigated. It is also possible that from 2013 the government will reduce its role in in-year applications allowing a reduction in resource, but this will not be known for some time.
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gros Gross Net Net Chang FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) s incom budget budget e (No.) expen- incom budget expe e (£m) (£m) (%) diture e (£m) n- (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) 13 0. 702 -0. 374 0.328 0.046 14 13 0.6 56 -0. 374 0.282
Page 197
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Lambeth’s school aged population is very diverse with 58% of children and young people belonging to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities compared with 38% of the general population of the borough. There are even higher numbers attending our local schools with 80% of pupils being from a BME background. A significant number are children and young people from refugee and asylum seeking families. This has an impact on the level of mobility which can make it difficult to effectively target services to those most at need.
The ethnic composition of the schools’ population has changed since 2001, with the percentage of Black African pupils increasing from 22.1% to 23.7% during this time, while the percentages of Black Caribbean and White British pupils have continued to fall. The Portuguese community continues to grow in Lambeth. The percentage of Portuguese pupils has grown from 4.6% in 2001 to 5.2% in 2010.
The diversity of Lambeth’s population is a strength to be celebrated and reflected in all aspects of schooling but it does mean that a number of pupil groups have very specific needs and without dedicated and focussed intervention can underperform in relation to their peers. The diversity of Lambeth’s population is reflected by the exceptional number of languages and dialects spoken in Lambeth schools, with the Lambeth Pupil Survey of January 2010 recording 135 languages. Out of the 32,942 pupils recorded in the Pupil Survey, 15,638 pupils spoke or understood a language other than English at home. This represents 47% of the total respondents.
Portuguese is the most common language spoken by Lambeth pupils after English with 2350 (7.1%) of speakers. Somali is the second most spoken language with 1416 (4.3%) of speakers, closely followed by Spanish (4.1%) and Yoruba (3.9%).
Looked after children have specific needs and are prioritised by Lambeth Council in terms of admission to schools and are championed by the SEIS team.
Pupils with special educational needs who form about 27% of Lambeth’s school population have specific needs which all schools aim to meet and often need specific support to do so.
Business Unit 475 – Schools’ ICT
Current service users
• All Lambeth parents with children of statutory school age • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Special Educational Needs • Parents and Guardians
Timetable for implementation
Date Action
Page 198
Sept 11 Establish plans for traded services Nov 11 Initiate plans for procurement of new managed service Dec 11 Publish new traded services April 12 New traded services initiated July 13 New managed service commences
Business Unit 475 – Education Capital Projects Current service users
• Early years/Pre-primary services • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Community service providers (eg APGs) • Special Educational Needs • CME (Children Missing Education) • Parents and Guardians
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Oct 11 Resolve reduction in LEP cost May/July 12 Plan structure and initiate consultation after government announcements Dec 12 Staff reductions begin
Business Unit 475 – Education Estates Current service users (and those that rely on the work of the team)
• All Lambeth parents with children of statutory school age • Early years/Pre-primary services • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Special Educational Needs • Community estate teams eg APGs 1 O’Clock Clubs • Parents and Guardians, particularly in the planning of school provision
Timetable for implementation
Date Action Sept 11 Initiate plans for trading services Dec 11 Publicise plans for traded services and begin taking orders March 12 Reduction in ongoing security costs implemented May-July 12 Planning and consultation for revised structure
Business Unit 475 – Pupil Place Planning / Admissions
Page 199
Current service users
• All Lambeth parents with children of statutory school age • Legal & Democratic Services (appeals) • Early years/Pre-primary services • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Park Campus • Special Educational Needs • CME (Children Missing Education) • Neighbouring LA’s • All other LAs (with regards to the Pan-London Procedures) • Social Care • Employees, the entertainment industry and potential chaperones. • Parents and Guardians
Future users
The overall population projections for Lambeth suggest that, in spite of the difficulty in accurate forecasting, the dramatic increase in primary place demand will continue, with the shortage spreading to secondary places around 2015/16. A good measure of demand is the number of first preference applications to primary schools, which has increased by 791 (29%), or 27 forms of entry (FE), between 2006 and 2011. The increase in demand has been particularly acute in the south of the borough.
Live Birth Data – No of Births by Planning Area Planning Brixton Clapham Norwood Streatham North Total Area and Lambeth Stockwell 2006 1,284 1,034 706 851 715 4,589 2007 1,285 1,071 729 928 708 4,721 2008 1,273 1,065 772 1,016 732 4,857 2009 1,259 1,073 788 1,059 710 4,890 2010 1,277 1,075 818 1,084 690 4,944 % change -0.5 4.0 15.9 27.4 -3.5 7.7
It should be noted that these figures are based on registrations of births, whereas previous figures, have been based on notification by hospitals. Latest advice is that registrations are a more reliable source, although the figures, and particularly the trends, are similar from both sources.
Analysis undertaken Projections are based on a combination of GLA forecasts, projections from actual admissions data, and live birth data in the case of primary schools. GLA data has often under-predicted at primary stage, and so is no longer used for primary projections. Secondary projections are based on GLA data and cohort survival, where there is a closer correlation. This report takes account of a further year’s data in terms of both applications and live birth data.
Involvement and consultation process
Page 200
Consultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey No
Targeted Focus Groups No
General Focus Groups No
Other Methods Yes
If “other methods were used can you describe what these were: See below
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these?
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
The savings proposals for School ICT, Education Capital projects, Education Estates and Pupil Place Planning and Admissions has been communicated to all schools via decisions at Headteacher Council and Committees, Working Together events, discussions between the LA and Headteachers.
Consultation Findings
The main customers for EECP are schools. An impact of saving proposals has been sent to Lambeth Headteachers council executive.
Residents comment on education provision in the resident’s surveys.
The huge increase in applications for Lambeth school places further justifies not making reductions in 2012/13 for pupil planning or admissions.
Gaps in data
Data is not available for the following groups: Gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
The lack of data around religion or sexual orientation for Lambeth’s resident population; is an area for development for Lambeth. The Lambeth State of the Borough Report 2011 reports that in 2011 Lambeth council has commissioned further research on gender identity to quantify the transgender population within the borough and better understand their needs.
Section 2: Assessing the impact of the proposal
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Business Unit 475 – Schools’ ICT
The LA presently procures various ICT services and systems on behalf of schools and negotiate concessional deals, therefore the schools save money through aggregated procurement and the purchase of Management Information Systems. In order to continue to provide these savings we will
Page 201
need to go to tender. Schools becoming academies and exiting the LA licence have seen a huge increase in these costs. These create opportunities for traded services.
In April 2011 a complex roll out of new LGFL broadband circuits for almost all Lambeth schools started. This rollout requires considerable input from the ICT team to ensure success. This rollout must be completed in Lambeth by June 2012.
Expected impact on service
These proposals are planned to create significant income without a reduction in service levels. They will challenge the team but are deliverable.
However a reduction in budget beyond this level would lead to cuts in the Schools ICT service which would impact on teachers, School leaders, and learning outcomes for children and young people in Lambeth schools and thus also have political ramifications. Below are some of the critical work streams over the next 12 to 18 months
• With the deletion of the schools ICT Manager in the Standards team in 2010. Schools ICT support was cut by 1/3. The workload has increased for existing staff and become increasingly complex as Schools, ICT providers and internet service providers react to government policy, funding cuts and a drive for best value. • Lambeth’s schools ICT team manages a highly successful Secondary ICT Managed Service delivered through our partners RM. Further cuts to Lambeth Schools ICT will put in jeopardy the authority’s contractual requirements which contribute to the success of that service. • In addition the procurement of a self sustaining successor service, which binds all of Lambeth’s secondary schools together beyond 2013 could be compromised. The successor service could also benefit primary schools. • Schools ICT saves schools money through aggregated procurement and purchase of schools Management Information Systems. In order to continue to provide these savings we will need to go to tender. Schools becoming academies and exiting the LA licence have seen a huge increase in these costs. • In April 2011 a complex roll out of new broadband circuits for almost all Lambeth schools started. This rollout requires considerable input from the ICT Technical manager to ensure success. This rollout is unlikely to be complete in Lambeth until June 2012. • Schools ICT currently supports strategic ICT integration in new building projects both BSF and in Primary Capital programme.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 40 17 10 67 TOTAL 40 17 10 67 Note there is an opportunity to improve the income by between £40k and £70k in 2013/14 when a new managed service is expected to be provided for a wide range of schools.
Strategic levers
Income
Page 202
Traded services are expected to generate a total of £40k through ICT managed services to schools.
Contracts
The LCLP service with RM is contractual till 2013/14, with the main element ending in July 2013.
Schools’ ICT
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
Through the process of undertaking the EECP EIA it has been estimated that no equality group will be disproportionality affected by the savings for Schools ICT.
Business Unit 475 – Education Capital Projects Expected impact on service
The project delivery team is responsible for the management and delivery of the capital programme within CYPS. It has a primary responsibility of implementing the authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient and high quality school places. Reducing resources within this section will impact on the authority’s ability to project manage the school capital expansion programmes and the estates capital maintenance (essential major repairs) programme effectively, leading to increased risk of additional places not being available in time or school closure due to insufficient repairs. Ineffective management would lead to additional expense and delays due to increase in contractual claims. This in turn would put the Authority at risk by failing to meet its own obligations and divert scarce capital funds away from other Authority projects.
These proposals assume that the LEP costs will be reduced, with some compensating additional input from the authority. This should not have a negative effect on delivery of projects, but requires the agreement of the shareholders to the LEP.
The proposals assume that staffing is reduced late in 2012/13 (bearing in mind the major reductions in 2010/11) as the workload begins to diminish and that actual reductions will be adjusted to the volume with the major savings occurring in 2013/14. As such there should be no increase in risk to the delivery programme, although the existing tight budget and delays in recruitment have increased the risk.
Any further reduction would lead to a substantial risk that projects would not be delivered on programme or to budget causing authority funds being diverted away from other capital projects and insufficient places being available resulting loss of reputation and decrease in education standards.
Page 203
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Capital projects delivery (New Savings) 16 66 351 433 Capital projects delivery (B/fwd) 120 165 0 285 TOTAL 136 231 351 718
Capital impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Project 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 Although the revenue expenditure is at least in part dependent on the capital available they do not create a capital impact as such, or depend on capital investment. Asset impact Insufficient investment in the school estate will lead to poor quality buildings resulting in low staff morale, a reduction in educational standards obtained by the pupils, increase life cycle maintenance costs and risk of school closure.
Education Capital Projects
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
Through the process of undertaking the EECP EIA it has been estimated that no equality group will be disproportionality affected by the savings for Education Capital Projects.
Business Unit 475 - EECP Estates
Expected impact on service
These plans are largely based around reducing security costs and trading services. There is a small increase in risk of squatters, damage etc from reduced security costs. Trading services related to
Page 204
safety and compliance introduces risks as we need to ensure compliance regardless of payment, and will need to be more commercial in our approach than has been necessary hereto. However, other council services are beginning to successfully meet these challenges and this team must do likewise.
Further reductions would create serious risks, particularly in the planning and creation of additional school places, bidding for funding and assessing maintenance requirements. Good asset management will also help reduce overall costs in the council. The estates team within the division also ensures that the division comply fully with statutory requirements on fire, asbestos and legionella within the school and community estates. Cutting this service will compromise health and safety within our schools and lead to unnecessary legal challenges.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service – Estates (New savings) 18 33 155 206 Services – Estates (B/fwd) 130 85 0 215 TOTAL 148 118 155 421
Although the revenue expenditure is at least in part dependent on the capital available they do not create a capital impact as such, or depend on capital investment.
Asset impact Insufficient investment in the school estate will lead to poor quality buildings resulting in low staff morale, a reduction in educational standards obtained by the pupils and increase life cycle maintenance costs.
Strategic levers
Establishment
A reduction in staff structure is projected to achieve a £18k saving, with more in subsequent years.
Contracts
£90k saving proposal from security will be in part through renegotiating the current security contracts
Income
Traded services are expected to generate a total of £50k through providing asset and health and safety compliance by the Estates team.
Assets
Insufficient investment in the school estate will lead to poor quality buildings resulting in low staff morale, a reduction in educational standards obtained by the pupils, increase life cycle maintenance costs and potential school closures.
ECCP Estates
Page 205
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
Through the process of undertaking the EECP EIA it has been estimated that no equality group will be disproportionally affected by the savings for ECCP Estates.
Business Unit 475 – Pupil Place Planning / Admissions Expected Impact on Service
Were we to reduce resources the consequences would be likely to be:
• A reduction in pupil planning resource would lead to inaccurate projections for school demand
• Reduced funding for school expansion from government
• A reduction of admissions staff will impact on our ability to ensure children are placed in school in a timely fashion.
• Increase the risk of input error, maladministration and, as a result, breaching our statutory obligations regarding coordinated admissions.
• Increased complaints and reputational damage
Increase the risk of no offers: Fewer children will receive offers and those who do will not get these offers in a timely manner.
Untimely processing of applications: This will cause children to be out of school longer and the vulnerable can slip through the net.
The longer children stay out of education the more anxious parents become and the greater the impact on the child. This can have a significant impact on vulnerable children and can exacerbate their vulnerability.
Reputation management. The above will have a negative impact on the LAs reputation.
Inability to provided sufficient casework: All preference application is a potential case. Lambeth would be unable to manage those cases and provide appropriate casework for the benefit of the appeal hearings. This will potentially cause us to lose more appeals. etc
Untimely processing of applications: This will cause major issues when January PLASC is being submitted and vacancies cannot be filled in a timely manner
Reputation Management: Headteachers will have a negative view on the service, especially if their funding is impacted.
Losing appeals: Applications must be processed within a ‘reasonable’ time. If not, schools could be
Page 206
forced to take extra children via the appeal route as this will make the LA more vulnerable to challenge.
Breach of statutory admission arrangements with particular regard to coordinated admissions:
Breach of statutory deadlines: This will produce, what is commonly called, ‘show stoppers’. This simply means the whole of the rest of London may not be able to successfully administer the Pan- London procedures.
Reputation management issues: This would result in the potential investigation by the DfE and Office of Schools Adjudicator (OSA). OSA determinations are released in the public domain.
In respect of Employees, the entertainment industry and potential chaperones. - Inability to process applications for licenses: This would be in breach of the Council’s statutory responsibility. Inability to do on-site inspections/Safeguarding: Children’s safety would be greatly compromised
Pupil Place Planning / Admissions
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
Through the process of undertaking the EECP EIA it has been estimated that no equality group will be disproportionally affected by the savings for pupil place planning in 2013-14 and 2014-15. There are no savings proposed for 2012-13.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 0 29.5 16.5 46 TOTAL 0 29.5 16.5 46 Potential reductions from 2013/14, but largely in areas funded by grant. Savings probably between £10 and £30k on cash limit.
Due to the extreme diversity of the population in Lambeth, it is not possible to create educational establishments with a bias towards all demographic groups. New facilities are therefore being devised on an admissions policy which is inclusive of gender, race, faith and disability. Personalised learning will be developed through improved IT and teaching practices to make sure that each child’s learning experience is focused towards their requirements, aspirations and abilities. Break out areas are included in each building design to facilitate various groups getting together.
Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council departments or public
Page 207
bodies
Business Unit 475 – Education Capital Projects The proposal will not affect current construction contracts within the capital programme if resource reduction follows cuts in capital expenditure.
Business Unit 475 – Education Estates Refer to expected impact on service.
Expected impact on council workforce
The proposal will have an impact on staffing levels within the service. At the point of restructure an EIA will be undertaken.
Section 3 Mitigating actions
The proposed savings in School ICT and Pupil Place Planning/Admissions will have minimal impact on those children and young people who are attending schools in the borough.
Section 4 Links to other proposals Key information to include:
The Housing Benefit and sheltered accommodation cap by the Coalition Government.
Section 5 – Conclusion
The options proposed are the ones that we believe will have the least negative impact on our service delivery to schools, however, it is recognised that all cuts in service have some adverse impact. These proposals have focused around maintaining enough staff to provide the services we deliver. We are aware of potential negative impacts around potential reductions in the support staff service. There are concerns about how this provision will be made and the impact on the EECP team i.e. how it will affect our ability to pay invoice on time etc.
Given the savings required by the Department it was decided that there was no option other than taking this approach (as detailed in the ‘proposal detail’ section).
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Page 208
Mike Pocock Divisional Director Education Estates and 21/12/11 Capital Projects Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources or equivalent 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director 21/12/11 Peter Robbins / Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Rachel Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 209
Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
For submission to Cabinet/Council – February 2012
Department Children & Executive Debbie Jones Contact 69541 Young Director details People’s Services
Division Schools Divisional Cathy Twist Educational Director Improvement Services
Proposal title School Improvement Advisory Team including Ref 13 (510) Governor services, Research and Statistics and Traded Services
Description As a part of the Schools and Educational Improvement Service, the School Improvement Advisory Team shares the aims of the division to enable Lambeth children achieve their full potential by supporting and challenging schools to raise achievement and narrow the gap in achievement between pupil groups.
The team provides a range of services to support and challenge schools to improve their performance. It is responsible for promoting high standards throughout the Local Authority's schools, supporting schools to achieve best value and ensuring that all the available resources, particularly the professional skills, experience and abilities of staff, are used to raise standards of achievement. The team also provides the key challenge and intervention function to schools to ensure that they provide a high quality education and do not cause the LA or Ofsted concern.
The 2011-12 cash limit for the School Improvement is £1,117. The £117,000 savings outlined below would represent a further 10% reduction in the team’s remaining budget. Further to this, increasing academy conversion of schools is likely to reduce by 2% in 2012-13 the amount of grant funding that the team is able to use to support schools and pupils overall. . Since the most recent restructure in June 2011, the team has two vacancies for Schools and Educational Improvement Consultants in both the primary and secondary phases. The proposal here is to use these vacancies to meet the savings requirement for 2012-13. This will result in a further reduction in the Council’s capacity to support and challenge schools to continuously improve their education provision to Lambeth pupils.
The team is currently running at a greatly reduced level after the two previous restructures in 2010 and 2011. Rather than lose any more of its employed resource it would be make sense to offer these vacancies
Page 210
and look to alternative methods for fulfilling the work that these roles would normally carry out. Unfortunately, to further reduce from other areas of the team in 2013-14 and 2014-15 would leave school improvement work in a highly vulnerable position particularly in meeting its statutory responsibilities in relation to support and challenge for schools.
In 2011-12 the School Improvement Advisory service was added to the services traded by Lambeth Council to schools.
The Schools Traded Services section has a remit to support the development of the Council’s traded services offer to schools and increase income for the council whilst providing excellent quality and competitively priced services. It would not be viable option to cut this small service in its first full year of operation.
The Governor Support Service consists of two officers providing support to school governing bodies. The Governor support team offer for purchase a variety of support packages including training, advice and guidance.
School Improvement Advisory Team
Current Saving Proposed Year FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expen- income budget budget (%) (No.) expen- income budget diture (£m) (£m) (£m) diture (£m) (£m) (£m) (£m) 2012 -13 23.60 3.889 -2.894 0. 995 0. 11 7 12% 21.6 3.425 -2.547 0. 878 Ringfecd 12% grant reduction in DSG 2013 -14 21.60 3.425 -2.547 0. 878 (0) 0% 19.6 2.962 -2.084 0. 878 Rngfncd grant
2014 -15 19.6 2.962 -2.084 0. 878 (0) 0% 19.6 2.873 -1.995 0. 878 Rngfncd grant
Page 211
Timetable for implementation
Date Action 2012-13 Delete two Schools and Educational Improvement consultant posts 2013-14 Reduce grant allocation overall in line with any conversion of schools to academy status and consequent lack of retained funding- * 2014-15 Reduce by a further 3% through efficiencies. * * if more schools than predicted convert to academy status then this figure will have to be revised upwards
Page 212
Expected impact on service
The SEIS’s Schools Advisory Service is a highly regarded and effective support service to schools. There are currently no Lambeth schools causing concern to Ofsted and results at all key stages are above national averages. There will inevitably be a good deal of uncertainty over the quality and quantity of service we will be able to deliver which will be unsettling for schools particularly as an improved Traded Services offer to schools is being developed for implementation in January 2012. We are currently in a time of significant change for schools and the Local authority is keen to maintain good working and traded relationships with schools.
Current service users
The main customers for the SEIS are: • School leaders • Lambeth school pupils • Parents/carers • Governors
However, there are also specific groups of pupils with individual needs to whom divisional officers provide specific services, guidance and support. For example: ethnic minority pupil groups.
The service uses information that enables the council to clearly identify underperforming groups of children who might need additional support in schools. This analysis is used by Schools and Educational Improvement Advisers and Consultants to target support particularly towards numeracy and literacy which overall aims to impact on the council’s aim of narrowing the gap between groups of residents.
Expected impact on customer / user of service
Any change to how schools regard the Schools and Educational Improvement service would be very detrimental to the overall progress of schools
A reduction in the number of Schools and Educational Improvement Consultants would mean that Lambeth schools have less local expertise and knowledge within the LA to call upon to support specific learning needs for pupil groups which present a medium risk for schools. Schools can purchase from other providers but the LA would not be able to assure the quality of this support from external agencies.
Expected impact on commissioned / contracted bodies
N/A
Page 213
Mitigating actions
The main mitigating action is for the service to develop its brokering and commissioning role to enable schools to access good quality and experienced local expertise that can continue to support schools to maintain and improve standards of educational provision.
Other action might include sharing school advisory services with those of other neighbouring local authorities as a means of bolstering what is lost from the local authority. This presumes however that other local authorities have the resource and capacity to support schools in other authorities.
Joint working with other local authorities may realise benefits to residents and enable services to seek opportunities for growth over time. However, in the short term, support from these school improvement services for the council’s priorities might be negatively affected as it adjusts to a new way of providing it services.
Expected impact on Council’s outcomes framework
The SEIS contributes directly to the Councils priorities particularly that of becoming ‘An aspirational Borough’ where ‘every child and young person has a high quality education in a safe and supportive environment.’ The SEIS and CYPS overall is working towards the supporting priority of ‘raising achievement to narrow the gap in outcomes between children and young people’. SEI consultants support schools with literacy and numeracy programmes which aim to improve the educational attainment of children and young people and impact positively on their future life chances.
Further savings are likely to impact on these corporate and departmental priorities for children and young people particularly around their involvement in decision making, enjoying learning and fulfilling their potential in life.
Financial implications
Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k Service 117 0 0 117 TOTAL 117 0 0 117
Grant impact 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total £k £k £k £k 0 .0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
Page 214
Asset impact N/A
Strategic levers
Establishment: The proposal reduces the SEIS establishment by 2 key schools and educational achievement consultant posts in 2011/12. These are currently vacancies but their deletion will provide the 12% reduction.
Contracts: There would be no impact on current contracts by suggesting this proposal
Income: There will be an impact on income of reducing establishment as there will be two fewer experts to be purchased by schools.
Federated Services– the SEIS works with the South London Collaborative of boroughs- Lambeth, Lewisham, Greenwich and Southwark. These boroughs are actively looking to enhance their offer by working collaboratively across a range of school improvement activities.
Page 215
Consultation and Equality Analysis for Service and Financial Planning Proposals 2012/13 to 2014/15
Ensuring that Service and Financial Planning Proposals are consulted upon with the public and have undergone a thorough equalities analysis are key legal requirements for local authorities. To support council Departments in undertaking this work this template seeks to:
• Ensure the equality analysis undertaken by service managers takes account of the Public Sector Equality Duty and reflects legal guidance from recent Judicial Reviews. • Evidence the community engagement work undertaken to develop this proposal.
This analysis should build on the initial equalities analysis undertaken as part of the development of draft Savings Proposals – which were considered by Cabinet-SLB on the 8 September . It is important that this assessment is carried out in full as be presented to a wider audience for scrutiny and challenge. This analysis will be published and so needs to be completed in plain English.
Department CYPS Executive Director Debbie Jones
Division Schools & Assistant Director Cathy Twist Educational Improvement
Author Colm Doyle Contact details Business and Development Manager, Schools Traded Services
020 7926 8942
Equality DLT Date: 21 December 2011 Analysis to be discussed Scrutiny (please detail which scrutiny meeting) Date: 19 January 2012 at (this will be determined by Equalities Board Date: ______the results of the equalities filtering Corporate EIA panel Date: ______process which was sent alongside this template to departments)
Proposal title Schools & Educational Improvement Service (SEIS)
Proposal Background and context detail
The aim of the Schools & Educational Improvement Service (SEIS) is to help Lambeth children achieve their full potential by supporting and challenging schools to raise achievement and narrow the gap in achievement between pupil groups. The service provides a wide range of support and challenge schools to improve their performance including specialist education advice for all phases of education from Early Years to post-16; governance, research and statistics. Each school has an attached adviser who gathers soft and hard intelligence; intervenes or causes intervention where schools
Page 216
require additional support. The Schools Contracts Support team, the Schools Traded Service team and the Lambeth Music Service are also within the Division. The service is responsible for promoting high standards throughout the Local Authority's schools, supporting schools to achieve best value and ensuring that all the available resources, particularly the professional skills, experience and abilities of staff, are used to raise standards of achievement.
The service has 48.52 FTE. Many of these staff are funded from existing grants therefore the SEIS’s capacity to offer savings is minimal. The service relies mainly on dedicated schools grant (DSG) and the Early Intervention Grant (EIG) for its funding. The cash limit provided for statutory work is small and in 2011-12 the total for the SEIS division is £1.17 million. The £117,000 savings outlined below would represent a further 10% reduction in the division’s remaining budget overall. Further to this increasing academy conversion of schools is reducing the amount of grant funding that the division is able to use to support schools and pupils overall as outlined below 1. Ringfenced DSG
This reduction in DSG will impact on the amount of centrally retained items that the council can provide with the remaining DSG. It is expected that there will be a reduction in DSG funding to the division of 12% in 2012-13 and therefore any further reduction in cash limit is likely to have a significant impact on the work of the division.
2. Early Intervention Grant (EIG)
Currently the division receives 451k of EIG. By 2013-14, the EIG is likely to be replaced with a payment by results method of funding. If this diminishes further SEIS would find it difficult to provide anymore of its limited resource to make cuts and savings. However this cannot be confirmed until the government announces the funding allocations for 2013-14.
Impact on statutory responsibilities
There will be minimal impact on discharging statutory duties.
Service proposal The SEIS will not change significantly in its configuration or the scope of its work once the proposal has been implemented.
• Since the most recent restructure in June 2011, the division has two vacancies for Schools and Educational Improvement Consultants who work in both the primary and secondary phases. The proposal here is to use these vacancies to meet the savings requirement for 2012-13. This will result in a further reduction in the council’s capacity to support and challenge schools to continuously improve their education provision to Lambeth pupils. Education Act 2011 Section 33 (Duty to appoint school improvement partner): Local authorities no longer have a duty to appoint a school improvement partner (SIP) for each school which means the grant to support this crucial function has gone.
The division is currently running at a greatly reduced level after the two previous restructures in 2010 and 2011. Rather than lose any more of its employed resource it would be make sense to offer these two vacancies and look to alternative methods for fulfilling the work that these roles would normally carry out. Unfortunately, to further reduce from other areas of the division would leave SEIS in a highly vulnerable position particularly in meeting its statutory responsibilities around support and challenge and in
Page 217
the collection of data for schools.
The other services within the division including the School Contracts support, School Governors support and the Music service do not receive any support in the form of a cash limit and rely on school buyback and ring fenced grants to operate.
The current School meals contract cannot be renegotiated until after 2014, under the terms of the current contract. Ending the contract before August 2014 would be subject to substantial financial penalties. Consequently there is no opportunity for achieving any savings before this timeframe. After this time the responsibility for providing school meals would either be delegated to the individual schools to manage or the contract could be extended for a further period of five years.
General school contract management support to schools is traded successfully to schools and the income derived from this covers the costs of one officer and some of the administrative support costs of this service.
The Lambeth music service grant funding for 2012-13 will not be confirmed until early 2012 but it is likely to be a reduction on previous years. In 2011-12 aspects of the SEIS were added to the services traded by Lambeth Council to schools. The School Traded Services section has a remit to support the development of the council’s traded services offer to schools and increase income for the council whilst providing excellent quality and competitively priced services. It would not be viable option to cut this small service in its first full year of operation.
This will result in a further reduction in the council’s capacity to support and challenge schools to continuously improve their education provision to Lambeth pupils
Current Saving Proposed FTE Gross Gross Net Net Change FTE Gross Gross Net (No.) expend income budget budget (%) (No.) expendit income budget iture (£m) (£m) (£m) ure (£m) ( (£m) (£m) £ m ) 48.52 11,398 (10,228) 1,170 0. 117 10% 46.52 11,398 (10,228 1,053 )
Section 1 Developing the savings proposal: Service user profile and consultation results
Current and potential service users
Current users
The main customers for the SEIS are: • Schools (nursery and early years centres, primary, secondary, special and alternative education provision) • Lambeth school pupils • Parents/carers • Lambeth school governors who represent a wide spectrum of local residents • Narrowing the gap groups of pupils who may underperform in relation to their peers • Specific groups of pupils with individual needs: For example: ethnic minority pupil groups, pupils with
Page 218
English as an additional language, pupils on free school meals
Our child population is very diverse with 58% of children and young people belonging to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities compared with 38% of the general population of the borough. There are even higher numbers attending our local schools with 80% of pupils being from a BME background. A significant number are children and young people from refugee and asylum seeking families. This has an impact on the level of mobility which can make it difficult to effectively target services to those most at need.
The ethnic composition of the schools’ population has changed since 2001, with the percentage of Black African pupils increasing from 22.1% to 23.7% during this time, while the percentages of Black Caribbean and White British pupils have continued to fall. The Portuguese community continues to grow in Lambeth. The percentage of Portuguese pupils has grown from 4.6% in 2001 to 5.2% in 2010.
The diversity of Lambeth’s population is a strength to be celebrated and reflected in all aspects of schooling but it does mean that a number of pupil groups have very specific needs and without dedicated and focussed intervention can underperform in relation to their peers.. The diversity of Lambeth’s population is reflected by the exceptional number of languages and dialects spoken in Lambeth schools, with the Lambeth Pupil Survey of January 2010 recording 135 languages. Out of the 32,942 pupils recorded in the Pupil Survey, 15,638 pupils spoke or understood a language other than English at home. This represents 47% of the total respondents. Portuguese is the most common language spoken by Lambeth pupils after English with 2350 (7.1%) of speakers. Somali is the second most spoken language with 1416 (4.3%) of speakers, closely followed by Spanish (4.1%) and Yoruba (3.9%). Looked after children have specific needs and are prioritised by Lambeth Council in terms of admission to schools and are championed by the SEIS team.
Pupils with special educational needs who form about 27% of Lambeth’s school population have specific needs which all schools aim to meet and often need specific support to do so. .
The SEI Service prepares and uses data that enables the council to clearly identify underperforming groups of children who might need additional support in schools. Data can be found at: http://intranet.lambeth.gov.uk/StaffServices/BoroughMapsStatisticsSurveysResources/RSUEducation Statistics.htm This data analysis is used by Schools and Educational Improvement Consultants to target support in order to impact on the council’s aim of narrowing the gap between groups of residents.
Future users
The school population continues to be a needy and vulnerable one; schools in urban contexts are also very challenging places to teach in. Our aim is to continue to support future school leaders to be effective; to look ahead to population trends for example increasing numbers of specific groups of pupils following demographic changes and ensure schools are well placed to support them; to look ahead at national and local policy changes and ensure local schools are well prepared and do not cause concern to Ofsted or to local families. The school age population is growing rapidly and the diversity of school type is changing fast. Without a strong local oversight of schools strengths and weaknesses and intervention if necessary local communities will suffer. Strong schools are essential for the future health of the community.
Analysis undertaken
Detailed analysis has been carried out regarding population trends from GLA and live birth data; a detailed understanding of strengths and weaknesses of schools is in place; a range of research programmes on
Page 219
performance of specific groups has been carried out by Lambeth’s Research and Statistics team has taken place.
Involvement and consultation process
Cons ultation Method Yes/No
Residents Survey Residents comment on education provision and community cohesion Targeted Focus Groups Yes, headteachers
General Focus Groups Yes, school teachers
Other Methods Feedback from schools and governors If “other methods were used can you describe what these were:
The proposals for reducing the SEIS further has been communicated to all schools via decisions at Headteacher Council and Committees, Working Together events, discussions between SIPs and Headteachers
If “focus groups” were used who took part in these? Informal discussions between groups of headteachers and teachers
How did you ensure your consultation was accessible to all your service users?
Proposals for reducing the service were highlighted at the LA and Lambeth headteachers Working Together events
Consultation Findings
The main customers for SEIS are schools. An impact of saving proposals has been sent to Lambeth Headteachers council executive. Residents comment on education provision and positive activities for young people in residents surveys. The huge increase in applications for Lambeth school places is testament to the increasingly positive outcomes of Lambeth schools
Gaps in data
N/A
Section 2 Assessing the impact of the proposal
Page 220
Expected impact on customer / user of service
We are currently in a time of significant change for schools and the local authority is keen to maintain good working and traded relationships with schools. The SEIS is a highly regarded and effective support to schools. Results are above floor targets, the recent CSA judged schools ‘good’ and there are currently no Lambeth schools causing concern to Ofsted. With a 10% reduction in Cash Limit and a 12% reduction in retained DSG (due to academy conversion), there will inevitably be a good deal of uncertainty over the quality and quantity of service we will be able to deliver which will be unsettling for schools particularly as an improved Traded services offer to schools is being developed for implementation in January 2012. Any further reduction in resource will have a significant impact on the Division’s support and challenge function with schools. The service has already suffered two large cuts in staffing and is a quarter the size of the team in place just two years ago. More schools converting in 2013-14 and 2014-15 will reduce the DSG further. Working with other local authorities to provide school improvement services is in discussion but will take time to implement and therefore it is important that high quality support provided by the service is sustained.
POSITIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic
NEGATIVE IMPACT A Disability Gender Marriage/civil Pregnanc Ethnicit Religion Gender Sexual Socio- g reassignment partnership y & y & belief orientatio econo e maternity n mic X X X Expected impact on commissioned/contracted bodies, other council de partments or public bodies
The SEIS contributes directly to the Councils priorities particularly that of becoming ‘An aspirational Borough’ where ‘every child and young person has a high quality education in a safe and supportive environment.’ The SEIS and CYPS overall is working towards the supporting priority of ‘raising achievement to narrow the gap in outcomes between children and young people’. SEI consultants support schools with leadership, ethnic minority achievement, literacy and numeracy programmes which aim to improve the educational attainment of children and young people and impact positively on their future life chances. Further savings are likely to impact on these corporate and departmental priorities for children and young people particularly around their involvement in decision making, enjoying learning and fulfilling their potential in life.
Expected impact on council workforce
There will be a reduction in staff numbers by two FTE.
Section 3 Mitigating actions
Page 221
In line with the Learning Together Strategy which seeks to broker more school to school support there will be: • Additional brokered school to school support. • Additional support for schools re literacy and numeracy from remaining staff.
Section 4 Links to other proposals
N/A
Section 5 – Conclusion The options proposed are the ones that we believe will have the least negative impact on our children and young people – however all cuts in service have some adverse impact and it will mean that the Council has no immediate resource it can use in emergency to support schools that are struggling with for example literacy and numeracy issues. Support will have to be brokered and paid for- and sometimes this takes time.
Section 6 - Feedback and review – to be completed after the proposal has been considered by DLT or Corporate EIA Panel
Actions Required Requested at Budget Timeframe Lead Officer
Full assessment sign-off Name Title Date
Cathy Twist Assistant Director Schools and Educational 21/12/11 Improvement Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources and Strategy 21/12/11 Debbie Jones Executive Director, CYPS 21/12/11 Pete Robbins/Cllr Member (Lead Member, Scrutiny Chair or 4/1/12 Heywood Corporate EIA Panel Chair)
Page 222
Appendix 2 - Transformation and Efficiency portfolio savings
Lead BU Est. SFP SFP Later Dept / 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 code Comments savings 2010 2011 years Sponsor id’d Yes / £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 No Portfolio programme Predicted savings. Savings expected to be confirmed at the Customer Access F&R 2,000 400 600 1,000 2,000 No end of January when programme is re-scoped Commissioning 2011 F&R 1,000 1,000 1,000 Yes Savings confirmed
Predicted savings. Business Page 223 Support Services HRE 6,000 1,000 2,900 2,100 6,000 No case and savings expected to be finalised at the end of January The estimate is based on Efficient Resourcing – Phase proposals that senior managers ACS 266 266 266 No 2 have agreed to pursue for 2012/13 . Contracts and Procurement Savings currently represent 1% - current contract savings 6,400 Yes of influencable spend. Savings - contract cost reduction F&R 2,740 1,000 1,740 2,740 No will be firmed up as business case analysis is completed, likely to be by April 2012 Unlikely to deliver savings within Office Accommodation HRE 2,000 2,000 No the 3-year planning period Savings expected to be identified and confirmed in June 2012 Total FM F&R TBC when supplier is appointed. This represents a reduction in spend rather than base budget
Lead BU Est. SFP SFP Later Dept / 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 code Comments savings 2010 2011 years Sponsor id’d Yes / £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 No Total 14,006 3,666 5,240 3,100 12,006 2,000 Expected minimum savings. The Memorandum Item estimate is based on proposals ACS 1,035 344 345 346 1,035 End to End 7 that senior managers have agreed. 15,041 4,010 5,585 3,446 13,041 2,000
Page 224
7 Note that End to End savings are already reflected in the ACS departmental savings total but for completeness have also been included here to show the total T& E Savings.
Agenda Item 4 Page 225
b
Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub- Committee 19 January 2012
2011/2012 Budget Reductions Monitoring and Reporting
All Wards
Report authorised by : Executive Director of Children and Young People’s Service Debbie Jones
Executive summary
Lambeth Council is facing one of the most challenging budgets in its history with a savings target of £78.8m over the three years to 2013/14. The level of savings identified in 2011/12 equates to £37.2m. CYPS has provisional indicative savings targets of £11.65m in 2011/12. Delivery of these savings is paramount and focus needs to be on the implementation to ensure the council operates within its reduced budget.
As a result of the level of saving required and the associated speed of this change, the delivery tracker has been developed as the mechanism for monitoring and reporting the implementation of savings and resulting impact to service delivery. This will provide assurance that the Department is on track to deliver the level of saving approved within the budget report.
Of the £12.7m Agreed Savings Proposal for 2011/12, £9.0m has so far been achieved, with a remaining £3.7m left to deliver over the remainder of the financial year.
Summary of financial implications
The delivery tracker has been incorporated into the established financial monitoring cycle and governance arrangements within CYPS. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional financial burden placed on the Departments due to the use of the tracker. The delivery tracker will facilitate the identification of financial implications as a result of late or non-delivery of savings.
Recommendations (1) To recognise the value and structure of the delivery tracker and the method of providing assurance on the delivery of saving proposals. (2) To note the contents of the savings tracker for the 7 months to 31 October 2011 and progress CYPS has made in meeting the savings targets.
Page 226
Consultation
Name of Department or Organisation Date sent Date Comment s consultee response appear in report received para:
Internal DLT CYPS 22-11-11 Through out Farrukh Akbar Departmental Finance 22-11-11 Through out Mike Dickens Governance and Democracy 22-11-11 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 22-11-11 Councillor Peter Cabinet Member for Children and 22-11-11 Robbins Young People
Report history
Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 22.11.11 06/01/12 23/11/11 256/11-12 Report author and contact for queries: Dunni Komolafe, Head of CYPS Finance etc 020 7926 9732, [email protected]
Background documents
Budget report to council – 23 February 2011
Appendices
1. CYPS Delivery tracker summary report template 2. CYPS Performance Digest 2010-11 Quarter 4 report and summary
2 Page 227
2011/2012 Budget Reductions Monitoring and Reporting
1. Context
1.1 Lambeth Council is facing one of the most challenging budgets in its history. The Spending Review 2010 announced funding reductions to local government of 28% in real terms over the next four years. The local government finance settlement released on 13 December 2010 announced cash reductions in formula grant of 11.3% for 2011/12 and 7.4% for 2012/13.
1.2 This translates into a savings target of £78.8m over the three years to 2013/14. The council has identified £50.6m over this period through examination of key strategic business levers, however, due to the scale of the challenge, this may result in reducing or stopping some services.
1.3 The level of new savings identified by the Council in 2011/12 equates to £37.2m. There is also an additional £4m of savings for 2011/12 brought forward from previous years. Delivery of these savings is paramount and focus needs to be on the implementation to ensure the council operates within its reduced budget.
1.4 CYPS has savings targets of £12.70m in 2011/12, consisting of £11.65m savings targets plus £1.05m savings targets brought forward from the previous year.
Savings Savings targets 2011/12 (£)
Contracts 0.70m
Income Generation 0.28m
Establishment Efficiency 7.04m
Service Reduction 3.64m
Savings brought forward 1.05m
Total 12.70m
2. Monitoring delivery
2.1 After consultation with the Finance Strategy Board, Strategic Leadership Board and Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee, the delivery tracker has been developed to provide a consistent joined up view of savings delivery. By integrating the tracker with wider budget management and analysis of non-financial impacts, the tracker provides members and senior management with assurance on implementation.
2.2 The financial element of the tracker provides financial progress on a proposal by proposal basis and reconciles directly to the proposals presented as part of the budget report approved by council; it includes information on:
- the delivery status using the councils risk management framework
3 Page 228
- how implementation is progressing
- the level of saving achieved year to date
- forecast saving position to the year end
- forecast savings gap
The Delivery Tracker for October 2011 reporting the progress on the delivery of savings to Scrutiny is included as Appendix 1.
2.3 Of the £12.7m Agreed Savings Proposal for 2011/12, £9.0m has so far been achieved, with a remaining £3.7m left to deliver over the remainder of the financial year.
2.4 The overall 2011/12 forecast savings to be achieved by the department is currently £11.1m with £1.5m of the total agreed savings at risk as a result of the residual costs (PRS costs etc) related with Phase 2 of the CYPS departmental reshaping. The year to date PRS costs incurred from Staff that have left the organisation as of the end of October 2011 is £1.3m. The additional cost due to the delay in the restructure process will be managed by the Department.
2.5 The remaining £0.1m of agreed savings identified as being at risk relates to Traded Services income generation.
2.6 The savings proposals have been flagged with a RAG status highlighting the associated risk of achieving the full saving. The following proposals are currently deemed to have an Amber or Red RAG rating in terms of delivering the full saving:
••• RED – Reshaping CYPS – Phase IIb (£6.393m)
••• AMBER – Reshaping CYPS – Phase IIa (£0.645m)
••• AMBER – Social Care – Procurement, Contracting and Commissioning (£1.2m)
••• AMBER – Income – Schools Finance and HR (£0.277m)
••• AMBER – Youth Services - Adventure Playgrounds (£0.7m)
••• AMBER – Youth Services – Reduce HAP and Youth Centres (£1.045m)
••• AMBER – Consolidate Alternative Education Provision (£0.95m)
2.7 Appendix 1 details a full commentary on the current and expected outcomes of each proposal, any unexpected impacts not originally planned for and the mitigating actions that are being pursued to ensure the full saving is achieved.
2.8 The Programme Tracker (Appendix 2) is a separate tracker detailing the Transformational savings proposals within the department and the expected delivery of these proposals across financial year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The proposed savings for 2011-12 is £9.1m, which £6.2m being achieved year to
4 Page 229
date. It is expected that £1.5m of savings will be at risk due to the residual cost associated with implementing Phase 2 of the Reshaping CYPS proposal.
2.9 The combined finance monitor and delivery tracker will ensure that risk associated with the delivery of savings is managed alongside pressures outside of these proposals. This will provide a clear indication of the financial pressure that will have to be addressed either in year or factored into future saving requirements.
2.10 To further support robust tracking of proposals, reports will be fed up to Cabinet Member through updates in programmed meetings with CYPS DLT. This will provide the Cabinet Members with a clear line of sight off the impacts proposals are having within their areas of commitment and provide a flag for intervention where required.
2.11 The tracker will provide consistency in delivering saving proposals throughout the next 3 years and support ongoing service and financial planning as well as tracking the delivery of longer term projects contributing to savings in future years.
3. Finance Comments
3.1 It is not anticipated that there will be any additional capital or revenue financial burden placed on departments due to the use of the delivery tracker. The tracker will facilitate the identification of financial implications as a result of late or non- delivery of saving proposals. Included in the Delivery Tracker is a Management Action Plan section that will detail any additional proposals that have been taken to address any slippage in the overall delivery of the savings required.
4 Non-Financial Impact
It is important to assess the non-financial impact of the CYPS savings for customers to ensure the savings are not affecting customers in a detrimental way. The approach to assessing the non-financial impact of the savings involves the collation of various customer insight intelligence to understand the overall picture of impact. These include:
1. Analysis of PI performance from baseline figure of 2010-11 outturn and mapping trends on a quarterly basis to evaluate if performance has decreased and whether this can be attributable to the impact of savings proposals
2. Review of residents survey feedback from baseline figure of the Wave 8 residents survey (October 2011) and a quarterly analysis of trends over time to ascertain if residents feedback is becoming less positive over time
3. Review of customer complaints to assess if any service areas particularly impacted by the savings proposals are experiencing an increase in volume of service specific complaints
5 Page 230
4. Collation of service take-up data to assess the customer profile of services by equality strands over time
The services impacted as a result of savings that are a particular area for focus are: • Children’s Social Care placement budgets • Youth service, Holiday Activities Programme and Adventure Playgrounds • Young and Safe Programme • Streamlining of Alternative Education Provision (AEP)
4.1 Analysis of Performance Indicators
Currently there does not appear to have been a significant decrease in service performance to date, although this may change over time. The table below shows the baseline outturn of PIs, relating to service areas that have experienced savings, and the performance for quarter 1 of 2011-12 compared to this baseline.
Service Area PI Baseline – Quarter 1 – 2011- Quarter 2 – Outturn 2010-11 12 2011-12 Children Social SG19 % of SG19 – This data SG19 – Housing SG19 – Care children living in is taken from the are required to Housing are overcrowded 2001 census submit a P1E form required to social housing showing 20,350 to central submit a P1E placements children living in government on a form to central (arranged by the overcrowded quarterly basis. government borough) housing against a This data is on a quarterly total population of currently being basis. This
53,895 U18. collated. data is currently being
collated.
NI 62 Stability of NI 62 – 2.48% of NI 62 – 2.02% NI 62 – 6.49% placements of children had 3 or This is a looked after more placements running total children (number during the year – which will be of placements Q1 2010-11 formally measured at the end of the financial year. NI 63 Stability of NI 63 - 70.09% NI 63 - 69.64% NI 63 – 68.6% placements of of CLA (in care . looked after for 2.5yrs or children (length of more) were in placement placements for longer than two years Youth service, NI 117 16-18 NI 117 – 7.9% of NI 117 – 5.6% NI 117 – 7% Holiday year olds who are the 16-18 year
Activities NEET old population Programme and Take-up of events Approximately Outturn report for The HAP Adventure in Holiday 20,000 HAP attendance attendance
6 Page 231
Playgrounds Activities and attendances in will be available in data will be Summer 2010 September 2011 completed in
University Q3. From the Programme feedback received to date, numbers seem to be the same as 2010/11. Although there is Approximately Outturn report for A full service no indicators for 70,000 APG attendance was delivered APG take-up attendances in will be available in in Q2, with the 2010 September 2011 reduced service model being implemented in Q3. Given changes to staffing over the summer, the data for Q2 is not available however the indications are that attendances were same as in 10/11 and do not suggest any reductions.
7 Page 232
Service Area PI Baseline – Quarter 1 – 2011- Quarter 2 – Outturn 2010-11 12 2011-12 Young and Safe NI 19 Rate of NI 19 – 82.8 NI 19 – This target NI 19 - FTE proven re- average number is reported a data comes offending by of offences quarter in arrears from the police young offenders committed by so Q1 is not yet annually, nine previous available. months in offenders (10 to arrears. 17 yr olds) during the period NI 111 First time NI 111 – 228 NI 111 – Not yet NI 111 - FTE entrants into the (number of new reported data comes youth justice offenders per from the police
system aged 10- member of local annually – 17 population aged awaiting data 10 -17) NI 45 % Young NI 45 – 78% NI 45 – 63.8% NI 45 - 64% Offenders EET
Alternative NI 114 Rate of 2010-11 0.37% NI 114 – 0.12% 2011-12 data Education permanent of school will not be * This data is provision exclusions from population available until based on secondary school January 2012 secondary school (11-18 yr olds) population only: 10,512
School 2009-10 (1 year 2010-11 data will 2011-12 data attendance rates lag) not be available will not be until January 2012 available until Primary – 94.7% January 2012 Secondary 93.6% % pupils re Free FSM 2010-11 Pupil achievement 2011-12 data School Meals eligibility 33.9 data for analysed will not be (FSM) Special by FSM, SEN, available until SEN 2010-11 Educational English fluency January 2012 Primary 24.2% Needs (SEN), and school type Secondary English fluency by will not be 30.4% school type available until 2010-11 January 2012
English as first (school census language 54.1% data).
Overall, there is no overall pattern of significant reductions in PI results for the services impacted by savings in 2011-12. There has been a significant change for NI 62: Stability of placements of looked after children (number of placements). Data has increased as a result of changes in the calculation of the performance
8 Page 233
indicator to show a running total of placements – this will be formally measured at the end of the financial year.
4.2 Equality assessment
An Equality Impact Assessment was completed for the CYPS reshaping process and resulting savings proposals.
Key findings revealed that ethnicity is the key equality group that is most affected by the proposals, largely because BME children and young people are overrepresented in those groups requiring specialist services such as children’s social care, Young and Safe Programme and Youth Offending Services; and also because these groups tend to utilise universal services such as APGs, youth services (including youth centres), Holiday Activities Programmes to a greater degree.
Socio-economic factors are a contributory factor in determining the children and young people that require CYPS specialist and targeted services i.e. those in receipt of these services typically come from lower classification of social- economic backgrounds. The CYPS savings proposals focused on early intervention and prevention to ensure those children and young people from more deprived backgrounds are given support at the right time to increase their aspirations and life chances. The formulation of Lambeth’s Child Poverty Reduction Strategy, a multi-agency approach to addressing child and family poverty, and the Multi-agency early intervention team approach are key strands in the early intervention approach.
Gender, disability and age equality groups are not substantively affected by the proposals. Specific proposals will impact on equality groups in different ways depending on the customer profile for individual services. CYPS will continually monitor the impact of changes in the way services are delivered through customer feedback and compilation and evaluation of customer access data. The impact of savings on equality groups is currently being evaluated, through analysis of service take- up by equality strands, the analysis should be available for the next report.
4.3 Analysis of resident survey
The quarterly resident survey is sent to both adults and about 125 young people aged 11-19. Key questions which we will be monitoring include satisfaction with services in local area, and feedback on for the services that have been impacted by the savings proposals.
Key findings from the 2011-12 residents’ Wave 8 survey included:
• Overall young people feel that the most important service delivered by the Council are programmes that help unemployed young people find work, this is followed closely by leisure and sports facilities and advice and guidance on sexual health, drugs etc.
9 Page 234
• Young people feel that homework clubs and music sessions are the least important services which the Council provides, art and drama classes closely followed.
• Young people’s involvement in activities is declining with outdoor and sports activities being the most popular.
The table below shows young residents’ usage and opinions on services provided by the council which will be affected by budget reductions:
Questions Baseline - Wave 6 Comparator - Wave 7 Comparator - results January 2011 Results April 2011 Wave 8 Results August 2011 1. Which, if any, of these services provided by Lambeth Council have you used in the last twelve months? Playgrounds and play 31% 31% 41% areas Parks and open spaces 51% 56% 67% Activities for young 28% 15% 18% people Connexions (information and advice 17% 12% 11% centre) Leisure and sports 43% 31% 41% facilities 2. What is your opinion of ... ?
(% that scored Good or bette r) Parks and open spaces (2005 and 2003 wording was "parks, 54% 73% playgrounds and open spaces") Only collected every Activities for young six months. Next people 50% results will be from the 44% July survey Connexions (Information and advice 38% 37% centre) Leisure and sports 56% 59% facilities 14. Which, if any, of the following have you either seen or have 9% happened to you in
Lambeth in the past 12 *new question for months? Knife and gun Wave 8 crime
10 Page 235
18. Now thinking about Programmes to all the young people in help young Lambeth, which of unemployed these activities, if any, people find work: are the most important 39% for Lambeth Council to provide? You may Advice on health, choose up to three including sexual health and
substance misuse, e.g. drugs: 36%
Courses which allow you to gain qualifications: 34%
*new question for Wave 8
For the Wave 8 (August 2011) of the young people’s survey some new questions were added to help identify impact of service reductions. These additional questions have helped CYPS attain a detailed picture to help understand whether residents’ satisfaction has been affected by the savings proposals.
It is interesting to note that survey results have shown participation in Playground and Play Areas and Parks and Open Spaces has increased by around 10% between wave 7 and 8 even though reduced opening hours for APGs resulted form the savings. Similarly, the satisfaction with Parks and Open Spaces has increased from 54% in Wave 6 to 73% in Wave 8.
A new question was added to the Wave 8 survey asking young people about knife and gun crime. Results show this is an area of concern as 9% of young people stated they had seen or experienced knife or gun crime in the last 12 months. Another new question asked which activities are the most important for Lambeth Council to provide. This provided useful data revealing that young people rated their top 3 as:
• Programmes to help young unemployed people find work: 39% • Advice on health, including sexual health and substance misuse, e.g. drugs: 36% • Courses which allow you to gain qualifications: 34%
Results for this question are not surprising in light of the current economic climate.
4.4. Customer feedback via complaints:
There has been no noticeable increase in complaints for areas: Youth service, Holiday Activities Programme and Adventure Playgrounds; Young and Safe Programme; Streamlining of Alternative Education Provision (AEP). As stated in the last report early in the year there was a noticeable impact on customer complaints levels resulting from a change of policy to address funding reductions and pressures in Children’s Social Care. The change of policy with the Specialist
11 Page 236
Services Division meant that as of January 2011 children who had been looked after by Lambeth were no longer entitled to have their accommodation rent paid for by Lambeth while they studied at university. Instead they where required to apply for student loans, maintenance grants or work part-time to support themselves. As a result of this change in policy, Lambeth received an increase in complaints. There has also been an increase in complaints regarding the specific issue of ceasing to fund children looked after term-time accommodation whilst they are at University.
5. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy
5.1 The Council has a duty to maintain a balanced budget throughout the year and, accordingly, members are required to regularly monitor the Council's financial position in accordance with section 28 of the Local Government Act 2003. In considering the implementation of the Council’s financial strategy for 2011/12, members will need to balance the proposed level of expenditure in discretionary areas of service provision against that required to ensure that the Council complies with its statutory duties. It is essential, as a matter of prudence, that the financial position continues to be closely monitored. In particular, members must satisfy themselves that sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure both that savings are delivered and that new expenditure is contained within the available resources.
6. Results of consultation
6.1 The delivery tracker has been discussed at a number of internal management boards including the Finance Strategy Board and Strategic Leadership Board. The Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee have also been consulted.
7. Organisational implications
7.1 Risk management: The delivery tracker provides assurance on the actual delivery of proposed savings. The tracker will highlight the risk of late delivery and any resulting financial implications.
7.2 Equalities impact assessment: None.
7.3 Community safety implications: None.
7.4 Environmental implications: None.
7.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: None.
7.6 Any other implications: None.
12 Page 237
8. Timetable for implementation
7.1 The delivery tracker will be a brought to future meetings of the Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Committee on regular basis
13 Appendix 1 CYPS Departmental Proposal delivery as at October 2011
The Deliverables Financial Progress Narrative Ref Proposals Project Branch Officer Proposed Delivery Lever Agreed Savings Remaining Forecast Forecast Percentage Likelihood Impact Delivery Status Revised Current Status of Outcomes Expected Outcomes or Impact Unexpected Impact not Planned for Mitigating Actions responsible for Month Savings Realised savings to saving by Variance Variance Delivery delivery Proposal YTD deliver 31/03/12 Date Value 11/12 (£'000s) (£'000s) (£'000s) (£'000 s) 9,12,17,18 Phase IIa - Senior Reshaping CYPS April 2011 ongoing Establishment £645 £495 £150 £645 £0 0.0% Very Likely Major AMBER Phase 2a savings for 2011-12 have been achieved, however there will Management posts be additional costs relating to monthly salary and total PRS costs. The rag status risk rating shown in the delivery status column signifies the level of risk and complexity in the proposal.
4,8,10,11, Phase IIb Reshaping CYPS June 2011 ongoing Establishment £6,393 £4,785 £1,608 £4,893 £1,500 23.5% Very Unlikely Major RED Phase 1 savings achieved. Part of Phase 2 savings have been Due to the timing lag of implementing Phase 2 and residual cost of restructure it is estimated The department continues to try to mitigate the pressure by a 14,25,26- achieved. Staffing cost for leavers incurred April - Oct is £527k. PRS that £1.5m of savings is at risk. Additional PRS costs incurred above the £1.5m will be met number of actions including: holding non-essential vacancies, 29, costs incurred YTD £1.3m (£420k of this is shown under the 'Reduce' within individual service areas. reducing expenditure, delaying non-essential costs. reducing savings Lever within the Consolidate AEP and Youth Services agency staff and other service specific actions. Phase 3 proposals). restructure may need to commence earlier if Departments is to realise full-year savings
13,15 Social Care Procurement, A Adetosoye May 2011 ongoing Reduce £1,200 £942 £258 £1,200 £0 0.0% Very Likely Major AMBER Savings likely to be achieved, the re-negotiating of existing third Savings likely to be achieved, the re-negotiating of existing third party contracts is ongoing. Meetings are being held with provider and third parties in order Contracting and party contracts is ongoing. The rag status risk rating shown in the to negotiate for lower prices. SSC and ACS are involved in a joint Commissioning delivery status column signifies the level of risk and complexity in the commissioning process in the bid to drive down costs. proposal.
1,2,3 Income (Schools Finance Traded Services F Akbar, C March 2012 Income £277 £6 £271 £177 £100 36.1% Unlikely Serious AMBER SEIS on course to meet increased income targets, however these will R&S unlikely to meet traded services income target as more Schools convert to Academy Schools have converted to Academies R&S have a PDC action plan in place. Will have secured and HR) Twist not be realised until quarter 3; schools have signed up to proposals. status and increased competitive pressure from other suppliers who are reducing prices. and are choosing to buy externally, temporary catering services for the start of new academic year. R&S unlikely to meet traded services income target as more Schools The lack of catering facilities in IH have had detrimental effect on demand for room/course this was not envisaged when the Will be marketing IT courses externally in order to attract convert to Academy status and do not renew and as a result of bookings within R&S. SEIS likely to achieve as various schools have entered into contracts savings target was set. School clusters delegates. A complete review of our pricing structure has been increased pressure from competitors who are reducing prices. with Lambeth in respect of Schools Advisory services, Governors support, Learning and academies are looking to undertaken to ensure that our room hire costs remain Existing clients are requesting price reductions and we have lost 2 Consultants, Learning Mentors and the provision of Research and Statistics. It is anticipated Business Managers to source cheaper competitive against similar venues in the area. Consideration has contracts on that basis as they moved to cheaper suppliers. There is that uptake would increase as more schools are brought into the contract as they become service providers. There has been a also been given and will be part of the PDC marketing leaflets to great uncertainty amongst schools in trading with LA as through LA aware of the quality and timely delivery of these services. These services are susceptible to loss of 3 rooms in the PDC affecting its let out the PDC rooms for private functions. A brochure has been offering more traded services, schools are altering their purchases to increased competition from external providers but Lambeth's long term relationship with ability to generate income. The sent out in the Working together documents. A new contract has buy more of the new school improvement services. The lack of clients should help to prevail in the sector. Service would be expected to increase revenue termination of the Corporate catering been obtained with caterers to replace corporate contract which catering facilities in IH have had detrimental effect on demand for base by extending coverage to other boroughs.Research and Statistics is a knowledge contract has also had a detrimental was terminated wthout notice. New furniture has been placed in room/course bookings within R&S. The rag status risk rating shown based area where Lambeth's historical relationship with our schools provides us with effect on room bookings. In R&S the the reception area. External marketing and advertising strategy is in the delivery status column signifies the level of risk and complexity competitive advantage in terms of adequate and up to date data on schools. current reduction in spend on training being reviewed to include internet + classifieds. Planning in the proposal. activity specifically IT courses will also marketing mailshots in September to schools not within SLA to have an impact on ability to achieve raise profile of service. This will not only be done in Lambeth, but increased income levels. in Sutton and Wandsworth. The aim is to also keep those schools that buy into the SLA already. A meeting has been called with key school staff to promote services. Page 238
5,6,19 Youth Services Youth Services S Morrison March 2012 Reduce £1,745 £820 £925 £1,745 £0 0.0% Very Likely Major AMBER All APGs staff have been TUPEd and transferred to Lambeth Play The delivery of savings within the APGs and HAP may cause unanticipated political risk to Early Intervention and Play Services has received the one-off of Association in order to support delivery of £700k savings. Holiday the Council as well as lead to further pressures in other services at the fore front of £300k additional funding agreed by members for transitional Activity Programmes (HAP) scaled back in summer to deliver Community Partnerships within the Council. The delivery of savings would also be programme in 2011/12 as at the end of August. The additional savings target of £45k. APGs secured extra £300 k to mitigate financial dependent on the level of repairs and maintenance at APGs remaining at current level. An resource would be used to embed required changes within APGs pressures of restructuring and transformation as early adopter of Co- adverse winter may result in essential and costly repairs impacting on the health and safety and help deliver the savings target required from APGs within the operative Council. Salary cost as at October for APGs is £449k. of APG users which may offset gains resulting from the transfer of APG staff to Lambeth overall CYPS business plan for the financial year. [Redundancy Cost £144k] Youth Centres [IYYS] will run on a part- Play Association. time basis within the Co-operative model and may delivered on the basis of a staff mutual run by former Youth Workers employed by Lambeth . Staffing costs YTD as at October was £536k (Redundancy & strain on pension is £75k) for the Youth Services [£1.045m savings]. IYS restructure phase 2B was completed in September resulting in 200% jump in redundancy payments from £25k to £75k. Redundancies in APGs and Youth Service should accelerate the rate of delivery of remaining savings. Timetable for the Co-operative Council in unconfirmed. RAG indicates the level of risk and complexity of current proposals.
16 Young and Safe Youth Services S Morrison April 2011 Reduce £150 £88 £62 £150 £0 0.0% Guaranteed Signific GREEN Achieved Achieved ant 20,22 Consolidate Alternative Consolidate S Morrison March 2013 Reduce £950 £595 £355 £950 £0 0.0% Likely Major AMBER The OLIVE School has now closed. All Teaching staff reductions From September, all teaching & admin staff affected by Phase II will have left the Discussions are due to take place with other LA's in order to Eductation Provision Alternative were delayed until the end of August 2011 as per Teachers terms and organisation. Closure of the Olive school will result in no further expenditure against the indentify additional ways of making savings, the use of Agency Eductation conditions. Expected non staffing running costs for the site are site, it is therefore that the this portion of the saving will be achieved. The achievement of staff also expected to reduce in the Park Campus as staff Provision currently forecasted to be £33k. Savings will also be achieved the remainder of the savings will depend on the success of the items outlined under vacancies were filled from a number of staff transferred from the through reducing the running cost of Park Campus and Kennington mitigating actions. OLIVE. Also the Divisional Director and Heads of Service are Park sites. AEP staffing costs for leavers between April - October exploring the rationale behind Corporate Recharges charged to 2011 is £207k. The rag status risk rating shown in the delivery status Business unit. The Bu is currently exploring the possibility of the column signifies the level of risk and complexity in the proposal. PRS in-year Business Rates exemption from the OLIVE being offset costs incurred YTD £201k. against the Park Campus 2011-12 charge given that the OLIVE closed in June.
21 Educatioal Psychology Educatioal S Morrison March 2012 Reduce £50 £0 £50 £50 £0 0.0% Unlikely Minor GREEN It has been decided to generate additional £50 k income to achieve the Maternity cover will be needed to Recruitment will be managed to help achieve the saving. Service Psychology Service saving. No savings have been achieved YTD. The rag status risk cover a number of staff on maternity rating shown in the delivery status column signifies the level of risk leave. and complexity in the proposal.
23 Grants Maximisation Grants S Morrison March 2012 Reduce £100 £58 £42 £100 £0 0.0% Likely Signific GREEN On track to achieve savings, portion of EIG will be used to cover Savings will be achieved through the recovery of management cost from grants within the Maximisation ant salary cost. Division. 24 Practice Development Grants S Morrison March 2012 Reduce £140 £140 £0 £140 £0 0.0% Likely Signific GREEN Savings achieved through transfer of costs to grant (DSG and EIG) Achieved Maximisation ant CF1 Consultancy & Staff Cost March 2011 Brought Forward £103 £103 £0 £103 £0 0.0% Guaranteed Signific GREEN Achieved Achieved Savings ant CF2 Admin & Management March 2011 Brought Forward £625 £625 £0 £625 £0 0.0% Guaranteed Major GREEN Achieved Achieved Savings CF3 Young & Safe Service March 2011 Brought Forward £100 £100 £0 £100 £0 0.0% Guaranteed Signific GREEN Achieved Achieved Reduction Proposal Savings ant CF4 Invest to Save - Foster March 2011 Brought Forward £220 £220 £0 £220 £0 0.0% Guaranteed Serious GREEN A return of budget from a completed Invest to Save project Achieved Carers Savings
Agreed Proposal Total: £12,698 £8,977 £3,721 £11,098 £1,600 12.6%
14 Appendix 2 - Programme tracker CYPS Departmental Proposal deliveryOctober as at 2011
The Deliverables Financial Progress Narrative Ref Project/Theme Term of Project SFP Savings Business Case SFP Savings Business SFP Savings Business Case SFP Saving Remaining Business Actual Budget Forecast Costs Forecast Forecast saving by Forecast Forecast saving by Forecast Likelihood Impact Delivery Status Revised Project/Theme Proposal Value Savings Value Proposal Case Savings over lifetime Savings over Realised YTD saving Case Saving Costs Costs Costs over 31/3/12 Variance 11- 11/12-13/14 Variance 11/12- Delivery Date Comments 11/12 11/12 Value 11/12- Value 11/12- of lifetime of (£'000s) to deliver Realised YTD (£'000s) (£'000s) lifetime of (£'000s) 12 (£'000s) 13/14 (If appropriate) (£'000s) (£'000s) 13/14 13/14 Project/Them Project/Theme (£'000s) (£'000s) Project/The e (if different then 3 me (if different year) then 3 year) 9,12,17, Reshaping CYPS 3 Years £7,038 £7,038 £7,538 £7,538 £5,280 £1,758 £5,280 £1,092 £0 £1,500 £5,538 £1,500 £6,038 £1,500 Very Unlikely 4 Major 8 RED Phase 2a savings for 2011-12 have been achieved, however there will be 18,4,8,1 additional costs relating to monthly salary and total PRS costs. The rag 0,11,14, status risk rating shown in the delivery status column signifies the level of 25,26- risk and complexity in the proposal. Phase 1 savings achieved. Part of 29, Phase 2 savings have been achieved. Staffing cost for leavers incurred April - Oct is £527k. PRS costs incurred YTD £1.3m (£420k of this is shown under the 'Reduce' savings Lever within the Consolidate AEP and Youth Services proposals). Due to the timing lag of implementing Phase 2 and residual cost of restructure it is estimated that £1.5m of savings is at risk. Additional PRS costs incurred above the £1.5m will be met within individual service areas. The department continues to try to mitigate the pressure by a number of actions including: holding non-essential vacancies, reducing expenditure, delaying non-essential costs. reducing agency staff and other service specific actions. Phase 3 restructure may need to commence earlier if Departments is to realise full-year savings
1,2b Traded Services 3 Years £277 £277 £577 £577 £6 £271 £6 £0 £0 £177 £100 £577 £0 Unlikely 3 Serious 4 AMBER 30/09/2011 In 2011/12 £100k of savings relates to new income generation realised through the shared and traded services offered by School and Educational Improvement Services. This service will be available to schools, academies and beyond. The Schools Finance Team will also provide a buy- back service providing financial consultancy service to schools. Both the Schools Finance team and Schools HR are expected to generate revenue savings of £50k in 2011/12, £50k in 2012/13 and £50k in 2013/14. Invoicing for all services will begin from September 2011 onwards in line with the start of the new academic year. Regarding the PDC income generation proposal there is a potential risk of lack of catering facilities, lack of Parking, reduce training budgets and loss of training rooms in IH may have a detrimental effect on demand for room/course bookings within R&S. The PDC has a revenue savings target of £77k in 2011/12 then a further £50k in 2012/13 and 2013/14
CF2 Schools standards and 1 Year £0 £60 £60 £60 £60 £0 £60 £0 £0 £60 £0 £60 £0 Very Likely 1 Minor 1 GREEN Re-structuring of the School Standards & Improvement Service to achieve improvement a 25% reduction in divisional cash limits. This has resulted in the reduction in the fte at Administration and Management level. Page 239
5,19 Youth Services 1 Year £1,045 £1,045£1,045 £1,045 £545 £500 £416 £397 £0 £0 £1,045 £0 £1,045 £0 Very Likely 1 Major 8 AMBER The Youth Serice has savings of £1,045k. The savings on the holiday programmes has been realised through a reduction in service provided. However, the larger savings relate to salaries and are achieved via reduction in staff. All interviews have been completed and staff have been notified of their success or redundancy. Most staff are working their period of notice and there are several appeals against redundancy. Therefore, the savings for the full year of salaries will not be realised. It is projected that between 50% and 60% of savings against salaries will be realised.
6 Adventure Playgrounds 1 Year £700 £700 £700 £700 £275 £425 £275 £291 £0 £0 £700 £0 £700 £0 Very Likely 1 Major 8 AMBER The proposal is to save £700K in 2011/12 by significantly reducing the opening hours (from 5 days to 1 day) and staffing of the 7 council managed APGs. The new model was put into place in September and from 3 October the reduced services is run by a commissioned service provider (Lambeth Play Association). As a Co-operative Council early adopter, service delivery will be externalised in 2012-13. A one-off of £300k has been agreed by members for a transitional programme which will assist to achieve the full saving this year.
Children's Centes £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 0 0 Funded through EIG therefore there are no foreseeable cash limit savings. Central government have made statement to guarantee the EIG until 2014. Saving proposals for children's centres for 2012-13 amount to £1.375M. A number of options for making the savings have been drawn up and will be consulted on to establish a different delivery model to deliver these savings.
15 Page 240
This page is intentionally left blank Page 241 Agenda Item 5
Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub Committee 19 January 2012
Special Education Needs in Lambeth – phase I
All Wards
Report authorised by : Executive Director Children and Young People’s Services: Debbie Jones
Executive summary
Special Educational Needs (SEN) in Lambeth relates to provision, strategy and systems and processes and finances. SEN in Lambeth is predicated on a philosophy of Inclusion that strives to ensure that the needs of pupils are met in borough and where possible within a mainstream school. Scrutiny received a report in June 2011 that set out a range of issues that prompted the instigation of a comprehensive SEN review. This report provides feedback to CYPS scrutiny committee on phase 1 of the review which involved speaking to a wide range of stakeholders about these issues. In addition a large amount of data was analysed and informed the process and the findings this data is being collated and will be available on Lambeth’s intranet site by the end of the month. The end of phase I has identified key areas for action and a work plan has been drawn up to ensure that the issues raised in phase I of the review are addressed and any recommendations are implemented. This work plan is presented to the committee for scrutiny and comment.
Summary of financial implications
The Council spends a significant amount each year in meeting the needs of pupils with SEN. This does not include the funding that is spent in Specialist and Commissioning Division to support children with disabilities and their families. (It is acknowledged there is a very small overlap of young people who are supported by the Children with Disabilities (CWD) team who also have a statement of SEN). A review of the borough’s arrangements is required to ensure they remain effective and efficient and provide value for money. The strategic financial planning arrangements have identified £600k savings over the next three years as a result of changes in the transport policy. However, it is anticipated that the SEN review will realise £2.3m efficiencies or reduction in existing expenditure.
Recommendations (1) Scrutiny receives the outcome of phase 1 of the SEN review. (2) Scrutiny receives a presentation on the key messages from phase 1. (3) Scrutiny receives a copy of the proposed work plans (appendix 2) that will support the implementation phase II of the SEN review.
Page 242
Consultation
Name of Department or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee response appear in report received para:
Internal Debbie Jones Executive Director of CYPS 08.11.11 14,11.11 Throughout Ade Adetosoye Divisional Directors, CYPS 14.11.11 16.11.11 Mike Pocock Divisional Director, CYPS Cathy Twist Assistant Director ,CYPS Nandita Sirker Assistant Director CYPS Alison McKane Governance and Democracy 14.11.11 15.11.11 Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director Resources & 14.11.11 14.11.11 Recommendations Dunni Komolafe Strategy, CYPS 14.11.11 14.11.11 summary of financial implications. Para 4 Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 14.11.11 14.11.11 Para 4 Cllr Pete Robbins Cabinet Member for CYPS 14.11.11 15.11.11 Cllr Ade Aminu Deputy Cabinet Member for CYPS 14.11.11 15.11.11
External
Report history
Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 07.11.11 06.02.12 23.11.11 257/11-12 Report author and contact for queries: Sandra Morrison – Divisional Director CYPS 020 7926 9705 [email protected]
Background documents
1. Link to SEN Green Paper - SEN Green paper: Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability 2011: http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/CM%20802 7
Appendices
1. SEN review phase 1 report - Keith Makin (including its own appendices) 2. Draft work plan - SM 3. Terms of reference for SEN project
Page 243
1. Context
1.1. Lambeth has a high percentage (2.2 %) of pupils with statements of SEN in comparison to the national average (1.8 %). However nationally there has been a year by year increase of 3 % in the number of young people with statements. In Lambeth that increase over 5 years has been 3.11%.
1.2. In summary the borough of Lambeth:
• Maintains a total of 1321 statements with predicted costs of £3.90m • There are 127 young people in IBS placements which cost the borough £6.12m • SEN transport costs £3.88m • There is a degree of parental dissatisfaction which is reflected in the number of SEN tribunals a figure which though reducing is high (30 last year).
1.3. It has been identified that the arrangements for SEND in the borough require review for a number of reasons and these were set our in the report submitted to the CYPS scrutiny in June 2011 and the presentation made to the committee on the same date.
1.4. It was agreed that an independent reviewer should be appointed to speak to and consult with all stakeholders and collate his findings in a scoping report that sets out number of strategic actions and recommendations to the council regarding issues that need to be addressed.
1.5. In part this process has allowed CYPS lead members and officers to triangulate the issues identified that prompted the need to instigate a review with those identified during phase I by stakeholders which have been collated in an end of phase I report by the independent reviewer. This report is attached to this document as appendix 1.
1.6. A wide range of stakeholders have met with the independent reviewer both independently and in small groups. All have varying views on the priorities for action and parents in particular who have child with a disability are the most dissatisfied with our arrangements and are highly supportive of the development of an integrated assessment and the review of structures in this area.
1.7. There are a number of key issues that have been identified for action and these have been used to draw up the work plan that is attached to this report as appendix 2.
2. Proposals and reason
2.1. It has been agreed that a comprehensive review of SEN in Lambeth was required and that this review should be taken whilst the SEN Green Paper is considered by government. This will enable the Council to ensure that any new
Page 244
arrangements complement any new legal framework that is published by government.
2.2. Phase I is now complete and it is proposed that work streams are identified that will allow further in depth work to be undertaken to address the issues identified. This further work will inform phase II of the review. It is expected that this will be a roots and branch review and allow the Council and its partners to revisit a number of fundamental issues.
2.3. The independent reviewer appointed has met with a range of stakeholders – schools mainstream and specials well as those who have specialist centres of provision.
2.4. Whilst the report attached has the details of the issues raised the issues highlighted during the scoping process (phase I) are set out below:
• Perceptions of inclusion in Lambeth many schools feel they are more inclusive than others. Some parents feel that there is little inclusion and schools exclude children with special educational needs and or a disability • The role of schools as commissioned services is fuzzy and lacks clarity • The inclusion V social exclusion of young people with a disability requires lengthy debate • Under 5s and SEN is an issue the question was asked time and time again how are we working with health and other partners to ensure reception classes are able to plan for and make the arrangements for their admission to school.
3. Governance
3.1. As set out in the terms of reference, the steering group has been established and has met three times. The work streams have been discussed and agreed by that group. The steering group is representative of all stakeholders and its membership includes parents, voluntary sector as well as head teachers of mainstream and special schools and representatives from health and CAMHS. Briefings have been provided to the for a identified in the terms of reference that are attached to this report as appendix 4.
3.2. It also proposed to bring together an executive group to review each end of phase and to agree the next phase this group will be an executive group and will meet as and when required. The group will meet at the end of November 2011 and review and challenge the end of phase 1 findings and the work streams for phase II.
4. Finance Comments
4.1 The cost of undertaking the review will be covered from the departments existing budgets. There is an expectation that this will eventually be recovered from the savings/efficiencies resulting from implementing the recommendations arising from the review.
Page 245
4.2. During the Strategic financial planning process £600k over the next three years has been identified as a saving from the SEN transport budget which will be partly met as a result of the SEN review as well as changes within the transport policy.
4.3. Overall the SEN review is expected to reduce existing expenditure by £2.3m. The budget for this service is funded within the Centrally Retained Items [CRI] of Delegated Schools Grant (DSG) which is the ring-fenced grant that funds schools and pupil based activity.
5. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy
5.1. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on local authorities to make sure that special educational provision is made for pupils with special education needs and requires them to keep the arrangements for SEN provision under review.
6. Results of consultation
6.1. During phase I the views of a wide range of stakeholders. Emerging issues views will be presented to Scrutiny and are set out in the end of phase report which is attached to this report as appendix 1.
7. Organisational implications
7.1. Risk management: The review carries a number of risks a risk register has been compiled and will be reviewed by the SEN steering group. The key risks that have been identified include:
• The risk of poor publicity as services are decommissioned and commissioned (schools)
• The expected SEND white paper is at odds with the policy direction being developed in Lambeth
• Special schools decide to become academies and the council is unable to strategically plan its provision as it will be unable to control the type of needs that are met in academy special schools.
• There is an increase in legislation as policy is changed which impacts on thresholds and access to services and parents and carers protest by taking legal action.
7.2 Equalities impact assessment:
An equality impact assessment will be carried out on the final review proposals. It is expected that the changes proposed will impact on children and young people with a disability or a special educational need and their families. As the school population in Lambeth is 78% BME there is likely to be an impact on this equality group also.
Page 246
An equality impact assessment is being undertaken to coincide with the start of phase II and will be completed at the end of the implementation
7.3. Community safety implications: None
7.4. Environmental implications: None
7.5. Staffing and accommodation implications: None
7.6. Any other implications: None
8. Timetable for implementation
8.1. Communication plan
Action Date Conte nt of Method Communication Proposal to 16.02.11 Issues of concern and Report conduct a SEN rationale for a review and review is terms of reference discussed with DLT Lead members 02.11. 11 Briefing sets out Briefing paper receive briefing proposed work streams on outcomes of and TOR phase I and work streams for phase II Parental October – Findings emerging from Discussion engagement November phase I sessions x 10 Work streams 11.11..11 Steering group receives Presentation agreed by information on emerging steering group issues from phase I
HTC and with 18.05.11 Briefing sets out Paper - formal other proposed work streams DLT meeting stakeholders and TOR including the CTB Meeting with 20.05.11 Priorities and thematic Working together stakeholders 09.06.11 approach group briefing SENCos
Page 247
8.2. The above plan is intended to ensure all key partners are aware of the review and support its intended purpose to review arrangements to meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people through early intervention and preventative activity.
______
Page 248
This page is intentionally left blank Page 249
Appendix 1
REVIEW OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES IN LAMBETH
1. PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF THIS REPORT
This is a report which summarises the outcomes from a comprehensive review of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) services and associated services carried out between May 2011 and August 2011. This report will not contain detailed data, in depth analyses or supporting evidence – these are appended for reference, along with a pack containing the summarised results from the questionnaire survey and interviews conducted during this review period. The review was commissioned by the Strategic Leadership Board in response to several important and connected factors – • The service was last reviewed some 13 years ago
• The Green Paper on the future of SEN services calls for a rethink by Local Authorities
• Some of the performance indicators for SEN services are poor
• SEN budgets are overspending
• The use of Out Borough services is very high
• The number of Tribunals is high
2. SCOPE
This report will cover the following: • An analysis of the current SEN provision, including an analysis of the organisation based on McKinsey’s “7 S’s”: Structure, Systems, Style, Staff, Skills, Strategy and Shared Values • The likely projected trends in service delivery • Prominent themes • Priority themes requiring attention and action
3. HOW THIS REPORT WILL BE USED AND HOW IT WAS CONSTRUCTED
The original Terms of Reference (TOR) for the review are at Appendix 1 . Decisions have been made since the TOR was agreed to consider the review to be in 3 phases: Phase 1: May – September 2011 A scoping of the current state of play of the SEN services leading to this report, to be considered by the Programme Board and to form the basis for some early actions requiring immediate attention along with decisions on the priority areas for detailed work in Phase 2. Phase 2 : October 2011 – March 2012 Work on the key priority areas for change Phase 3: April 2012 and continuing Introduction of changes accompanied by a change leadership programme and agreed monitoring and reporting arrangements
It is important to note and appreciate that these 3 phases are not entirely self contained or mutually exclusive. For example, a change programme has started in Phase 1 regarding the arrangements for public and service user consultation which will continue into Phase 2 and beyond. Also, the consultations with some stakeholders and in particular the schools sector have of necessity (school holidays being a main barrier to deeper consultation) been limited and will continue throughout the other Phases. A review of this nature is never “completed” as such – it is an organic and developing process. In real terms, the author has revisited several key stakeholder individuals and groups throughout Phase 1 as their opinions
Page 250 and expectations have changed and matured. This is most marked in the consultations with parents and families in the Borough, where a consultation programme has been planned for the Autumn Term. Details of this are laid out in section 5 later in this report. The analysis in this report is based on: • Interviews with key stakeholders, based around a set of simple questions, aimed at achieving some degree of comparison between interviewees and providing a platform for discussion and the development of themes. The questions are at Appendix 2 . They are intended to explore:
Respondents’ views on the best and worst aspects of current services in the Borough The current degree and nature of inclusion in the Borough Views on the way services are organised and managed Key expectations from the review
• Meetings with stakeholder groups – again using the questionnaire as the focus of discussion • Data analysis – the data used is at Appendix 3 , mainly graphically represented for ease of understanding • Budget analysis – as at Appendix 4 • Comparative data with Lambeth’s statistical neighbours, London Boroughs as a whole and UK wide where appropriate – • Reading of relevant policy and other documents – • Some deeper analysis of individual cases, Tribunal outcomes and complaints • Evidence from other Boroughs and LAs outside London, including a broad analysis of policies and approaches to SEN provision and informal discussions with senior managers.
The implications of the SEN Green Paper and the changes to schools (especially the move to Academy status for some schools) underpinned all discussions and have been referenced throughout. A list of those interviewed and contacts made is at Appendix 5 To date, there has been the equivalent of 40 contact days which includes direct interviews with 61 key stakeholders, contacts with a further 50 plus people and the return of 70 questionnaires. This report does not attempt to detail the current SEN provision and the plans which may be put in place to change the provision within the Borough, both in Special and mainstream / unit settings. This is recommended as one of the key workstreams for Phase 2 of the review.
4. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SEN PROVISION
The organisation analysis is based on the McKinsey “7 S’s” approach, for ease of reference and in an attempt at corralling a great deal of disparate and sometimes conflicting information gleaned throughout the review! Analysis of the service delivery is based on both subjective reporting and the base data, which can be found in the various Appendices already referenced The overall impression is of a service which is viewed as being very good in parts but needing a mechanism by which the individual components of it can be brought together into a strategic, shared and sustainable whole. Everyone, without exception, agreed that there is a quite urgent need to review the current services. The last fully comprehensive review was carried out some 13 years ago. There have been other partial reviews since, but the underlying agreement is that the current picture is one of a loosely connected series of initiatives and a great deal of drift from core common policies and agreements. This theme is threaded throughout the organisational analysis below. This section will avoid getting bogged down in the minutiae of structures and systems, taking a “helicopter” perspective to help inform decision making.
4.1 ORGANISATION ANALYSIS
A. STRUCTURE
The current SEN service within the Council is managed primarily through the SEN team which is a part of a set of services reporting to the DCS via the Divisional Director for Early Intervention ad Targeted services. There are links with Health and other services at various levels and a commissioning strategy which is jointly managed with Health in some degree.
Page 251
There are currently just over 1500 pupils with a Statement of Needs in the Borough (this has grown steadily over the last 5 years and is projected to grow more – see Appendix 3, graph ----). Of these, around 300 are children and young people with complex and multiple needs, leaving around 100 who have complex needs and are not currently statemented. This group receives services from the Council via a specialist Children with Disabilities Team, reporting to the other Divisional Director and to the DCS. Again, there are several points at which joint commissioning with Health takes place. Children and young people do not neatly fit into categories of need – families are confused by the multiplicity of interventions they have from the various service providers. It is common to be receiving a service and have a set of review procedures, monitoring arrangements etc from both SEN services as well as CWD services and, in some cases, from mainstream childcare services. Respondents have described confusion at having to tie in with a set of different systems, both for individual children and also across a family of children with different needs. Service redesign is essential to ensure that these duplications and confusions can be eliminated. This will lead to economies and efficiencies as well as creating a more family friendly and child focused service delivery. The links with other services, including Early Years, the YOS, Adult Services and others are various and not coordinated into an easily identified systematic and strategic picture. An observation on this structural set up is that there is no one single manager in the Council (with the exception of the DCS, which is a very high level to achieve this crossover) holding the brief for the development and provision of services for children with additional needs. Commentators from both within the Council services and outside agencies almost universally agree that a single reporting line would help to clarify policy consistency and assist with the direction of travel inherent in the Green Paper towards single assessments, across Social Care, Health and Education. There are opportunities for the integration of services, management and planning with Health which need to be explored and developed. In brutal summary, the current structure encourages silo thinking and separates children into categories of need, not starting from a “child first” perspective. The individuals in the system do not think this way and are very much child focused with excellent examples of progressive practice, but the structure militates against this being actively encouraged and put into practice. B. SYSTEMS
Echoing the comments on structure, there are several parallel systems in place to assess, make decisions on and monitor the progress of children and families. The SEN Panel is the main focal point for the decision to statement, the decision to allocate resources and the decision to make significant changes for children and young people with special educational needs. There is a similar, but separate panel arrangement for Children with Disabilities and groups which determine decisions on complex needs provision and resource allocations. Separate ICT systems are in place in the Council and Health. There is a tortuous process to “read across” these systems which particularly manifests itself in the early years services. This is managed very well but there are clear efficiency problems with having two unconnected systems. It is outside the scope of this review to explore this further and the author is well aware of the complications and costs associated with bringing systems together, but this is worth further analysis. Lambeth has a well developed CAF (Common Assessment Framework) in place and the mainstream child care system is built upon a Team Around the Child, Multidisciplinary Team approach. There is evidence, however, that these systems do not comfortably fit with the SEN assessment systems and there is a need to comprehensively review and align the various systems. Health colleagues have been keen to emphasise their wish to engage in this process. This report will develop a suggested way forward in Phase 2 later at Section 5. At the Transition point from childhood to Adulthood (14 – 19 years) there is a good Pathway and Protocol in place as agreed between CYPS and Adult Services and the tracking of individual young people is underway. There is considerable scope for development here and this will be expanded in Section 4.2.
C. STYLE
The author has been impressed with the commitment and energy of the staff within the Council, in other agencies and in the 3 rd sector. There is a distinct and genuine keenness to achieve the very best for the Borough and its children and young people. This is witnessed in all settings and there is a very good knowledge of the families and their needs in what is patently a complicated and diverse population. So there is much to applaud and to build on. “Style” is a difficult thing to grasp and it would be simplistic in the extreme to try to pin it down to a single comment. Having said that, the overall impression is of a dynamic workforce with an open minded attitude to change. There is, therefore, the necessary underlying springboard for change which the second and third phases of this review will demand. Most of the people questioned talked of the need for change and their wish to be at the heart of it. Lambeth has a rich history
Page 252 of positive service development and the recent spring back from the riots in Brixton and Clapham have served to illustrate this. The one area that will need some attention is that of the relationship between the statutory authorities and the users of services. At present, there is a palpable and potentially damaging distance between service planners and service users. A recent example is that of the consultation on the Aiming High capital spend, or rather the almost complete lack of it! Parents are rightly appalled that the playpark built at Norwood Park is poor in the extreme – it is difficult to see how this could have been created as it does not even meet the standards required to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act... The only positive from this is that it points so well to the need for proper and consistent consultation with service users. The Green Paper is peppered with examples of the lack of real engagement with parents and young people and here it is being played out in Lambeth... A process of reform has been started throughout this review with the Parents Action Group (PAG) and the Parents for Inclusion Group. There is a clear recognition from these these groups (and others) that there is a need for them to be more representative of the range of parents/ families across the Borough in terms of geography, demographic mix, views on future service direction and primary needs. There is a golden moment right now to capitalise on these developments and some opportunities have been put in place to continue the progress through Phase 2 and beyond. A series of consultation/ development sessions were held in September and October (10 in total, across the Borough and centred on age groups), an agreement has been reached that parents will be represented on the review Steering Group (up to 4 in total) and the author has made key presentations at 2 main events with parents in mid September. It is planned that what will flow from this is a representative group (or groups) engaged in active co – production of policies with the Council and Health. This has the express agreement of the DCS and the Lead Member for CYPS and has been greatly welcomed by the parents currently involved. It is also planned that these developments will extend to a greater involvement of children and young people in the planning processes. The Borough has some legacy of being driven by red tape and bureaucracy but the author’s experience has been of staff at all levels ready and willing to work in an open and consultative way. The SEN administrative processes are, of necessity, quite burdensome, both to the public and the people working in the system, but this is being addressed by a programme of change towards a paperless system and a streamlining of processes. The SEN service is efficient and has been transformed from the inefficient service which was in place some years ago and which lead in large part to the burgeoning number of Tribunal challenges. D. STAFF
The staff group is quite settled in both the Council and Health, with a large proportion of staff having been in post for a considerable time. These areas of service have a relatively low number of agency staff compared with mainstream services and other parts of the Council. This is a common pattern for SEN and associated services in London Boroughs. There is an understandable anxiety amongst staff regarding this review – the fear is that this will lead to a rationalisation of management arrangements with consequent redundancies. Schools have a concern that the review will lead to proposals for school changes and closures. The author has responded to these concerns by saying that this phase of the review will not directly recommend any substantive changes to staffing but that Phases 2 and 3 will be very likely to include substantial service change and rationalisation. Staff are aware of the fact that the recommendations flowing from this review and the actions in Phase 2 will lead to significant changes to the way people work, to the reporting relationships and to the staffing configurations in parts of the SEN service itself as well as the wider CYPS workforce. No specific comments have been made to colleagues in school settings as this is subject to a set of processes outside of the scope of this review. Managers in the Health system are relatively optimistic about the PCT changes planned but there is, of course, a degree of uncertainty which is reflected across all Health bodies at the present time. Training for both SEN and Social care staff is good but there is a need to develop a more comprehensive and developmental CPD programme. It is difficult in these straightened times, but a programme of management training at all levels of management would be an asset. An area for development in training is in personalisation of services and self directed support . This has been identified by many people in various parts of the system and could potentially be developed as part of the engagement with families and as a part of the tying in of services across Adults and CYPS. E. SKILLS
Taking each area in turn: • SEN services: There is a high degree of knowledge of the systems and the underpinning legislation in place. Staff are up to date and ensure that they are abreast of current
Page 253
systems/policies/procedures and planned changes. This is a settled group who demonstrate a very high appreciation of the SEN agenda. • CWD: Similar comments apply as to SEN staff. There is a greater degree of understanding of the move towards the personalisation agenda in those staff working in CWD and the impression is that this has emerged and grown over the last 18 months or so, consequent with some changes to management arrangements. • Schools sector: It is significant that there is an apparent range of skills across the various schools in relation to SEN and pupils with additional needs. This seems to be in line with the degree of direct experience of staff in line with their exposure to children with additional needs. Health specialists (Speech and Language therapists, OTs and Physiotherapists in particular) report a wide range of skills and knowledge across the schools, both specialist and mainstream, with concentrations in certain schools. This will be tackled in Section 4.2 where this report will examine the relationship between the LA and the schools. • Early Years: The Borough is well served by skilled and experienced staff in various early years settings – Nursery schools, Children’s Centres and the independent provisions within the Borough. There is a high knowledge of SEN and associated services. • Health: It is outside the author’s expert knowledge to comment in detail on the skills set apparent in the Health sector, but the impression is certainly of a highly committed and knowledgeable group of staff, including the specialists in Paediatrics, the various specialisms and Psychiatry. Further work is to take place on the CAMHS service before the end of September and this will be incorporated into the final report. • 3rd Sector: the Borough has a good and wide range of voluntary and independent organisations which demonstrate a high skills set. There is scope for development of this with the parent and family representative groups and this will be expanded at Section 5
F. STRATEGY
It is difficult at the present time to define a distinct and articulated strategic plan for SEN and related services. This is commented on by people both within and outside the organisations. This is not to say, of course, that there are no policies in place – far from it! A characteristic of this review has been that people have been readily able to supply reports, analyses, policies etc., but these are not either necessarily timely (some are way out of date) or coordinated. A clear recommendation from this review will be that the strategic direction for these services is defined and agreed at a senior political level. There will be some tough decisions related to both the financial position of the Council and partners and the need to rationalise the various strands of service development so that they properly mesh and complement each other. A comment made anecdotally by several respondents to this review has been that Lambeth has a bit of everything in place – some good inclusive mainstream provision, some good specialist provision, some Out Borough provision and so on. This is true of any complex service system, of course, but the effect is particularly apparent in the Borough. The basic need is clearly for a nettle to be grasped and a definite direction to be adopted and followed. This report will make the case for far greater parent/family/young person involvement in service planning but this will be a tricky process as there is a wide range of opinion amongst families as to where the Borough should be concentrating its resources. There is a distinct and vocal lobby for fully inclusive provision along the lines of, say, Newham or Calderdale and an equally strong lobby for Out Borough specialist residential provision. This is not a simple debate but one that has to take place so that the Borough, the community and partners have a clear strategic direction. The role of the Children’s trust (and, indeed, the Health and Well Being Board) will be critical to this strategic policy formulation. G. SHARED VALUES
The value base in respect of inclusive SEN provision is not consistent across the Borough’s statutory or 3rd sector providers. Respondents to the questionnaire and in interviews have held a range of positions covering the whole spectrum from those wholly committed to inclusion in mainstream settings to those advocating a policy based on an active choice between specialist and mainstream provision. The bottom line now for LAs, given the budget pressures and the rising unit cost of services is that a clear policy is required so that resources can be properly deployed with least waste and so that the relationship between the Council and partners as commissioners and service providers is open. The changes to
Page 254 school Governance and the call in the Green Paper towards more choice militate against easily agreeing such clear policies. What the Council can do, though, is to make some predictions based on available historic and projected trends and to aim to set resources to fit those projections. An active and agreed commissioning strategy will achieve this, so long as it is drawn up with the involvement of service users and providers.
4.2 SERVICE DELIVERY ANALYSIS WITH PROJECTED TRENDS
Schools and statementing Services are delivered in a wide variety of ways in the Borough. The broad figures are that there are 1545 statemented children and young people in the Borough, 962 receiving services In Borough and 325 Out Borough. This represents a 17% rise in statements in the last year, following a relatively steady rate of statementing in the previous 5 years. Lambeth has the 3 rd highest statementing rate per capita in London at present – Newham being the lowest and Hillingdon the highest. The Borough is around 15 – 20% higher than the statistical neighbours. The rise in numbers can be almost entirely accounted for by increasing numbers of statements for pupils with autism or ADHD / behavioural problems. All other main needs categories are “steady state” over the 5 year period. There is no particular link with age in this rise although there is a relatively high number of under 10s with ASD/ ADHD generally. It is difficult to know whether this last year’s rise in statements is a “blip” or whether it represents an underlying trend. It would be foolish to plan a whole strategy on the back of a change in figures which may be corrected in subsequent years, but there is a definite rise overall over the 5 year period in ASD/ ADHD and concentrated in younger children, although not in under 5 years particularly. Various respondents confidently reported that there has been a rise in the number of very young children and babies coming into the system over the last 5 years, but this is not shown in the statementing figures. Early Years and Health colleagues do report some rise in under 5s (mainly due to survival at birth being improved) and these are mainly babies with complex multiple disability, including physical disabilities but not necessarily associated cognitive problems. Schools anecdotally report that they have experienced a distinct rise in the numbers of children being presented with additional needs at the Nursery and Primary ages but again the objective figures do not bear this out. There are some concentrations around particular schools, but the absolute numbers are too small to discern any trends as such. The number of Out Borough placements has remained steady over the last 5 years, at around 350 at any one time with a small (5%) increase over the last year. This is high, making the Borough the 2 nd highest per capita, with Croydon being the highest and Newham the lowest. There is not a statistical link with the number of tribunals won by parents, which has often been given as the main factor in the use of Out Borough placements. The spend on Out Borough placements is projected to be 28% higher than budget in 2011/12. This has been the pattern over the last 3 years. The 2011/12 budget is £4.188M and the projected spend is £5.971M [ The unit costs IBS provision is high at an average of £39.5k per placement compared with the London average of £38.0k and a UK average of £37k. These are averages so the Council should aim to get below that figure to be in the bottom quartile of London Boroughs, say £37.5k per placement. A renegotiation of all placements would save £0.75M, crudely. A successful renegotiation of a proportion of current placements combined with savings on cheaper new placements could make some significant savings. This should be achievable within the context of a well crafted commissioning strategy aimed at decreasing Out Borough provision coupled with an increase in the use of In Borough resources. This can be modelled to show the effects of different combinations of placements in Phase 2 of the review. Any restructuring of the provision within the Borough may have an impact on the resources deployed and there will be possible changes to the capital asset position within the Borough Tribunals Tribunals are running at just over 30 per year, which has been a steady figure over the last 3 years, following a distinct drop between 2004/5 and 2007/8, from a high of 72 Tribunals started in 2004/5. If we compare the number of tribunals against the overall number of statements, there is a small (4%) drop over the last year. The number of Tribunals being won by the Council has fluctuated over the last 5 years. The proportion this year has risen significantly but chart ---- in Appendix 3 demonstrates that there is a need for caution: this may not demonstrate a significant downward trend at all. The basic position is that, although the number of tribunals has improved, it has maintained a plateau position and is still very high. Lambeth is the 3 rd highest in London. There is no one single reason for the high number of Tribunals. The reasons given include: • Inadequate consultation with families throughout the statementing process
• Unrealistically raised expectations created during the process
Page 255
• A lack of faith in In Borough resources
Those LAs reporting much lower rates of Tribunal challenge have invested in creating clear pathways for families to influence decision making, both on an individual basis and in terms of the planning and development of services generally within an area. If families feel powerful in the decision making processes and feel listened to they are much more likely to want to discuss their concerns in a mediated fashion, rather than jumping to the need to pursue a different decision through the Tribunal system. Mainstream provision The position of pupils in mainstream units within the Borough is variable – the Hearing Impairment services are effective and deliver a good service to schools and this has been commented on by Heads as well as Health colleagues. Visual impairment services are based at the unit at Kings Ave School and work on a resource centre model. Currently 130 children receive visual impairment services provided by a dedicated team of 4 whole time equivalent staff. Other units receive mainly positive comments from parents. SEN budgets and responsibility have largely been delegated to schools. The total statemented and non – statemented budgets delegated to schools total just over £9M. A clear commissioning arrangement is not currently in place for this transaction between the LA and individual schools – the direction of travel needs to be towards clearly stated expectations of schools as to what they provide in terms of service level, training for staff, support arrangements, etc. Presently, there is a disconnect between the “central” LA decisions and the delivery of a service at the front end. This is also evident in the arrangements between resource centre services (eg the VI Unit at Kings Ave and the schools receiving these services) and with regard to Health services. There is a clear need for a new commissioning strategy, especially in the light of the likely changes to relationships between the various players in the system as School Academies are rolled out. Special schools The specialist In Borough schools provision is also variable: There are currently 523 places in Special schools with a demonstrable under provision for ASD, both Primary and Secondary. The future direction may be to pursue the development of these services in mainstream provision through an integrated model and the use of attached units, rather than expanding the Special School capacity. There is a plan to increase pupil numbers at the Livity School by 18 as part of the new build plan for the school. Livity School currently has 75 pupils on roll but is registered for 70 at present. Michael Tippett School has a current under use of places by some 4 or 5. Phase 2 of this review will need to concentrate on a detailed analysis of the projected needs both in and out Borough and will need to make primary decisions about the direction of travel for the mix of services in the Borough. This will need to include decisions about all the Special Schools and include an active discussion and negotiation with Heads as to the future directions for the schools within the context of the overall commissioning strategy. The PMLD provision relative to the use of Out Borough IBS is low, although the Livity School numbers are set to increase by 11 from the present 70 to 81 with the planned new build which should come on stream in 2013. Links with poverty The distribution of SEN pupils across the Ward boundaries is shown at Chart --- in Appendix 3. It was an intention of this review to explore any significant links with poverty indices, but the figures are too small and skewed by the geographic location of schools to allow any meaningful comparison. Transport Transport is currently provided for pupils to and from schools in and out of the Borough. The transport budget has been steadily lessened for the last 5 years (£5.109M in 2006/7, £3.888M in 2010/11 There are several opportunities to further reduce this spend: • By renegotiating the contracts with providers and in particular the main provider. The Council is in a strong position to achieve a significant saving given the fact that Lambeth is one of only two Councils UK wide to have a single large contract with this provider – it is a competitive market and we should be able to determine price in return for the continuation of this contract. • By encouraging and developing the independent travel of pupils, extending the training and awareness programme which has already made a lot of progress. There have been constructive early discussions with the parent representative groups on this and there is a willingness to go down this route, especially as the stark alternative is to reduce the overall commitment to transporting children and young people in the Borough.
Page 256
• By introducing a new policy aimed at shifting the responsibility for transport more to families for those pupils accessing the higher rate of Mobility Allowance . This benefit can be exchanged for a Motability vehicle which could prove to be of a help to the family as a whole. There are some considerations to take into account with this including the difficulty of on street parking and ensuring that a blanket policy does not disadvantage pupils who really require to be transported or for whom the transport commitment would be too much of a burden on a family, given other commitments to other family members. It is possible to construct a policy which will protect families from these effects. Other Boroughs have successfully adopted this policy. • By negotiating transport arrangements with neighbouring Boroughs – sharing costs and achieving value for money through economies of scale.
These measures together, achieved through consultation and negotiation with families should reveal full year savings, in time, of £0.6M with a first year effect in the order of £0.4M. This renegotiation will need to take place in the second Phase of this review. Transition – 14/19 years As outlined in Section 4.1B earlier, there is an opportunity for the development of a much improved service at the point of transition, currently operating in real terms from the age of 16 to 19, with the policy plan to identify and track all young people with additional needs from the age of 14 years. At present, the identification and tracking is good but the preparation for adulthood is still based on sometimes unrealistic expectations of adult services. Put frankly, the budget availability for post 19 year olds drops off significantly. One of the most significant factors is that of young people in Out Borough placements losing touch with their Lambeth routes and not being tied into local services. Better preparation is needed for this transition for those students. Presently, CYPS has a set of services for transition with identified workers and a modest resource base [NOTE: need to pin this figure down, as well the one for Adults] . Similarly, Adult services has dedicated workers and a resource base to achieve successful transition. Children’s services employs a Resource Allocation System (RAS) for the calculation of Direct Budgets, with Adult services deploying a RAS which is quite different, with a different approach and a different set of assumptions on budget allocations. The agreed default point in adult services is for people to receive Individual Budgets and set up personalised self directed support packages. This applies to some young people within CYPS but it does not currently represent the default point. These matters have been identified and developed within Adult services over the last 4 years and there would seem to be a logic in bringing these services together into a jointly managed service, ensuring a smooth transition and aligning systems to maximise benefits for all. It will take time to introduce new ways of working and to adopt a common RAS but this is highly achievable. The proposal is to develop the work already undertaken in adults and to work towards a common system with common management and resources over the period of the second Phase of this review with the view to an introduction in early 2012/13. As a part of this, it may be worth considering the possibility of outsourcing this service to an independent not for profit body in line with the Council’s cooperative Council policy direction. Exclusions An issue raised by parents has been that of the rate of exclusions within the Borough. The experience is of a readiness to exclude pupils with challenging behaviour. This has not been studied as yet as part of this review and there has been no attempt at corroboration of the expressed experiences of families in the Borough. This is an area which will require further analysis in Phase 2 as part of the overall commissioning strategy and the relationship between the Local authority and individual schools, as well as the key role that the PRU network has. 5. PROMINENT THEMES ARISING FROM THIS REVIEW
In summary, the Borough currently has, compared with comparable LAs: • A high number of statements • Too many Out Borough placements • Too many Tribunals • A high cost of IBS provision • High transport costs • A system split between SEN and CWD • A commissioning process which is not holistic and strategic • A lack of policy direction in respect of inclusion • An inadequate plan for the distribution of resources between schools
Page 257
• Insufficient involvement of parents/families/young people in the planning and design of services • An under developed personalisation and self directed support approach • A disconnect between the decision making and assessment systems in SEN, CWD and mainstream intervention services for children • Undeveloped arrangements with neighbouring Boroughs
6. PRIORITY THEMES FOR ACTION IN PHASE 2
The priority themes listed here follow from early work during Phase 1 of the review and all have an implementation timescale of on or before 1/4/12 6.1 Design and development of a new COMMISSIONING STRATEGY. This to be in active cooperation with Health 6.2 Work on and agreement of the Borough’s INCLUSION POLICY 6.3 Agreement on the DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES across schools based on a commissioning agreement between the LA and individual schools 6.4 The creation of a CO – PRODUCTION approach to service planning with service users 6.5 Detailed planning for a change in STRUCTURES within CYPS to achieve common management lines for SEN and CWD. This to include budgetary implications as well as HR / ITC considerations 6.6 The design of a COMMON ASSESSMENT SYSTEM encompassing Health, Social Care and Education needs. This could be in the form of a core assessment with modular add-ons relevant to individual need. 6.7 A realignment of BUDGETS to reflect the planned changes over the next 5 years, including a detailed analysis of the shift from Out to In Borough provision, the changes to transport arrangements and the redistribution of resources to In Borough schools 6.8 A working group (including service user representatives) to plan and implement the changes to the TRANSPORT set up, including inter Borough discussions 6.9 Joint work with Adult services to design a jointly delivered TRANSITION SERVICE 6.10 Work on a plan to increase the use of Individual budgets, accelerating the PERSONALISATION of services with the aim of self directed support being the core basis of the offer to the public
APPENDICES
1. Terms of reference 2. Questionnaire 3. Background data 4. Budgets – actuals and projections 5. Summary of contacts made during the review
Page 258
This page is intentionally left blank Page 259 Appendix 1 LAMBETH COUNCIL SEN REVIEW
GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
A. The Programme Board will be chaired by the DCS and will be a constituent part of the Departmental Leadership Team (DLT). This Board will meet fortnightly.
B. The Programme Board will report to the Strategic Leadership Board , chaired by the Chief Executive, with reporting lines to the Lead Member for Children’s Services.
C. Additionally, reports will go to the Scrutiny Committee, with the first such report being made to the Scrutiny Committee planned for 30 th June 2011.
The purpose of the Programme Board will be to provide oversight and direction for the review, to identify key personnel as required and to secure resources if required in order to meet the review workstreams. This is a high level group which will not carry out day by day work on the review.
D. A Steering Group will ensure that the various key stakeholders in the review process are consulted, kept up to date with progress and able to network this out to the wider stakeholder community. Suggested membership of this group:
• Headteacher of a special school • Headteacher of a mainstream school (secondary) • Senior Council managers for:
Schools finance Special needs SEN advisor Relevant Divisional Directors Children with disabilities social care
• Rep from Parents Action Group • A young person (or several, depending on best current arrangements) • PCT rep • GP rep • 3rd sector rep
The FE sector and the local business/ employment sectors will need to be networked into this group but not as regular full time members.
E. Given the complexity of this review and the multiplicity of required outcomes from it, several Implementation Groups will be created with core members and the ability to co opt others as the work unfolds and in line with changing demands on time and focus. The Implementation Groups will be the main “engines” of the work for the review. There are 5 key expected outcomes from the review and each of these workstreams will have an Implementation Group assigned to it:
♦ SEN policy (including: school arrangements, admission policies, out Borough placement policy and processes, inclusion policy) Page 260 Appendix 1 ♦ Structural arrangements (including: the links between childrens social care and schools, inter agency working arrangements, management structures, reporting lines, decision making trees) ♦ Budgets / financing (including: budget needs and projections, budget heads and flexibility, core savings targets in line with the comprehensive spending review, links to Health spend, interagency financial decision making arrangements) ♦ Training / staff development / CPD (including: projected staff needs, HR policies, retraining plans where needed, links between schools and social care) ♦ Transport arrangements for SEN services (including: forecasted needs, efficiency savings)
Please note that these are not exhaustive lists and changes will take place after the first, exploratory, phase of the review when the various key issues have been identified and fleshed out by the Programme Board. As the timescale for this review is very tight (realistically, there is this current term in which the key data can be gathered and consultations held with the main stakeholders) the emphasis will be on concentrating on the key drivers for change and the identification of a realistic change programme for implementation in 20012/13 and beyond.
Keith Makin
10:05:11 Page 261 Appendix 1
LAMBETH COUNCIL
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SEN AND DISABILITY SERVICES
1. PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW
This review has been commissioned by the Strategic Leadership Board (SLB) and relates to all Special Educational Needs (SEN) services in the Borough and related services for disabled children and young people.
The outline remit for the review is set out in papers to the SLB. The primary purpose of the review is to establish the current issues to be addressed in these services and to provide an objective set of recommendations for the future delivery of these services, taking into account :
Comparative data with other London Boroughs, other LAs in the UK and relevant international experience and data The views and experiences of the current service users – parents, children, young people and others The views of staff in all relevant agencies, at all levels of operation An analysis of the current and projected budget and spend positions, including the unfolding effects of the comprehensive spending review and the Council’s overall financial position The local environment in terms of the changing 3 rd sector, independent and private sector providers The implications of the changes to schools and, in particular, the likely impacts of the move to Academy status for some schools The current and projected training and continuing professional development requirements for staff, especially in the Council’s CYPS Directorate An analysis of the profile of special provision in the schools sector An analysis of the transport arrangements for SEN and disability services in the Borough A review of the post school provision in the Borough, including the FE sector, transition arrangements for 14 – 19 year olds with additional needs and support for Higher Education A review of the local employment market as it relates to opportunities for disabled young people The implications of the recent Green Paper on SEN for the Borough and an analysis of the projected policy direction in relation to various aspects of these services, including the developing personalisation agenda
2. APPROACH TO BE TAKEN
The SLB has engaged an independent consultant to carry out the review. Keith Makin has extensive experience in managing and developing social care and related health services. He has held the positions of Director of Social Services, Director of a Government development agency and Chief Executive of a large independent child care Company. Keith has sat on a number of Government bodies, advises on policy issues and is a member of the In Control steering group. He has reviewed several sets of disability services in LAS, including an East London Borough. Page 262 Appendix 1
The preferred approach to this review is to engage with people at the “sharp end” and to build up a comprehensive picture of the current services from the point of view of children, young people, parents and carers, as well as staff at the point of service delivery. This will be matched with high level discussions with senior staff across service areas and be informed by the various data and evidence sources outlined earlier.
The early stages of the review will consist largely of offering a “listening ear” to all those concerned with these services. No assumptions about required changes will be made and the reviewer will keep an open mind – this is a highly complex service area and what works in one Borough may well not be relevant to another. Lambeth is a particularly complex Borough, having a highly diverse and varied demographic make up with significant levels of deprivation.
3. TIMESCALE
Keith has been engaged for 43 days with 2 additional days if required. This will be spread over a period of 5 months with the planned output of recommendations in late September 2011. The aim is to be able to inform the budget and planning cycles for the financial year 2012/13 and beyond.
4. REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS
An Executive Group has been established and a steering group is being created, to meet monthly and oversee the work streams. An update has been requested for the June Scrutiny Committee .
Suggested steering group membership (to be reviewed):
Divisional Directors EITC and SPC Headteachers – Special, Secondary, Primary Finance rep(s) Rep from Parents Action Group Young person/people Parent governor(s) Assistant Director Schools Head of childrens disability services PCT rep GP rep 3rd sector rep FE sector rep Local business community rep (eg Chamber of Commerce rep or similar)
This is a large group and the plan will be to communicate not only through meetings but also virtually by regular email shots and updates. The experience of utilising Twitter and Facebook avenues for contact, particularly with parents and YP, from another Borough will be used.Some dedicated policy officer support will be very helpful to the process if this can be achieved.
5. PROGRAMME
The outline programme is as follows. This is subject to change and development as the review progresses as the main emphasis will be on obtaining as much real and evidenced experience as Page 263 Appendix 1 possible throughout the period of the review. The various workstreams and output areas will overlap – the following is a broad outline of the time commitments expected, based on previous experience of service reviews.
Data collection and analysis 10 days Discussions with key staff 10 days Discussions with parents, carers , YP 12 days Steering Group meetings, attendance at relevant team and other meetings 5 days Modelling future service options and discussing with senior staff 3 days Report preparation and reporting 3 days
This is a broad outline, more detailed programme plans, with expected outcomes, will be produced as the review progresses.
6. REQUIRED EVIDENCE FOR THE REVIEW
The following will be helpful in terms of building up a good picture of current service provision and the challenges facing the Borough:
Policy documents from the Council and Health, setting out the current SEN/disability service profiles and plans Randomised selection of relevant ofsted reports and inspection outcomes Randomised selection of relevant Ombudsmans reports Randomised selection of tribunal outcomes Reports of PAG meetings Copies of any relevant Serious Case Review reports Budget reports – both current spend/ base budgets and budget reduction plans over the next 4 years Data on Direct Budgets, IBs and care packages for disabled children and YP Training and CPD outlines for CYPS Transition (14 – 19) pathway and protocol Data on service user numbers – historical, current and projected Commissioning policy for the independent sectors Data on LAC figures Analysis of out Borough placements, inc: ages, costs and planned changes Comparative data from other Las The Green Paper Relevant international comparisons
(Those in italics already obtained)
Other papers and reports will be obtained throughout the review period. It is difficult to be prescriptive at this early stage.
Keith Makin 20/04/11
Page 264
This page is intentionally left blank Page 265
Appendix 2
Lambeth council
SEN Review
Initial areas for discussion.
As part of the review process I will be interviewing several people from within and outside CYPS and I will be following a similar pattern of questioning with everyone to ensure some consistency. These are only intended as guides to areas of discussion and will be adapted to suit the particular area of service you are involved in.
1. What are the best aspects of the SEN services in Lambeth? (4 or 5 will do)
2. What are the worst aspects of the SEN services in Lambeth? (again, 4 or 5 will be about right)
3. Where do you think Lambeth is in terms of inclusive education for children and young people with additional / special needs and disabilities on a scale of:
Fully inclusive (ie every child/ young person in mainstream education) Partially included Not included (ie mainstream education excluding children and young people with additional needs)
It will be helpful to think about:
Where Lambeth is now Where you would ideally like Lambeth to be Where you think the Borough will realistically get in 4 years time
4. Do you think that SEN and Children with Disabilities services (ie social care services) should be more closely aligned? If so, how? And when?
5. What are your key expectations from this review? If you could wave a magic wand, what 3 things would you most like to see coming from this review in the next 12 months?
PLEASE NOTE:
• No individuals will be quoted in the final review paper • The information you give can be subjective and not evidenced, as it is your views and opinions that I am trying to gauge at this stage of the review process – there will be plenty of opportunity to refine this into evidenced and validated statements at a later stage • Think widely and broadly – Blue Sky thinking is good. This is your opportunity to say what you really want to say
Keith Makin Page 266
This page is intentionally left blank Overall Number of SEN Statements Maintained by Lambeth
SEN2 Report Period Out-B In- B Sch TOTAL Year Covered Sch SEN2 (2011) CY 2010 1163 382 1545 SEN2 (2010) CY 2009 1017 344 1361 SEN2 (2009) CY 2008 963 336 1299 SEN2 (2008) CY 2007 900 402 1302 SEN2 (2007) CY 2006 962 325 1287
SEN Pupils' Age Breakdown over the last 5 years, by year
SEN2 Report Period Age Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 TOTAL Year Covered >=19 SEN2 (2011) CY 2010 15 44 60 77 90 96 120 106 136 125 123 146 122 109 125 50 1 1545 SEN2 (2010) CY 2009 19 29 54 63 77 87 87 100 111 106 118 114 125 112 99 53 7 1361 SEN2 (2009) CY 2008 12 30 45 63 55 81 85 96 108 130 116 130 132 115 75 26 0 1299 SEN2 (2008) CY 2007 39 41 50 58 70 81 95 114 116 121 123 128 124 114 21 7 0 1302 SEN2 (2007) CY 2006 31 65 77 71 87 85 67 145 207 146 177 64 56 9 0 0 0 1287 Page 267
Borough School Placements over last 5 years, by year
SEN2 Report School Age Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 TOTAL Year Placement >=19 In-B Sch 9 41 56 72 84 83 102 86 97 97 89 110 72 67 74 23 1 1163 SEN2 (2011) Out-B Sch 6 3 4 5 6 13 18 20 39 28 34 36 50 42 51 27 0 382 / CY 2010 TOTAL 15 44 60 77 90 96 120 106 136 125 123 146 122 109 125 50 1 1545 In-B Sch 19 25 52 59 69 78 67 75 88 82 89 73 83 67 55 32 4 1017 SEN2 (2010) Out-B Sch 0 4 2 4 8 9 20 25 23 24 29 41 42 45 44 21 3 344 / CY 2009 TOTAL 19 29 54 63 77 87 87 100 111 106 118 114 125 112 99 53 7 1361 In-B Sch 12 29 44 57 49 65 64 85 87 92 81 92 84 62 47 9 4 963 SEN2 (2009) Out-B Sch 0 1 1 5 6 14 19 13 21 34 39 38 43 55 34 9 4 336 / CY 2008 TOTAL 12 30 45 62 55 79 83 98 108 126 120 130 127 117 81 18 8 1299 In-B Sch 37 37 39 45 49 66 68 78 76 80 77 78 71 71 14 18 0 904 SEN2 (2008) Out-B Sch 2 4 6 10 13 11 18 27 32 33 38 52 48 61 25 17 1 398 / CY 2007 TOTAL 39 41 45 55 62 77 86 105 108 113 115 130 119 132 39 35 1 1302 In-B Sch 6 16 29 40 38 56 60 73 78 96 88 109 99 105 27 31 2 953 SEN2 (2007) Out-B Sch 0 2 2 7 10 11 14 19 29 28 36 37 43 60 18 13 5 334 / CY 2006 TOTAL 6 18 31 47 48 67 74 92 107 124 124 146 142 165 45 44 7 1287
Research and Statistics Unit Collated / Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service R Dimaano - Inclusion Data Management Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: 10/01/12 Ethnicity / Cultural Breakdown of current population - SEN2 (2011) Report / CY 2010
ETHNIC MALE FEMALE TOTALS GRAND ETHNICITY DESCRIPTION CODES IN-B OUT-B IN-B OUT-B MALE FEMALE IN-B OUT-B TOTAL ABAN Bangladeshi 5 1 2 0 6 2 7 1 8 AIND Asian/Asian British - Indian 6 1 1 0 7 1 7 1 8 AOTH Any Other Ethnic Group 16 7 15 4 23 19 31 11 42 APKN Asian/Asian British - Pakistani 7 2 2 0 9 2 9 2 11 BAFR Black/Black British - African 193 53 72 17 246 89 265 70 335 BCRB Black/Black British - Caribbean 158 53 58 12 211 70 216 65 281 BOTH Black/Black British - Other 42 8 20 4 50 24 62 12 74 CHNE Chinese 9 1 3 0 10 3 12 1 13
MOTH Mixed - Other 23 6 7 0 29 7 30 6 36 Page 268 MWAS Mixed White/Asian 1 0 2 0 1 2 3 0 3 MWBA Mixed White/Black African 14 7 6 0 21 6 20 7 27 MWBC Mixed White/Black Caribbean 41 7 12 3 48 15 53 10 63 NTBR Chose not to be recorded 2 2 2 0 4 2 4 2 6 OVIE Vietnamese 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 UNK Unknown 61 26 16 17 87 33 77 43 120 WBRI White 157 82 62 32 239 94 219 114 333 Greek (includes Greek & Greek- WGRE 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 Cypriot) WIRI White Irish 4 3 5 2 7 7 9 5 14 WIRT Traveller of Irish Heritage 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 WOTW Any other white background 55 14 25 5 69 30 80 19 99 WPOR Portuguese 42 10 8 1 52 9 50 11 61 WROM Gypsy/Roma 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 Turkish (includes Turkish & WTUR 3 1 0 0 4 0 3 1 4 Turkish-Cypriot) 843 285 320 97 1128 417 1163 382 1545
Research and Statistics Unit Collated / Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service R Dimaano - Inclusion Data Management Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: 10/01/12 OVERALL NUMBER OF SEN STATEMENTS MAINTAINED BY LAMBETH PROJECTION OVER THE NEXT 5 YEARS
SEN2 Report Period In- B Sch Out-B Sch TOTAL CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Year Covered
SEN2 (2011) CY 2010 1163 382 1545 SEN2 (2010) CY 2009 1017 344 1361 1287 1302 1299 1361 1545 1563 1559 1630 1824 1845 SEN2 (2009) CY 2008 963 336 1299 1.15% -0.23% 4.56% 11.91% 1.14% -0.23% 4.36% 10.64% 1.13% SEN2 (2008) CY 2007 900 402 1302 SEN2 (2007) CY 2006 962 325 1287 Page 269
Research and Statistics Unit Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service R Dimaano - Inclusion Data Mgt Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: 10/01/12 Appendix 3
SEN MAIN NEEDS DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LAST FIVE (5) YEARS - CALENDAR YEARS 2006 - 2010 (SEN2 [2007-2011] REPORTS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAMBETH PUPILS WITH SEN STATEMENTS in CALENDAR YEAR 2010 - SEN2 (2011) REPORT
Age>= Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 19 S E N Main Needs Code N R Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 TOTAL % Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder ADHD 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 6 8 8 10 12 11 4 2 1 0 72 4.66% Autism (Social/Communication Difficulty) AUT(S/CD) 1 14 24 24 28 33 39 31 25 37 26 35 20 12 18 3 0 370 23.95% Emotional Behavioural Difficulties EBD 0 0 2 5 6 3 9 6 10 8 5 14 8 9 11 9 0 105 6.80% Hearing Impaired HI 2 1 2 3 3 3 0 4 4 3 4 2 3 5 4 1 0 44 2.85% Language Delay LANG 0 4 10 10 17 15 16 11 12 9 17 18 15 18 24 9 0 205 13.27% Learning Difficulties LD 1 0 4 5 4 16 23 21 33 23 29 23 25 24 37 11 0 279 18.06% Medical (e.g. Epilespsy) MED 8 8 9 11 7 4 3 2 5 5 6 9 8 6 3 1 0 95 6.15% Moderate Learning Difficulties MLD 0 2 0 2 8 5 9 8 13 16 8 16 12 19 11 5 0 134 8.67%
Other Needs OTH 2 15 9 12 6 8 8 4 15 4 4 6 8 3 3 1 1 109 7.06% Page 270 Physical Difficulties PD 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 0 1 7 1 3 2 2 2 0 27 1.75% Severe Learning Difficulties SLD 1 0 0 3 5 2 3 4 6 5 4 3 3 4 5 4 0 52 3.37% Specific Literacy Difficulties SpLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 5 2 5 5 3 1 3 0 33 2.14% Visual Impaired VI 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 2 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 0 20 1.29% TOTAL 15 44 60 77 90 96 120 106 136 125 123 146 122 109 125 50 1 1545 % 0.97% 2.85% 3.88% 4.98% 5.83% 6.21% 7.77% 6.86% 8.80% 8.09% 7.96% 9.45% 7.90% 7.06% 8.09% 3.24% 0.06%
Research and Statistics Unit Compiled and Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service Ramon Dimaano - Inclusion Data Mgt Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: [10/01/12 Appendix 3
SEN MAIN NEEDS DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LAST FIVE (5) YEARS - CALENDAR YEARS 2006 - 2010 (SEN2 [2007-2011] REPORTS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAMBETH PUPILS WITH SEN STATEMENTS in CALENDAR YEAR 2009 - SEN2 (2010) REPORT Age>= Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 19 S E N Main Needs Code N R Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 TOTAL % Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder ADHD 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 3 6 6 8 12 5 1 2 1 0 52 3.82% Autism (Social/Communication Difficulty) AUT(S/CD) 4 7 17 22 26 35 30 23 38 22 32 19 15 18 6 4 0 318 23.37% Emotional Behavioural Difficulties EBD 0 1 3 1 3 4 6 7 6 5 10 5 8 7 13 7 0 86 6.32% Hearing Impaired HI 1 2 2 2 3 0 2 4 2 3 2 3 5 3 3 1 1 39 2.87% Language Delay LANG 0 6 10 10 12 9 10 8 8 17 15 17 20 22 15 13 0 192 14.11% Learning Difficulties LD 0 2 1 4 10 13 12 24 22 29 18 23 29 32 29 14 2 264 19.40% Medical (e.g. Epilespsy) MED 3 6 10 5 3 3 2 2 4 4 7 7 7 3 8 4 0 78 5.73% Moderate Learning Difficulties MLD 2 1 1 7 5 9 9 11 11 7 14 11 19 10 11 5 0 133 9.77% Other Needs OTH 8 4 8 3 8 4 2 10 3 2 4 5 1 2 1 0 0 65 4.78% Physical Difficulties PD 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 0 1 5 1 3 6 3 2 1 1 32 2.35%
Severe Learning Difficulties SLD 0 0 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 3 2 4 6 6 5 2 1 52 3.82% Page 271 Specific Literacy Difficulties SpLD 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 4 2 3 4 4 1 3 1 0 29 2.13% Visual Impaired VI 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 4 1 0 2 21 1.54% TOTAL 19 29 54 63 77 87 87 100 111 106 118 114 125 112 99 53 7 1361 % 1.40% 2.13% 3.97% 4.63% 5.66% 6.39% 6.39% 7.35% 8.16% 7.79% 8.67% 8.38% 9.18% 8.23% 7.27% 3.89% 0.51%
Research and Statistics Unit Compiled and Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service Ramon Dimaano - Inclusion Data Mgt Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: [10/01/12 Appendix 3
SEN MAIN NEEDS DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LAST FIVE (5) YEARS - CALENDAR YEARS 2006 - 2010 (SEN2 [2007-2011] REPORTS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAMBETH PUPILS WITH SEN STATEMENTS in CALENDAR YEAR 2008 - SEN2 (2009) REPORT Age>= Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 19 S E N Main Needs Code N R Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 TOTAL % Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder ADHD 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 7 10 12 5 1 2 3 0 0 50 3.67% Autism (Social/Communication Difficulty) AUT(S/CD) 2 9 14 25 28 34 21 35 20 35 18 18 18 7 5 1 0 290 21.31% Emotional Behavioural Difficulties EBD 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 4 6 7 7 8 13 16 10 3 0 83 6.10% Hearing Impaired HI 2 3 2 2 0 4 5 2 3 2 3 5 5 3 1 2 0 44 3.23% Language Delay LANG 0 2 9 8 7 12 7 7 17 18 14 21 25 17 15 3 0 182 13.37% Learning Difficulties LD 1 0 0 7 4 7 22 17 26 21 27 30 37 31 18 9 0 257 18.88% Medical (e.g. Epilespsy) MED 4 9 4 5 2 4 2 3 5 6 8 7 4 9 10 0 0 82 6.02% Moderate Learning Difficulties MLD 0 0 5 2 4 5 5 13 9 16 10 19 11 13 7 1 0 120 8.82%
Other Needs OTH 3 4 3 6 2 0 5 3 2 5 4 1 3 1 1 0 0 43 3.16% Page 272 Physical Difficulties PD 0 0 2 3 4 1 1 1 6 2 3 6 3 3 1 1 0 37 2.72% Severe Learning Difficulties SLD 0 3 0 2 2 4 5 3 4 2 3 7 7 6 3 4 0 55 4.04% Specific Literacy Difficulties SpLD 0 0 4 0 0 3 2 3 2 4 5 3 1 6 1 0 0 34 2.50% Visual Impaired VI 0 0 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 22 1.62% TOTAL 12 30 45 63 55 81 85 96 108 130 116 130 132 115 75 26 0 1299 % 0.88% 2.20% 3.31% 4.63% 4.04% 5.95% 6.25% 7.05% 7.94% 9.55% 8.52% 9.55% 9.70% 8.45% 5.51% 1.91% 0.00%
Research and Statistics Unit Compiled and Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service Ramon Dimaano - Inclusion Data Mgt Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: [10/01/12 Appendix 3
SEN MAIN NEEDS DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LAST FIVE (5) YEARS - CALENDAR YEARS 2006 - 2010 (SEN2 [2007-2011] REPORTS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAMBETH PUPILS WITH SEN STATEMENTS in CALENDAR YEAR 2007 - SEN2 (2008) REPORT Age>= Age Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 19 Main Need Code N R Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 TOTAL % Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder ADHD 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 6 10 6 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 35 2.57% Autism (Social/Communication Difficulty) AUT(S/CD) 9 16 19 23 15 31 19 31 16 11 13 5 6 2 1 0 0 217 15.94% Emotional Behavioural Difficulties EBD 0 0 3 1 6 5 5 7 8 9 10 16 18 15 3 0 0 106 7.79% Hearing Impaired HI 4 2 0 2 4 2 3 2 3 5 5 3 2 4 1 1 0 43 3.16% Language Delay LANG 5 4 7 10 9 6 17 22 16 23 24 24 33 20 2 1 0 223 16.39% Learning Difficulties LD 2 4 8 7 15 18 26 20 27 31 39 42 32 44 9 2 0 326 23.95% Medical (e.g. Epilespsy) MED 7 4 2 4 3 3 4 5 8 6 4 8 11 3 1 1 0 74 5.44% Moderate Learning Difficulties MLD 2 1 3 1 4 8 7 10 10 17 10 16 11 16 0 0 0 116 8.52% Other Needs OTH 3 3 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 21 1.54% Physical Difficulties PD 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 20 1.47%
Severe Learning Difficulties SLD 3 1 1 3 4 1 3 3 4 8 8 4 3 3 1 1 0 51 3.75% Page 273 Specific Literacy Difficulties SpLD 2 3 3 4 5 2 3 4 8 3 4 5 3 2 0 1 0 52 3.82% Visual Impaired VI 1 2 0 2 1 0 3 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 18 1.32% TOTAL 39 41 50 58 70 81 95 114 116 121 123 128 124 114 21 7 0 1302 % 2.87% 3.01% 3.67% 4.26% 5.14% 5.95% 6.98% 8.38% 8.52% 8.89% 9.04% 9.40% 9.11% 8.38% 1.54% 0.51% 0.00%
Research and Statistics Unit Compiled and Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service Ramon Dimaano - Inclusion Data Mgt Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: [10/01/12 Appendix 3
SEN MAIN NEEDS DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LAST FIVE (5) YEARS - CALENDAR YEARS 2006 - 2010 (SEN2 [2007-2011] REPORTS)
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAMBETH PUPILS WITH SEN STATEMENTS in CALENDAR YEAR 2006 - SEN2 (2007) REPORT Age>= Age <=3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 Age 10 Age 11 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 19 S E N Main Needs Code N R Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr11 Yr12 Yr13 Yr14 TOTAL % Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder ADHD 0 0 1 1 2 7 3 6 7 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 34 2.50% Autism (Social/Communication Difficulty) AUT(S/CD) 12 31 34 25 30 18 11 18 17 8 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 215 15.80% Emotional Behavioural Difficulties EBD 1 1 3 1 2 3 7 13 17 14 25 8 10 0 0 0 0 105 7.71% Hearing Impaired HI 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 6 8 1 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 42 3.09% Language Delay LANG 3 5 6 10 12 16 11 30 33 41 33 19 6 1 0 0 0 226 16.61% Learning Difficulties LD 1 12 14 10 16 19 16 37 54 38 64 21 21 1 0 0 0 324 23.81% Medical (e.g. Epilespsy) MED 2 3 4 5 4 6 3 6 15 13 5 2 2 2 0 0 0 72 5.29% Moderate Learning Difficulties MLD 2 1 3 3 9 5 9 11 30 13 17 1 9 1 0 0 0 114 8.38%
Other Needs OTH 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 2 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 1.25% Page 274 Physical Difficulties PD 4 2 5 7 3 1 5 4 6 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 49 3.60% Severe Learning Difficulties SLD 3 4 1 2 3 3 1 7 12 6 3 2 5 1 0 0 0 53 3.89% Specific Literacy Difficulties SpLD 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.10% Visual Impaired VI 1 2 3 2 2 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1.54% TOTAL 31 65 77 71 87 85 67 145 207 146 177 64 56 9 0 0 0 1287 % 2.28% 4.78% 5.66% 5.22% 6.39% 6.25% 4.92% 10.65% 15.21% 10.73% 13.01% 4.70% 4.11% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Research and Statistics Unit Compiled and Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service Ramon Dimaano - Inclusion Data Mgt Officer Children and Young People's Services Date: [10/01/12 Page 275 Ward Analysis - Lambeth SEN Pupils - SEN2 (2011) Report / CY 2011
SCH CAT LAMBETH SCHOOLS TOTAL TOWN TOWN WARDS CENTRES Spe Lansdowne School 85 Lark Hall Centre for Pupils with Autism 20 L P Lark Hall Primary School 10
LARKHAL P St Andrew's C.E. Primary School 3 P Allen Edwards Primary School 6 CLAPHAM & STOCKWELL P St Stephen's C.E. Primary School 11 WELL
STOCK S Stockwell Park School 22 P Johanna Primary School 4 S London Nautical School 8 P Walnut Tree Walk Primary School 12 BISHOP'S S Archbishop Tenison's School 18 P Ashmole Primary School 5 P Henry Fawcett Primary School 5 P Herbert Morrison Primary School 2 P St Anne's R.C. Primary School 8 OVAL P St Mark's C.E. Primary School 4 Wyvil Language Unit 10 P Wyvil Primary School 11 P Archbishop Sumner C.E. Primary School 5 N Ethelred Nursery 1 Ind Spec Five Bridges 2
NORTH LAMBETH NORTH S Lilian Baylis Technology School 37 Spe Michael Tippett School 49 PRINCE'S PRU Primary PRU 4 P Vauxhall Primary School 11 S Charles Edward Brooke CE Girls' School 7 P Christ Church (Brixton) C.E Primary School 13 P Durand Primary School 4 P St Helen's R.C. Primary School 5
VASSALL P St John The Divine C.E. Primary School 3 P The Reay Primary School 7 P Christ Church (Streatham) C.E. Primary School 1 P Corpus Christi R.C. Primary School 6 N Holmewood Nursery 1 Spe Livity School 67 P Richard Atkins Primary School 4 P The Orchard School 0 BRIXTON HILL P Sudbourne Primary School 12 Evelyn Grace Academy 11 P Hill Mead Primary School 1
R Iqra Primary School 0 P Loughborough Primary School 12
COLDHARBOU P St John's (Angell Town) C.E. Primary School 5
BRIXTON P Kings Avenue Primary School 15
P Stockwell Primary School 7 FERNDALE
N Effra Nursery 2 P Jessop Primary School 2
HILL P St Jude's C.E. Primary School 4 HERNE HERNE P St Saviour's C.E. Primary School 3 P Fenstanton Primary School 13 P Holy Trinity C.E. Primary School 5
HILL Jubilee Hearing Impair Unit 9 TULSE P Jubilee Primary School 14
Research and Statistics Unit Collated/Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service R Dimaano - Inclusion Data Management Officer Children and Young People's Services Date : 10/01/12 Page 276 Ward Analysis - Lambeth SEN Pupils - SEN2 (2011) Report / CY 2011
SCH CAT LAMBETH SCHOOLS TOTAL TOWN TOWN WARDS CENTRES P Elm Wood Primary School 6 P Kingswood Primary School 11 PRU Park Campus 3 P Paxton Primary School 4
GIPSY HILL S The Elmgreen School 23 P Crown Lane School 9 Sec Norwood School for Girls 15 HILL NORWOOD KNIGHT'S P St Luke's C.E. Primary School 8 Spe Elm Court School 95 P Rosendale Primary School 13 Sec St Martin-in-the-Fields CE HS for Girls 14 PARK
THURLOW THURLOW Spe Turney Primary & Secondary Special School 96
P Bonneville Primary School 10 N M P St Mary's R.C. Primary School 6 COMMO CLAPHA
P Clapham Manor Primary School 9 P Heathbrook Primary School 10 S Lambeth Academy 34
TOWN P Macaulay C.E. Primary School 11 CLAPHAM N Triangle Nursery 1 P Glenbrook Primary School 12 P Henry Cavendish Primary School 8 Sec La Retraite RC Girls' School 9
CLAPHAM & STOCKWELL Nur Maytree Nursery 5 P St Bede's R.C. Infants School 6
THORNTON P St Bernadette's R.C. Junior School 6 P Telferscot Primary School 4
S P St Leonard's C.E. Primary School 7 ST. LEONARD'
P Streatham Wells Primary School 4 M HILL STREATHA
P Granton Primary School 11
P Immanuel & St Andrew C.E. Primary School 4 STREATHAM M SOUTH
STREATHA P Woodmansterne Primary School 5
S Bishop Thomas Grant RC School 33 S Dunraven School 34 P Hitherfield Primary School 11 P Julian's Primary School 3
WELLS P St Andrew's R.C. Primary School 2
STREATHAM SEN Unit The Sophie Centre 2 P Sunnyhill Primary School 14 Out of School 1 Oakfield Preparatory School 1 Home Tuition / Educated Otherwise 11 LAC Lambeth SSD 1 Dunelm Grove Pre School 1 Waldorf School 1 The Olive School 1 Rosemead Preparatory School 2 1163
Research and Statistics Unit Collated/Prepared by: Schools and Educational Improvement Service R Dimaano - Inclusion Data Management Officer Children and Young People's Services Date : 10/01/12 Appendix 3
400 SEN Main Needs 2007-2010
350
300
250
2007 200 Page 277 2008 Nuimbers 2009
150 2010
100
50
0 ADHD AUT(S/CD) EBD HI LANG LD MED MOL OTH PD SLD SpLD VI SEN Main Needs SEN MAIN NEEDS DISTRIBUTIONPage 278 CALENDAR YEARS 2007 - 2010
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAMBETH PUPILS WITH SEN STATEMENT
2007 2008 2009 2010 Total ADHD 35 50 52 72 209 AUT(S/CD) 217 290 318 370 1195 EBD 106 83 86 105 380 HI 43 44 39 44 170 LANG 223 182 192 205 802 LD 326 257 264 279 1126 MED 74 82 78 95 329 MOL 116 120 133 134 503 OTH 21 43 65 109 238 PD 20 37 32 27 116 SLD 51 55 52 52 210 SpLD 52 34 29 33 148 VI 18 22 21 20 81 Total 3309 3307 3370 3555 13541
Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder ADHD Autism (Social/Communication Difficulty) AUT(S/CD) Emotional Behavioural Difficulties EBD Hearing Impaired HI Language Delay LANG Learning Difficulties LD Medical (e.g Epilespsy) MED Moderate Learning Difficulties MOL Other Needs OTH Physcial Disabilities PD Severe Leaning Difficulties SLD Specific literacy Difficulties SpLD Visual Impaired VI 1400 Overall Numbers Of SEN Statements maintained by Lambeth - Graph 1
1200
1000
800 Page 279 In Borough Numbers 600 Out of Borough
400
200
0 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 Period Covered 250 SEN Pupils Breakdown over last 5 years Graph 2
200
150 Page 280 CY 2006 CY 2007
Numbers CY 2008 100 CY 2009 CY 2010
50
0 Age <3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18> Age SEN Figures Over The Last 5 Years Page 3
Overall Number of SEN Statements Maintained by Lambeth Graph 1 Period In Borough Out of Borough Total CY 2006 962 325 1287 CY 2007 900 402 1302 CY 2008 963 336 1299 CY 2009 1017 344 1361 CY 2010 1163 382 1545 Page 281
Sen pupils Breakdown over the last 5 years Graph 2 Period Age <3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18> TOTAL CY 2006 31 65 77 71 87 85 67 145 207 146 177 64 56 9 0 0 0 1287 CY 2007 39 41 50 58 70 81 95 114 116 121 123 128 124 114 21 7 0 1302 CY 2008 12 30 45 63 55 81 85 96 108 130 116 130 132 115 75 26 0 1299 CY 2009 19 29 54 63 77 87 87 100 111 106 118 114 125 112 99 53 7 1361 CY 2010 15 44 60 77 90 96 120 106 136 125 123 146 122 109 125 50 1 1545 TOTAL 116 209 286 332 379 430 454 561 678 628 657 582 559 459 320 136 8 6794 SEN Figures Over The Last 5 Years Page 4
Borough School Placements over last 5 years Totals Only Graph 3 Period School Placement Age <3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18> TOTAL In - B 6 16 29 40 38 56 60 73 78 96 88 109 99 105 27 31 2 953 Out - B 0 2 2 7 10 11 14 19 29 28 36 37 43 60 18 13 5 334 CY 2006 Total 6 18 31 47 48 67 74 92 107 124 124 146 142 165 45 44 7 1287 In - B 37 37 39 45 49 66 68 789 76 80 77 78 71 71 14 18 0 1615 Out - B 2 4 6 10 13 11 18 27 32 33 38 52 48 61 25 17 1 398 CY 2007 Total 39 41 45 55 62 77 86 105 108 113 115 130 119 132 39 35 1 1302 In - B 12 29 44 57 49 65 64 85 87 92 81 92 84 62 47 9 4 963
Out - B 0 1 1 5 6 14 19 13 21 34 39 38 43 55 34 9 4 336 Page 282 CY 2008 Total 12 30 45 62 55 79 83 98 108 126 120 130 127 117 81 18 8 1299 In - B 19 25 52 59 69 78 67 75 88 82 89 73 83 67 55 32 4 1017 Out - B 0 4 2 4 8 9 20 25 23 24 29 41 42 45 44 21 3 344 CY 2009 Total 19 29 54 63 77 87 87 100 111 106 118 114 125 112 99 53 7 1361 In - B 9 41 56 72 84 83 102 86 97 97 89 110 72 67 74 23 1 1163 Out - B 6 3 4 5 6 13 18 20 39 28 34 36 50 42 51 27 0 382 CY 2010 Total 15 44 60 77 90 96 120 106 136 125 123 146 122 109 1285 50 1 2705 Total 91 162 235 304 332 406 450 501 570 594 600 666 635 635 1549 200 24 7954 Appendix 3
Borough School Placements over last 5 years Graph 3 1800
1600
1400
1200
1000 Page 283
800
600
400
200
0 In -B Out -B In -B Out -B In -B Out -B In -B Out -B In -B Out - B
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 Page 284
Period School Placement TOTAL CY 2006 In - B 953 Out - B 334 CY 2007 In - B 1615 Out - B 398 CY 2008 In - B 963 Out - B 336 CY 2009 In - B 1017 Out - B 344 CY 2010 In - B 1163 Out - B 382 Total IN - B 5711 Total Out - B 0 1794 Tribunals against No of Statements within Lambeth Page 285 Tribunals No of Statements
2004 / 2005 2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007 2007 / 2008 2008 / 2009 2009 / 2010 2010 / 2011 Page 286
This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 3
80 Tribunal Outcome Data
70
60
50
40 Decided in favour of LA
Decided in favour of parents Page 287 30 Successfully Conciliated / withdrawn
20
10
0 78 58 44 33 32 30 27*
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Year / Overall total Page 288
Tribunal Outcome Data Decided in favour of Decided in favour Successfully Conciliated LA of parents / withdrawn Year No 2004-2005 78 0 68 10 2005-2006 58 10 37 11 2006-2007 44 7 31 6 2007-2008 33 0 17 16 2008-2009 32 1 21 10 2009-2010 30 0 13 17 2010-2011 27* 6 12 9 Appendix 3
Out of Borough Placements 2010/2011
ASD SPLD BESD MLD Page 289 SLCN PD HI VI SLD MSI
Page 290
This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 4
Budget for Recoupment / IBS / Statementing / Transport / CWD - 2011/12
Cash Limit
Recoupment IBS Statementing Transport CWD Total Opening 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,880,980.00 1,430,400.00 4,311,380.00 * EIG to Cash Limit 906,154.00 906,154.00 Ext Rights to Cash Limit 2,573.04 2,573.04 Revised 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,883,553.04 2,336,554.00 5,220,107.04 0.00
* The total CWD cash limit is £2,089,819. The remainder of this budget is for the staffing and running costs of the service. The cost above is purely for care packages.
Grants & Income Page 291
Recoupment IBS Statementing Transport CWD Total DSG 3,002,182.00 4,188,895.00 1,410,059.00 8,601,136.00 ** YPLA 6th Form Grant (SEN) 583,627.00 583,627.00 Recoupment Income 1,600,000.00 1,600,000.00 Total 4,602,182.00 4,188,895.00 1,410,059.00 583,627.00 0.00 10,784,763.00 0.00
Total Budget 4,602,182.00 4,188,895.00 1,410,059.00 3,467,180.04 2,336,554.00 16,004,870.04 0.00
** The total DSG allocation for the BU is £9,162,143. The remainder of this budget is used for paying Central Recharges, LIT, Pension Backfunding and staffing costs. Page 292
This page is intentionally left blank Page 293
Appendix 5
SEN AND DISABILITY REVIEW
KEITH MAKIN – Activity to end of August 2011. Bring updated
MEETINGS HELD
Adult Services Jo Cleary George Marchman Early Years Karen Nugent Health Max Davies Paediatricians Mary Sheridan centre Staff incl Specialist Services: Physio, OT, SALT Community Nurses Parents and Families Kate Burman – Contact a Family Parents Action Group (PAG) Parents for Inclusion Group 6 x Families Schools Sector - Heads Livity Lansdowne PRV Kings Avenue Turney Elm Court Michael Tippet
SEN / CWD/CYPS Michael Donkor Laurence Hine Nanda Sirker Janet Bailey Harry Tuck Geraldine Abrahams Staff in SEN, CWD and Transport All relevant Senior Managers in CYPS Finance Managers PLANNED MEETINGS
Secondary School Heads - September Health Staff - August Parent Focus groups - August Mainstream Shcools – September Other Schools – September CAMHS – August SENCOS – August Governors – September MDT – August September
Page 294
Appendix 5
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Contact with schools in other boroughs • Newham • Camden • Hackney • Tower Hamlets • Barking and Dagenham Contact with PAN London SEN Group Governors – Sue Osbourne, Peter Davies, Pamela Secrett
Activity • Reading Policy and Other papers • Studying Government Reports • Analysing internal and External Data incl; Comparative statistics • Reading through complaint letters / Ombudsman’s reports . SCRS
• 28 days equivalent worked – 5 days paperwork and 23 days interviews • 52 Individuals contact • 15 group Sessions • 40+ Questionnaires completed (potentially 90+ by the end of September • Written submissions from various professional groups
Page 295
Appendix 2
WORKSTREAM MEMBERSHIP and TIMETABLE OUTCOMES process
1. ‘Visioning’ sessions Session 1 : DLT Nov 11 – Dec • Clearly articulated vision – 3 Linked sessions Members 11 designed to establish an agreed Session 2 : DLT & direction for SEN Health & Adult Care Review Reps
Session 3 :SLB Session 4 : Members
2. Commissioning Broad representation March 12 • Commissioning Strategy Strategy including: agreed • Redesign of SEN Keith Makin • General plan for redesign provision Farouk Akbar agreed • Future of out of Cathy Twist • Targets set for reduction in Borough placements Mike Pocock out of Borough placements • Funding formulas SENCO Reps • Funding formula and and systems Head teachers systems agreed • Capital programme Feyisa Demie Parent Rep
3. Inclusion Policy Wide Membership Nov – Dec • an agreement as to the Series of Focus and consultations 2011 degree of inclusion that will Sessions with: prevail in Lambeth • Heads provision • Parents • Governors • Inclusion policy agreed • partner agencies Conference • voluntary and in Jan 2012 o choice community groups o entitlement o support to enable Final Policy inclusion March 2012 o responsibilities o accountabilities
4. Structures within DLT Members draft • New integrated structures CYPS Assistant Directors structures agreed HR as necessary agreed for consultation with staff December 2011
March 2012
5. Integrated Parent March 2012 • Overall systems agreed assessment Representative and plan for further roll out systems Educational agreed Psychologist • coherency with SEN white
Page 296
Health paper Representative Michael Donkor Nanda Sirker Janet Bailey
6. Development of Jointly with Adult March 2012 • New approach / policy / self-directed Services arrangements agreed support and Parent development of 14- Representative 19 years Janet Bailey Michael Donkor
7. Transport Policy Process for change October 2011 • savings targets for 2012 has already started agreed discussions to • New transport include commissioning adult services arrangements parents To cabinet • revised transport policy schools Jan 2012 agreed finance young people
8. (a) Parental activity Wide membership Joint • Programme of systematic / coproduction including: workshops: change to a model of co- (b) Involvement of Consultation Jan 2012 production with families young people in framework to extend New service planning to all affected arrangements families in Borough. starting by march 2012 9. Information production of regular Dissemination updates and 15 th • communication strategy briefings November and plan
working together CYPSP Head teachers Council governors Lambeth weekender 10. Under 5’s support linked to 5 - early identification and March 2012 • clearly articulated offer for assessment systems under 5s with SEN and or a disability joint working with March 2012 • where necessary structural health changes to support the delivery of the offer role of inclusion finalised alliance March 2012 • chapter in inclusion policy
discussions to include • health • voluntary and community services • disability team • SEN team
Page 297
• children centres ]nursery schools • schools
Page 298
This page is intentionally left blank Page 299
Appendix 3:
Terms of reference for an SEN review in Lambeth
1. Project : A review of SEN in Lambeth
2. Scope : the review will be wide reaching and will review all aspects of SEN in the borough including
a. SEN provision in the borough - type and governance
b. Criteria for accessing SEN transport
c. Funding for SEN both to schools and for services
d. The recommendations of the SEN green paper
e. Support for parents
f. The strategy for supporting children and young people with SEN including the philosophy and principles that will underpin a revised SEN strategy
g. Support for the under 5s with disabilities/CWD
h. Therapeutic support for pupils with SEN
3. Timescales: April to October to enable consultation with schools and partner agencies so that proposed revised arrangements are agreed in time to influence 2012/13 funding arrangements and Phase 3 of Reshaping in CYPS.
4. Governance: A programme board has been established that meets weekly which considers SEND fortnightly. In addition existing for have been identified to receive information and provide challenge to the process of review:
a. Cabinet member and officer meeting - fortnightly
b. Members and officer working group (MOWG) – monthly
c. Executive director and Chair of HTC meetings – termly
d. Governors forum – termly
e. Working together event with head teachers – termly
A steering group is established that steers the review and oversees the agreed work streams, this group to meet monthly and whose membership should include :
• Divisional Director for EITS Page 300
• Divisional Director for SPC
• Head teachers - special, primary, secondary
• Schools finance
• Parent representatives
• Governor
• AD Schools and educational improvements
• AD Targeted Interventions
• Head of CWD team
• Head of SEN team
• Health
5. Key outputs: the executive group through its steering group will require the following outputs at the end of the project
a. Revised SEN strategy for the borough
b. Revised model of SEN provision based on the principles that underpin the strategy
c. Revised SEN transport criteria
d. Revised financial model for funding special schools
e. Training programme for teaching and non teaching staff
f. Revised model of support for parents of children and young people with SEN.
g. Revised arrangements for the funding of mainstream schools
Agenda Item 6 Page 301
b Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub - Committee
19 January 2012
Biannual Safeguarding Report
All Ward(s)
Report authorised by : Executive Director Children and Young People’s Services: Debbie Jones
Executive summary
This report supports the Committee in exercising their scrutiny of safeguarding across Children and Young People’s Services. The report summarises the LSCB Annual Report 2010-11.
Recommendations (1) That Committee exercise its role in scrutinising safeguarding practice in Lambeth through receiving this report and thereby contributing to the governance of safeguarding practice. (2) That Committee note key points arising from the LSCB Report and actions being taken to address areas noted for improvement. (3) That Committee require a further report in six months. Page 302
Consultation
Name of Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee to response appear in report consultee received para: from consultee
Internal Debbie Jones Executive Director Children and 15/11/11 16/11/11 Young People’s Service
Ade Adetosoye Divisional Director –Specialist 15/11/11 16/11/11 Services Cllr Pete Robbins Cabinet Member for Children and 15/11/11 16/11/11 Young People Frank Higgins Corporate Finance 15/11/11 17/11/11 Fateha Salim Governance and Democracy 15/11/11 Farrukh Akbar Divisional Director of Resources 15/11/11 5.2 16/11/11 and Strategy - CYPS
Report history
Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 06.01.12 23.11.11 258/11-12 Report author and contact for queries: Deane Jennings, Head of Service for Quality Assurance and LSCB Manager 020 7926 4760 [email protected]
Background documents
Children Act 1989 and 2004 Working Together 2010 Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board Strategic Plan 2008-11 The Munro Review of Child Protection: Report, The Child’s Journey
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Child Protection Data
2 Page 303
1. Biannual Safeguarding Report
1.1 Statutory Responsibility for Safeguarding
Safeguarding is a concept which is defined as:
1.2 ‘The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing impairment of their health or development, and ensuring that they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully’ (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010).
1.3 Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on all professionals to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) have been set up in every Local Authority in response to Lord Laming’s review into the death of Victoria Climbié to co-ordinate and evaluate the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements from a multi-agency perspective.
1.4 Lambeth’s Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) is currently chaired by an Independent Chair, David Sanders and attended by senior professionals across all statutory agencies, faith communities and the voluntary sector. The Board is a strategic body whose priorities are discharged through a work programme which is delivered by the following Sub Committees; Policy and Procedures; Safer Recruitment and Allegations Management; E- Safety; Promotion of Safeguarding; Child Death Review; Serious Case Review; Performance Management and Training.
1.5 The Munro Review (May 2011) and the government response makes the annual report from the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board on safeguarding a statutory requirement. It is a report addressed to the Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council, the local Police and Crime Commissioner and local Health and Wellbeing Board. Its purpose is to give an account of the state of safeguarding children in the Borough and provide a strategic overview of the work of the Safeguarding Board’s work in the last twelve to eighteen months.
2. Key Messages from the Annual LSCB Report 2010-11
Context
2.1 The report sets out the changed context in which the Board is now working, including changes arising from the Munro Review, Local Government cuts, the Localism agenda and Co-operative Council. The key impact on safeguarding from this is two fold – the Board is working in a time of transition in terms of strategic structures, particularly related to health. Some of the key future governance structures around the provision of health services are as yet unclear. The role of GP commissioning and the Health and Wellbeing Boards are two such areas. Secondly it is taking place in one of the most challenging economic climates Local Government has ever known. Both of these present challenges and risks to the frontline.
3 Page 304
Priorities
2.2 The Report reviews the priorities in the Strategic Plan from 2008-11 and builds on the commentary in last years Annual Report 2008 – 2010. The strong conclusion is that the priority actions have now been very largely fulfilled and the Board can show demonstrable improvements in services as a result. Please see the report for more detail pages 4 - 10.
2.3 The report therefore has, in view of the changed context and the fulfilment of the previous objectives identified in 2008, agreed to set out a set of new potential priorities going forward for the next eighteen months and five years. The priorities have not been finalised yet because they are subject to feedback from consultation with young people who have been recipients of safeguarding services, and a review of the work of the Board which is due to report back in January 2012. The finalised priorities for the next eighteen months and five years will be agreed in the first quarter of 2012.
3. Quality Assurance of Safeguarding Performance
3.1 The report details a three pronged approach to quality assurance of safeguarding which comprise multi agency audits, consultation with children and families and data.
3.2 The context to quality assurance has changed following Professor Munro’s report. The accent on quality assurance is now more on the quality of outcomes for children, the relationship between social workers and families, and the child’s experience and journey through the system, rather than measuring strict compliance to processes and timescales.
Multi agency Audit
3.3 The LSCB has carried out multi agency audits into eight children subject to child protection plans, sixteen children looked after and eight children on child in need plans. These included consultation with the parents and children involved and each of the agencies involved.
3.4 The child protection audit identified that six cases achieved effective safeguarding outcomes. In two cases the outcomes were below our robust standards. Action has been taken in those cases to secure more robust management of the issues. The feedback from the children and families has also reinforced the message that the work has overall been good and children feel safe. A further eight cases of children subject to child protection plans is being audited to verify results.
3.5 The child protection audits into the CLA and CIN cases were all extremely positive, both in outcomes and in the feedback from families and children. Learning points from the audits are being progressed with agencies through the LSCB. Please see report for further detail. (Section 5 page 22 - 30)
4 Page 305
Consultation
3.6 The LSCB carried out several projects of consultation with children and parents over the past eighteen months. The feedback in brief is that children and parents generally feel they are treated with respect by their social workers, that children were seen alone by their social workers, that most parents and children say that things have got better since Social Care became involved, and most children indicate that they feel safer as a result.
3.7 The consultation indicates a need to improve support and give more explanation to children around the child protection process. (Please see report pages 30 – 32)
Data – the headlines
3.8 Child Protection Data: Overall our data is encouraging. Although we have high numbers of referrals and high numbers of children subject to child protection plans we know that we have had no serious case reviews, which means that no children have died as a result of abuse or neglect. We also know that the numbers of children being re-referred within two years or being kept on a child protection plan for more than two years are both lower than statistical neighbours. This is good performance because it means that the work is timely and effective and lasting. Our child in care population has also fallen in the same period, which is against the national trend.
3.9 The number of children subject to child protection plans has risen from 211 in 2009 to around 334 a month today. This is thought to be mainly due to the publicity caused by the Baby P case and is a national phenomenon.
4.0 Although complying with timescales for assessments is less important than achieving good outcomes, our performance here is generally good, even if slightly below other Boroughs. This may be because the accent in Lambeth is on getting an assessment completed properly with all the relevant checks rather than just meeting the timescale at all the costs.
Referrals, Thresholds and Early Intervention
4.1 We know that Lambeth has very high numbers of referrals and undertakes initial assessments on around 90% of them, which is higher than most equivalent Boroughs (who complete around 70%). This means that we operate safer thresholds in Lambeth. We know from our statistics that the partnership are more likely to refer a case to social care than undertake a CAF. The Local Authority receives nearly 5,000 referrals to children’s social care and only 1,500 referrals to early intervention. We also know that around half our referrals receive no ongoing service once the initial assessment is complete.
4.2 The report questions whether this is sustainable in the long term in view of the challenge around resources. The LSCB considered this issue last January and is keeping it under close review. Any move to raise thresholds could leave more children at risk.
For more detail please see Child Protection data in Appendix 1.
5 Page 306
Serious Case Reviews and CDOP
4.3 Lambeth has not had a serious case review since May 2007. This is encouraging in that it means no children have died as a result of abuse or neglect. However we have had two internal management reviews, both into cases of severely disabled children. The LSCB is closely monitoring safeguarding in disabled children going forward.
4.4 The Child Death Overview Panel has reviewed 105 child deaths since 2008. Last year 49 children died in Lambeth. Results from the Panel indicate that about half these deaths are neonatal deaths, and only about a quarter of all deaths have any “modifiable” factors associated with them. This means that someone may have been able to prevent the death occurring. The majority of learning that arises pertains to public health and medical practices in Acute Trusts. An action plan is being drawn up by the Promotions Sub-committee. (Please see full report on page 44-46)
Conclusions
4.5 We know that the context of Lambeth is very challenging with high levels of deprivation, serious youth violence, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and mental health in the population. We also know that Lambeth has one of the highest referral rates in London to children’s social care. However broadly speaking the health of safeguarding in Lambeth is good. The inspection findings from the Unannounced Inspections in the last two years have been very positive, and consultation and data and audit all indicate that overall there is good practice which help keep children safe and achieve better outcomes.
4.6 There is one concern arising from the child protection audit about two cases, and further work is being undertaken to re-audit child protection work. The quality assurance work in Lambeth is rigorous and challenging and it is unsurprising if it identifies concerns on some cases. Senior management are engaged in monitoring and addressing these practice issues, and are introducing a new quality assurance framework in early 2012 to strengthen the journey from identifying learning to improving practice.
4.7 The LSCB will be reviewing the impact of early intervention, and keeping referral thresholds under close scrutiny. It will ensure that any changes introduced are carefully considered and are not detrimental to vulnerable children. It will be forging strategic links with health commissioners and the Health and Wellbeing Board. Its focus will be on serious youth violence and aims to build a stronger partnership with young people this year going forward so they can input on the work of the Board.
5. Finance Comments
This report sets out the changed context in which the Board is now working, including changes arising from the Munro Review, Local Government cuts, the Localism agenda and Co-operative Council. There are no financial implications arising from this report. Any recommendations or improvements required will be met within existing budgets within the Children’s Specialist Services.
6 Page 307
Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy
5.2 The Lead Member for Children’s Services and the Executive Director for Children’s Services are legally accountable for the safeguarding and welfare of children in Lambeth. The Lambeth LSCB has overall responsibility for overseeing all safeguarding arrangements in the Borough. Committee is reminded of its responsibility to ensure that the Council has in place effective arrangements for safeguarding children and young people. Children’s safeguarding operates within a detailed legal framework including the Children Act 1989 and 2004, Working Together 2010 and subsidiary regulations and guidance which are outlined in the body of this report.
6. Results of consultation None
7. Organisational implications
7.1 Risk management: Safeguarding of Lambeth’s children is rightly a high priority, this report outlines some of the mechanisms in place to manage that risk and to minimise its impact. Continuous improvement in safeguarding Lambeth’s children and young people must remain high on all agencies priorities to ensure that vulnerable Looked After Children are safeguarded.
7.2 Equalities impact assessment: The Children Act 1989 requires that consideration is given to a child’s race, culture, language and religion in all decisions made about a child. National Performance information indicates that children from BME populations are over represented in the number of children who are looked after and children subject to child protection plans, specifically Caribbean and mixed white and Caribbean children. Analysis of Lambeth data shows that this inequality is rooted in the referrals made to social care rather than actions taken by social care following referral. Further work is being undertaken to identify and target BME children with more of the early intervention help, because we know that BME children are not as over represented in early intervention as they are on child protection plans.
We know that children disabled are six times more likely to be subject to a child protection plan in Lambeth than non disabled children. The research 1 indicates that they are at least four times more likely to be victims of abuse, so the over representation is reassuring in that it indicates that we are being effective in identifying abuse and taking steps to safeguard this vulnerable population.
7.3 Community safety implications: The safety of children is fundamental to community safety. Most children who are harmed are harmed by those known to them, usually members of their own family. However the LSCB has learnt that the highest safeguarding concern for young people is serious youth crime. For this reason the issue of Serious Youth Crime is on the LSCB agenda at every meeting and it is in the priorities as an issue to.
8. Environmental implications
1 Sullivan and Knutson (2000)
7 Page 308
None
9. Staffing and accommodation implications All statutory agencies have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, a safely recruited, stable and well trained workforce is essential for the delivery of these functions
8 Page 309
Appendix 1 Lambeth Children 2006 - 7 2007 - 8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11
No. of children subject to a child protection plan 38.75 41.32 33.92 48.39 54.34 rate per 10k as of 31 st March 2
No. children with a child protection plan during 263 298 244 404 400 the year ending 31 st March Nos of children taken off a child protection plan 236 284 286 312 346 during year ending 31 st March Nos of children Looked After 592 571 543 565 498
Nos of children made subject of a child 33 32 20 54 42 protection plan for a second time during year (12.5) (10.7%) (8.2%) (13%) (10.7%) ending 31 st March (statistical neighbours 13%) Percentage of children subject to a child 71.36% 72.15% 74.8% 75.41% 74.63% protection plan from a black, ethnic minority background on 31 st March 2008 Nos. reviewed within required frequency 170 165 168 211 265 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Nos of children subject to a child protection plan 29 21 12 16 10 for more than 2 years (% of population) (12.3%) (7.4%) (4.2%) (5%) (2.9%) (Statistical neighbours 7.5%) Categories of abuse as of 31 st March 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Neglect 138 149 148 177 211
Physical Abuse 7 22 9 27 21
Sexual Abuse 9 10 8 9 9
Emotional Abuse 64 51 40 88 97
Multiple Categories 23 25 6 0 0
Total children subject to a child protection plan 241 257 211 301 338 as of 31 st March Nos of referrals to Social Care in the year ending 3987 3969 4281 4978 4492 31 st March
Initial Assessments completed in timescale 2557 2595 2406 2490 2,784 (statistical neighbours 79 %) (72.97) (76.79%) (67%) (62%) (69%)
Core assessments completed in timescale of 35 1000 1079 1085 710 1,865 days (76%) (82%) (79.6%) (73%) (95.4%)
Number of Section 47 enquiries initiated during 637 628 550 765 858 the year ending 31 st March Number of Initial Child Protection conferences 341 400 282 463 492 held in the year ending 31 st March (53% of (64% of (51% of (60.52% of (57.34 of S47s) S47s) S47) S47) S47) Nos of Initial Case Conferences per 10,000. 54.82 64.31 45.34 48.39 54.34 (Statistical neighbours 06/07 – 46.0) Nos of 0 – 15s killed or seriously injured (KSI) 20 14 12 21 22 in Road Traffic Accidents in Lambeth (0 killed) (0 killed) (1 killed) (0 killed) (0 killed)
2 (population taken as 62200 under 18 population GLA 2009 population projections)
9 Page 310
This page is intentionally left blank Page 311
Annual Report of the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board April 2010 – September 2011
Introduction
This is the statutory annual report from the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board on safeguarding for the Chief Executive and the Leader of Lambeth Council, and to the local Police and Crime Commissioner and local Health and Wellbeing Board, as recommended by the Munro Review of Child Protection (2011). Its purpose is to give an account of the state of safeguarding children in the Borough and provide a strategic overview of the work of the Safeguarding Board during the last twelve to eighteen months.
The last Annual Report was published in October 2010 and summarised the work of the Safeguarding Board from the publication of the Strategic Plan in June 2008 until April 2010. This Report summarises the work of the Board and key developments in safeguarding from April 2010 until September 2011.
1. Background and Context: Since April 2010 there has been substantial change to the landscape and context in which safeguarding has been taking place, bringing with it significant new challenges. In May 2010, one month after the time span of the last Annual Report ended, there was a change of government which precipitated a series of significant changes in policy and direction which include the following:
a). The Government Spending Review in October 2010 and service cuts:
Following the government’s spending review of October 2010 and the local government settlement, Councils around the country have been facing the most serious financial crises in local government history, with a reduction in funding of almost a third of their budgets over four years. The government has devolved responsibility for making the reductions in service to the Local Authorities and indicated that they should cut “back room staff” rather than the frontline. Many of the grants that used to target inner city areas with high deprivation have been scaled back or cut. .
Although the Council has made every effort to protect the frontline, the net impact on these changes has been to increase pressure on frontline services trying to deliver safeguarding services to vulnerable children. In January 2011 the LSCB had to review the appropriateness of maintaining Children’s Social Care’s current level of threshold for a service. A decision was taken not to change it at that time, but this will be a live issue for the LSCB going forward into the next eighteen months. b). Changes to key strategic bodies, and the abolition of various national bodies and projects:
The Coalition Government made a number of swift changes to the national landscape around safeguarding by abolishing various projects and suspending others pending review, and announcing plans with far reaching consequences. These included the following: -
• Abolition of the National Safeguard Delivery Unit and Commissioner for Children,
1 Page 312
• Abolition of Contact Point • Abolition of the Government Office for London as well as all the other regional offices, • Abolition of BECTA, (which provided policy advice and support to Local Authorities around electronic safety for children) • Suspension of the registration scheme of Vetting and Barring Services pending review • Removal of statutory status from the Children’s Trust Boards • Serious Case Reviews are to be published in full.
The Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended pending review, and in 2011 scaled back to what was described by government as “common sense” levels.
The Coalition Government signalled their wish to remove the strategic structure that they inherited through the previous administration and removed the statutory function of Children Trust Boards. Children’s Trust Board had been required to provide the strategic leadership within Local Authority partnerships to coordinate children’s services to attain the Every Child Matters five outcomes set out in the Children Act 2004:
• Being safe • Being health • Enjoying and Achieving • Achieving economic wellbeing • Making a Positive Contribution
Although the Children’s Trust Board lost its status as a statutory body, there was no alternative proposed by the government, thereby creating a gap in local strategic leadership arrangements. The prevailing approach of the Coalition Government has been to devolve responsibility for local arrangements down to a local level. Lambeth Council has therefore continued to use the Children’s Trust Board to lead the broad partnership work around children’s services even though it is no longer a statutory body.
c). Changes in health commissioning:
The Coalition Government indicated that it wanted to put GPs at the centre of health commissioning, and created the new Health and Wellbeing Board. The issue of GP commissioning of health services locally represents a very significant change to health care provision, and a potential challenge to safeguarding as GPs are semi autonomous professionals. The LSCB has made moves to ensure that a GP representative is able to attend its Board meetings with a view to influencing the shape of local health arrangements to come.
The Health and Wellbeing Boards are new entities that require some linkage and scrutiny from the LSCB going forward.
d). Localism Bill 2010
On 14 th December 2010 the government published the document “Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide” which outlined the government’s intention to move power and control over resources away from central and local government
2 Page 313
and put it increasingly in the hands of local people. This represented a radical change from the central control and monitoring exercised by previous governments, and will have a far reaching impact on the way that public services – including some safeguarding services - are delivered and held accountable.
Lambeth Council has declared that it wishes to become a Co-operative Council which means that some of the services that are provided by the Council to the community are to be provided by the community itself, using Council money, or through grant assisted funding. The Council aims in fact to move 90% of its services to be provided by the community over the next ten years. However, direct frontline Children’s Social Care services are not going to be provided this way.
The Localism Bill will place significantly greater onus on the LSCB to monitor the standards around safeguarding in services being provided by community groups. e). The Munro Review May 2011
In June 2010 the Secretary of State for Education asked Professor Eileen Munro to conduct a review of the child protection system. Professor Munro’s final report, The Munro Review of Child Protection was published in May 2011 signalling a very significant change to the way that the previous government had managed child protection services. The report identified the following themes that will shape the way that LSCB’s must deliver their services in the years ahead:
• A renewed focus on the quality of social work, achieving better outcomes for children, spending more time building relationships and doing direct work with children and less time completing administrative processes. • Renewed emphasis on understanding the child’s journey through the child protection system • The provision of effective early help for children and families • A radical reduction in the amount of central prescription to help professionals move from a compliance culture to a learning culture, where they have more freedom to assess need and provide the right help. • A stronger emphasis on the value of professional judgement and a move away from centrally imposed prescriptive process driven procedures designed to control and manage risk. • She recommends changes to the current performance indicators which she says have been distorting social work and creating unintended outcomes. She suggests revision of these indicators to better measure and reflect outcomes for children rather than compliance with process. • She recommends a new model for conducting Serious Case Reviews, which uses the root cause analysis model adapted from the health services and the aviation industry. • She recommends that Ofsted stop grading Serious Case Review Reports, which have skewed energy and attention away from the learning, and recommends that greater focus is given by Ofsted to measuring the learning achieved by organisations. • She recommends a suspension of nationally imposed statutory targets and timescales, to allow local areas the freedom to design their own systems. • She supports the continuation of the role of the LSCB, and the central importance of preserving the role of the Director of Children’s Services as the key lead for safeguarding.
3 Page 314
These changes have been key drivers for the changes in LSCB priorities for the future eighteen months to five years.
2. Progress Against Key Priorities Identified:
In 2008 the LSCB set out its key priorities in responsive, targeted and universal safeguarding for the next three years. The Annual Report for 2010 reported progress against each of these specific areas but recommended that a further year be given to bed in the improvements achieved since then. The priorities of the LSCB for last year therefore remained unchanged. Following the completion of the existing plan and the changes to the landscape of safeguarding and the fresh challenges this brings, the time is right for the LSCB to review its priorities going forward and set out a new plan. This section will review the progress made against the previous priorities and targets and set out the new priorities for the next eighteen months 2011 – 2013 and then the priorities for the next five years 2012 – 2017.
Review of Progress of Priorities:
Responsive Safeguarding:
“Further improve the effectiveness and quality of multi agency responsive safeguarding.”
The LSCB has continued to carry out multi agency and single agency auditing into the quality of operational safeguarding work. Since last year the LSCB has carried out eight multi agency audits into children subject to a child protection plan, and eight children subject to child in need plans, as well as sixteen children looked after (which included any safeguarding issues). The findings are reported under the section “Scrutiny, Monitoring and Evaluation and Quality Assurance” in chapter 5. These cases indicated that the majority of the work was good, but that there are still areas for further improvement. A detailed action plan was developed that was presented to the LSCB in July 2011 and agencies are reporting back on progress in November. A further eight cases are being audited of children subject to child protection plans.
The quality of safeguarding has continued to be judged good by Ofsted, who made an Unannounced Inspection in 2010 which was had no priority action points, five areas that were deemed to be strengths, seven areas that were considered to meet statutory requirements and just two points for development. The Unannounced Inspection was among the most positive in London.
This year has seen a new initiative around working with children and service users who are in receipt of safeguarding services to gather feedback from them. In 2010 a telephone survey took place of twenty five young people who were subject to child protection plans, using other young people who had been in care as the telephone interviewers. The results indicated that the vast majority of the young people interviewed felt safe. Young people have also been engaged through a mail out paper survey and were interviewed where possible during multi agency audits. The feedback from these different sources was that whilst there were areas for further improvement around communication, young people do feel safe, and in most cases they and their parents say that things have improved since social care became involved.
4 Page 315
“Reduce the risk of harm to young people who place themselves in danger through risky behaviour through multi-agency safeguarding.”
In 2008 following concerns arising from a serious case review into a young person whose lifestyle and vulnerability had exposed her to serious risks, the LSCB set up a new strategy to manage such cases through a multi agency panel. The panel is now well established in Lambeth, has good multi agency attendance and dealt with 69 young people last year ensuring that such cases were systematically examined and receive robust multi agency support.
In 2010 the LSCB has worked closely with the Public Protection Desk (PPD) of the Police and the Detective Inspector in charge of it to strengthen links with all the residential units in Lambeth, and remind them of the protocol around Missing from Care procedures. All the Managers of local residential units were invited to attend a joint meeting with Social Care, the Police and LSCB leads. The numbers of children running away from home or care have been tracked on a monthly basis and the top ten persistent absconders have been identified for a targeted joint discussion between the Manager of the Referral and Assessment Team and the PPD.
“Strengthen safeguards for children through safer recruitment and allegations management in Lambeth agencies.”
The LSCB has substantially strengthened safer recruitment and allegations management processes in Lambeth since 2007 to ensure that it is now much more difficult for staff with safeguarding concerns in their past or in their conduct to either enter the children’s work force or remain in post if concerns emerge. Tight safer recruitment processes have been established by agencies, and audited by the LSCB. Strategic managers have received training and briefings and existing protocols are being strengthened further by the introduction of the new Vetting and Barring Scheme being introduced in July 2010.
A new policy and set of procedures around safer recruitment has been signed off at the LSCB in July 2011.
A conference with the Voluntary Sector was held in January 2011 which promoted advice and guidance to members of the sector around good practice in relation to safer recruitment and allegations management. Free training around safer recruitment is provided to the voluntary sector and the agencies.
Similarly Lambeth has established clear and robust procedures around the management of allegations against staff, with a dedicated Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). Last year, April 2010 to March 2011, one hundred and nineteen referrals were made to the LADO from across the statutory and voluntary agencies. One person was referred to the Barring Board.
Progress against Priorities for Targeted Safeguarding 2010 - 2011:
“Reduce the risk of harm to children from domestic violence ”
Around 40% of children subject to child protection plans in Lambeth experience domestic violence at home and around 60% of children subject to CAFs are believed to experience domestic violence. Lambeth has one of the highest reported rates in London.
5 Page 316
The Board has made a substantial difference to the way that this issue is managed both operationally and strategically.
The LSCB consolidated the work from the Domestic Violence audit which reported back to the Board in 2010, by making substantial improvements to the way that services manage domestic violence. The audit identified that there was an average delay of ten days between a domestic violence incident and its referral by the police to Children’s Social Care, during which time no-one would have seen the child. The police and social care have worked closely together to review the risk assessment processes in the Public Protection Desk (PPD) and identify those cases that need an immediate response. Cases now take between a day to three days to be referred depending on the seriousness of the incident and the level of risk. Referrals are made after a careful analysis of the previous history and discussed in monthly operational meetings between the police and Team Manager for the Referral and Assessment Team (R and A Team). The R and A Team Manager regularly works with his colleagues in the PPD to improve joint work coordination. Social Care added a specialist domestic violence post into the R and A Team to assist social workers manage the volume of work and support staff to respond effectively.
Following on from the progress made here, the police, children’s social care, community health services, adult mental health services, children’s community services, early intervention teams are working to set up a co-located Multi Agency Information Sharing Hub (MASH) to manage the assessment and allocation of police MERLIN 1 reports in a multi agency forum to improve the speed and efficiency of processing police referrals.
There has been a review of the Violence Against Women and Children Strategy, (VAWG) which has mapped all the services available in Lambeth, led by Adults and Community Services. This report has been to the LSCB where it was carefully scrutinised and a number of amendments were sought to strengthen the strategy from the point of view of protecting children. One of the outcomes from this was the appointment of a dedicated social worker for working with domestic violence referrals in the Referral and Assessment service.
The Domestic Violence procedures were re-launched in January 2011 during a joint Adult and Children’s Conference on safeguarding.
It is important to note that Lambeth Council has, in its planning around the cut backs in service, shielded services for victims of domestic violence.
“Reduce the risk of harm to children from parents with mental health difficulties and/or substance misuse issues”
Adult mental health and substance misuse issues continue to feature in the profile of serious case reviews nationally and can present high risks to children. In May 2009 the LSCB launched its first Joint Mental Health Protocol, and training in the use of the Common Assessment Framework and Team Around the Child has been rolled out to adult mental health services. Four LSCB courses on working with mentally ill parents were run in 2010 training seventy eight people, and so far this financial year a further twenty one people have received training to date.
1 MERLIN reports are police referral to other agencies when a child comes to notice.
6 Page 317
In January 2011 the LSCB ran a well attended half day joint adults and children’s services conference which promoted the whole family approach to one hundred and forty six attendees from across the two services.
A co-located mental health manager has been jointly funded to sit in social care and support better interface work between children’s social workers and adult’s workers. An audit of the way that mental health cases are managed between the two services was completed in 2010.
A protocol around working with parents who misuse substances was written and launched in May 2010. In 2010 – 11 the LSCB trained eighty one members of staff in working with adults and young people around drugs and alcohol misuse. In 2011- 12 there will be around hundred people trained or more.
A project for young people who are affected by adult substance misuse has been commissioned in Lambeth to offer one to one support, group work and therapy. A specialist worker in substance misuse has also been co-located in children’s social care to improve the links and support best practice for children at risk from parental substance misuse.
In 2010 the LSCB produced a joint Adult and Children’s services protocol around Physical Disability and Learning Disability. These were both launched at the Joint Adults and Children’s half day conference in January 2011.
Progress against Priorities for Universal Safeguarding 2010 -11:
“Continue to raise community awareness around and support for children who are privately fostered”
The number of notifications for children privately fostered up to March 2011 was twenty seven, which was a drop in the year before of forty four. A robust system of assessing placements of privately fostered children is in place and each notified case has to go through a panel process to check that the welfare needs are being met for each child. The Private Fostering Team were inspected recently and commended as “strong” by Ofsted. The team have staff that work with local agencies and community groups to raise awareness on an ongoing basis. The LSCB recently carried out an audit into the quality of the safeguarding work in the Private Fostering Team which found that it was good.
The LSCB wrote an article from the view point of a privately fostered child and saw it published in the local press to raise awareness in the community in March 2011. The same messages are regularly communicated to agencies through the LSCB Newsletter which goes to agencies and the voluntary sector. A Faith group conference is being held in November which will raise the profile of private fostered children and the LSCB Voluntary and Community Sector worker meets with faith groups in Lambeth by invitation to help promote this message.
The Private Fostering Carer’s Support Group was developed in 2010, the aim of which was to enable carers to meet on a three monthly basis in order to discuss any issues they encounter whilst caring for someone else’s child. The group was facilitated by the Deputy Team Manager and Social Workers from the team. The next meeting was held on 4 th March 2011, and in all there were 7 carers, and 6 children. The carers expressed that they were very impressed with the idea of having a group where they can meet new people with similar experiences, one carer was
7 Page 318
impressed that CYPS is keen to hear the views of service users and they all felt that three monthly meetings and Friday afternoons are suitable and convenient for all.
“Raise professional and community awareness of e safety on-line”
The LSCB established a new sub-committee led by the Safeguarding Manager for schools in December 2009 which has made progress quickly. It has set up a work shop on information technology and internet safety for parents in July 2010. The ICT departments of schools in Lambeth are revising their internet safety models and a new staff resource has been allocated in CYPS to work within the youth services and schools to improve digital safety for children. All schools through the Lambeth CYPS ICT Strategy for Schools 2009 – thirteen have access to training around e safety, have e safety blocks on internet and acceptable use and anti cyber bullying policies in place. ICT staff have either received Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) training or are in the process of being trained.
In September 2011, the E Safety sub-committee has published a definitive guide to E Safety for professionals, schools, parents and young people. This is published on the LSCB website and selected key messages are disseminated in communications to Lambeth’s school children. Further work now needs to take place to make a child friendly and parent friendly guidance or resource pack and disseminate it further.
“Raise awareness of safe parenting practice in the community”
The LSCB Promotion of safeguarding sub-committee funded and organised delivery of a Parenting handbook which reached every family in Lambeth through schools and Health Visitors in 2008-09. This has given advice and information to parents about a wide range of safeguarding matters and has been well received by the community. The Handbook has been translated into four languages – French, Spanish, Portuguese and Somali and published on the LSCB website. A new website has been launched by the LSCB which contains advice and resources to support parents, and a number of leaflets have been produced to promote awareness of safeguarding in the community around domestic violence, private fostering and support for parents facing a section 47 investigation.
In 2010 a new Lay Member, Ursula Rene, was recruited to the Board who has as part of her remit the promotion of safeguarding in the community. The LSCB recruited a new worker in July 2010 to develop awareness of safeguarding in community groups, the voluntary sector and faith groups.
In September 2011 the LSCB signed off a significant new communications plan and approach designed by the Promotion of Safeguarding Sub-committee. The LSCB, jointly with the Council, has developed a new magazine called Teentlk aimed at secondary school children to speak about safeguarding issues, delivered to every secondary school in Lambeth in November 2011. The strategy also sets out a similar publication to be created for parents, aimed at new, young parents and targeted at locations and professionals who work with them (health visitors, children’s centres etc).The publication would replicate much of the information in previous parenting guides, but would be in a magazine format and potentially, is more accessible and cost-effective.
“Review the Threshold Criteria for Services”
8 Page 319
Having clear and well understood thresholds is critical for the partnership to ensure that children receive the right service at the right time. The LSCB has been effective in establishing appropriate thresholds which are well understood in the partnership.
In July 2010 the LSCB signed off and published the new threshold document produced by the London Safeguarding Children Board (containing some local amendments to ensure it was consistent with Working Together 2010). Agencies have reported that they find the threshold document very helpful and it is used frequently to determine the basis of referrals to Social Care.
Historically Lambeth has a well established early intervention scheme through the Common Assessment Framework and Team Around the Child which has helped ensure that thresholds in Lambeth are clear and well understood by agencies. Since the launch in 2007 over 4000 CAFs have been carried out in Lambeth and over 2000 staff have been trained in the use of CAF and Team Around the Child ensuring that early intervention partnership work is well established.
Audits carried out in 2011 provide evidence that partners in Lambeth are good at identifying safeguarding concerns in children and making appropriate referrals to children’s social care. This indicates that the LSCB training amongst universal services has been very successful.
The concern of the Board has been that the rate of referrals to children’s social care in Lambeth is high compared with other statistical neighbours, and a large number of cases result in no further action. The implication is that social care Managers are risk adverse in their application of the threshold criteria and are assessing cases that other local authorities wouldn’t.
In January 2011 the LSCB carefully considered whether the threshold being applied was too low but decided not to make any changes at this time but to bring the issue back for review at a later stage. The Board was concerned that to raise the threshold for the acceptance of a safeguarding case could potentially leave some children at risk.
However the LSCB has recognised that the step down processes from a child in need plan or a “no further action” decision following an Initial Assessment could be strengthened. Work is currently underway with the early intervention service to place an early intervention manager in Referral and Assessment to increase the speed and efficiency of the step down process from children’s social care to Multi agency Team around the child early intervention support. The new MASH team will help embed this early intervention approach in the management of police referrals.
This is a significant area, and will be the subject to renewed focus going forward as a result of the Munro Review and the increasing pressure on resources in the current climate.
In September 2010 the LSCB reviewed the reasons why the numbers of children subject to child protection plans had risen from around 250 a month in 2008-2009 to a peak of around 360 in 2010, later falling back to 340 or so. The key drivers were considered to be increased awareness of safeguarding in agencies and the public following the publicity of Baby P and increased awareness from LSCB awareness raising.
Transitions:
9 Page 320
The threshold for receiving a service from Adults & Community Services for young disabled adults has been a long standing concern with gaps and delays caused by different thresholds for accessing services. Since 2009, considerable progress has been made in this area. A multi-agency Transitions Protocol has been established by a Strategic Transitions Group, and a Transitions Panel has been set up between the Heads of Service of the Adults & Children’s Teams to enable a smooth transition at an early stage and identify appropriate placements /services including further education.
Forty nine young people with disabilities transferred in 2009 /10, with a further 23 transferred smoothly in the summer of 2011. We have already 11 who will be ready for transfer in the summer of 2012. Transition is starting earlier, with an aspiration that eventually this will begin in year 9 (14 years of age). Adults care managers are making early contact wherever possible with these young people, so that wherever possible, they can return to their communities, with appropriate levels of support.
Workshops in the form of “Planning Live” Events are being offered in special schools to parents / carers to make them aware of the services available to them in the community, so that they don ‘t have to opt for expensive residential placements
3. Priorities Going Forward: - eighteen months ahead, and five years ahead.
In July 2011 the LSCB considered a set of potential priorities for the next five years. Within these priorities the LSCB identified a sub set for the next eighteen months. Having identified these potential priorities the LSCB commissioned work with a group of young people who had experienced safeguarding services, to consult with them as to which were the most important to them. In October and November 2011 a review of the LSCB was undertaken which is due to report back conclusions and findings in January 2012. The LSCB is awaiting the conclusions of the review of the LSCB and the consultation with children to finalise its key priorities.
Identified Potential Key Priorities for the next Eighteen Months:
1. Managing risk within reduced resources (Young people’s priority number two)
The LSCB has high numbers of referrals into Social Care, and high numbers of children subject to child protection plans. It is managing this in an environment of reduced numbers of social workers and resources in the community. There is a need to transition to making greater use of early help or intervention as recommended by the Munro Review, to improve the early help that children receive and prevent numbers coming into specialist services.
2. Serious Youth Violence (Young people’s priority number one )
This is a key feature of Lambeth’s profile. Lambeth has the highest level of serious youth violence in London. This item is now a standing agenda item on every Board.
3. Early Help/Intervention
10 Page 321
This is a key priority in Munro, which identifies the need to move beyond the Common Assessment Framework to broader early provision of help.
4. Safeguarding Disabled Children
The service given to children with disabilities has been a feature of two Internal Management Reviews. The LSCB needs to maintain a scrutiny on the work undertaken with disabled children who are amongst the most vulnerable group of children in Lambeth.
5. Missing Children (Young people’s priority number five)
Lambeth has a high population churn and a high level of immigration in and out of the Borough. The LSCB wants to see that the Local Authority and partners are better able to track children coming into and out of Borough and identify those who are without services or may be in need of safeguarding services.
6. Transitions
This is an operational issue and particularly concerns the transition from children’s services to adult services, especially for disabled children.
7. Improved Multi agency Referral
The LSCB wants to ensure that partner agencies are making full use of the Multi agency Team (MAT) meetings to provide early help and support and that the use of the step down from social care to MATs is robust and effective.
8. External Review
The LSCB has not been independently reviewed since it was reconfigured with an Independent Chair. To take this forward an external review was commissioned in September 2011 and should be available by the next Board in January 2012.
Priorities for the next Five Years
1. Domestic Violence (Young people’s priority number three)
Lambeth has the highest rate of domestic violence in London. This remains a key area of need, and the focus of the Board will remain on ensuring that the operational support to victims and children is robust and that strategic arrangements address need as effectively as possible with the resources available.
2. Voluntary and Faith Sector/training and commissioning
The voluntary and faith sector are large in Lambeth and will increase under the drive towards localism and the Co-operative Council. Lambeth has a vibrant faith sector in Borough, many of whom will have contact with vulnerable children. The LSCB wants to grow a partnership with this sector to support them to safeguarding children.
3. Bullying
11 Page 322
Young people tell us consistently that bullying is one of their top priorities and an issue that blights the lives of many young people.
4. Health and Wellbeing Board
The LSCB recognises that it needs to establish a link with the Health and Wellbeing Board to ensure that safeguarding is included and worked out within its remit.
5. Community Awareness (Young people’s priority number four)
Early steps towards raising the awareness of safeguarding have been successfully taken this year, but this needs further development to demonstrate tangible outcomes.
6. Training (Young people’s priority number six)
LSCB training is of high quality and well regarded, but it may need to be reviewed and refocused to target resources more effectively on raising the quality of safeguarding practice, and do less level one awareness raising. The last Annual Report identified that across the multi agency children’s workforce there is no systematic way to ensure that all workers have had the right level and type of training, or to evaluate the impact of that training on practice. These remain developmental challenges going forward.
12 Page 323
4. Governance and Accountability Arrangements:
Role and structure of the Board and subcommittees
Role:
The Lambeth Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) is a statutory multi agency board with key responsibility for agreeing how each relevant organisation in Lambeth will work together to safeguard to promote and welfare of children in Lambeth, and for ensuring the effectiveness of this work.
The core objectives of the Board are as set out in section 14(1) of the Children Act 2004 as follows:
a) to co-ordinate what is done by each person or body represented on the Board for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in Lambeth, and b) to ensure the effectiveness of what is done by each such person or body for that purpose
The Board’s scope is wide, covering universal, targeted and responsive safeguarding. But whilst the work plan addresses all elements across this span of these three areas, the Board remains focused on its core business at the responsive end of safeguarding to ensure that children who are suspected or known to be at risk of significant harm are being protected effectively.
Structure: Executive Authority
The LSCB is a single board made up of twenty two executive members from key statutory agencies who meet six times a year. The Board has been independently chaired by David Sanders since March 2010. Whilst the Chair is accountable to the Director of Children’s Services he is also expected to bring independent challenge to the work of the Local Authority and its partners.
The Board is served by eight sub-committees and a Child Death Overview Panel which is run jointly with Southwark Safeguarding Children Board. These sub- committees carry out the annual work plan set by the Board.
An internal review of the Board took place in March 2010 which recommended that the number of standing members be reduced from forty to twenty two in order to improve the Board’s capacity to carry out its scrutiny function. The Board is currently subject to an external review led by Christine Smart which will report back to the Board in January 2012.
Although the Board structure limits the number of executive standing members to twenty two, there are a further number of executive non standing members who attend on an item by item basis as required.
Executive members make decisions and hold the partnership to account for safeguarding. They are senior enough to:
• be able to speak for their agency
13 Page 324
• be able to hold their agency to account and challenge it • be able to make LSCB decisions about safeguarding and allocate resources
Executive members: -
• Carry political ownership and responsibility for safeguarding in Lambeth • Agree the strategic direction, priorities and targets and make decisions on behalf of the LSCB • Link and coordinate with other Executive fora (e.g. CYPP, Children’s Trust) • Approve the LSCB work plan • Allocate the work to LSCB work groups and monitor progress. • Direct members of staff within their organizations to attend relevant work groups and comply with requirements to deliver pieces of work requested by that group. Executive members must hold their own agencies to account for attendance and contribution where deemed mandatory. • Set the annual budget for the LSCB office and allocate the resources required to achieve the aims of the work plan • Call to account their own agencies, work groups. • Monitor and ensure the quality and effectiveness of safeguarding in Lambeth.
Senior Operational Managers and the Open Board:
There are also a number of operational managers who support their Executive Members on the Board but who do not attend the Board except for specific agenda items at the request of their Executive Member.
To ensure that non executive members were not excluded or cut off from the important work of the Board, at every third meeting, half of the meeting has been opened up to all stake holders and members for an open forum. This was undertaken to ensure that the restriction in size of the Board did not impede the communication and feedback with a wider membership of active contributors and stake holders. To date there have been two such meetings, neither of which were well attended by non executive members. The Board is therefore intending to change this format and run an open evening for the public and an open meeting for staff once a year instead.
Membership:
Working Together 2010 extends the representation on Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards to a number of new agencies and bodies including two new Lay Members, representation from the varied different types of school locally, and engagement with drugs and alcohol services.
The LSCB managed to recruit a new Lay Members to the Board in accordance with the requirements of Working Together 2010 in March 2011, and recruitment is ongoing for a second. The purpose of the Lay Members will be to support stronger public engagement in local child safety issues, challenge the LSCB around the accessibility of its plans to the public and help the LSCB make links with community groups.
There are two Head Teachers from the statutory and independent sectors who sit as standing Executive Members of the Board. Both members will be required to present
14 Page 325
a mechanism to the Board for ensuring that the diverse school population is represented and receive feedback from the Board.
Alcohol and Drug services are already represented through the Adult Sub-committee and the Executive Member from Adult’s Community Services.
Attendance:
Attendance at the Board has been extremely good. All the statutory agencies are represented at the meetings and Executive Members send a delegated representative if they are unable to attend.
Standing Executive Members September 2011: (please note that this may be subject to change following the review in January 2012)
David Sanders, Independent Chair
Ade Adetosoye, Divisional Director, Social Care, and Principle Child and Family Social Worker
Alison Barnwell Designated Doctor, Lambeth Community Health
Val Carse Deputy Chief Nurse, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (Vice Chair)
Neil Cochlin, Detective Inspector, CAIT Metropolitan Police
Debbie Jones Executive Director of CYPS
Andrew Kerr Assistant Chief Probation Officer, National Probation Service Lambeth
Mick Gallagher DCI, London Metropolitan Police
Gill Gregson Fegans Society (Voluntary Sector)
Barbara Hills General Manager, Children’s Community Health
Sally Hindle Head teacher of Fenstanton School
Neil Litherland Interim Chief Executive of Lambeth Living (ALMO)
George Marshman Divisional Director, Adults Community Services
Ursula Rene Lay Member
Cllr Peter Robbins Lead Member for Children (a participating observer rather than an Executive Member)
Amanda Roberts Manager, Bud Umbrella (Voluntary Sector)
Rachel Sharp Divisional Director, Housing Strategy and Partnerships
15 Page 326
Chris Smart South Regional DCI, London Metropolitan Police
Paula Townsend Deputy Director of Nursing, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Vacant Head Teacher, Independent School
Dr Francis Wedgewood Clinical Lead for Quality and Safeguarding, NHS Lambeth
Dr Ruth Wallis Director of Strategy and Services, NHS Lambeth
Andrew Wyatt Assistant Director for Safeguarding, and Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), Social Care (Chair of Policy Sub-committee)
One additional Lay Member to be recruited and Representative from CAFCAS to be identified.
Advisory Operational Members:
Ed Carmi Independent Chair of Serious Case Review Panel
Stella Clarke Assistant Director, Children Community Services, CYPS (Chair of the Promotions Sub-committee)
Graham Griffin Safeguarding Children and Young People Manager, (Education) (Chair of the E Safety Sub-committee)
Clement Guerin Head of Adult Safeguarding and Professional Practice, Adults Social Care (Joint Chair of Adults Sub- committee)
Joanne Hatfield, Assistant Director of HR, CYPS (Chair of the Safer Recruitment Sub-committee)
Jade Holvey Domestic Violence Co-ordinator, Adult Community Services
Deane Jennings Head of Service for Quality Assurance and LSCB Manager (Chair of the Performance Sub-committee)
Ayanda Jolobe Named Doctor for Safeguarding, Lambeth Community Health
Nicole Levy LSCB and CYPS Training and Development Manager
Karen Millward Named Nurse for Lambeth Community Health
Abdu Mohiddin Consultant in Public Health (Chair of the Child Death Overview Panel)
16 Page 327
Adesua Osima Head of Service, Referral and Assessment Team, Children’s Social Care (Joint Chair of the Adult and Children’s Sub-committee)
Debbie Saunders Named Nurse for Safeguarding, Guys St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Mike Wacha Lead Officer on Safeguarding, Lambeth Living
Avis Williams Mckoy Nurse Consultant, Lambeth Community Health (Chair of the Training Sub-committee)
Dean Woodward Assistant Director, Specialist Youth Service
17 LSCB Structure Chart showing its sub-committees:
LSCB
Executive Members
Review sub-committee work plans
Joint Southwark/Lambeth Page 328 Child Death Overview Review Panel
Chair: Abdu Mohiddin, Public Health
Training Sub -committee Joint Adult’s and Policy and Procedures Safer Recruitment Sub - Children’s Sub-committee . Sub-committee committee Chair: Avis Williams- Mckoy, NHS Lambeth Chair: Clement Guerin, Chair: Andrew Wyatt, Joanne Hatfield, Children Adesua Osima, ACS, CSC Children Social Care Social Care HR
Promotion Sub -committee Serious Case Review Sub - Performance E Safety Sub -committee committee Sub-committee Chair: Stella Clarke, AD Chair: Graham Griffin, Children Community Edi Carmi, Independent Chair: Deane Jennings, Children and Young Services LSCB People’s Service
18 Page 329
Relationship with the Children Trust Board:
The role of the Children’s Trust Board has changed following the change of government in May 2010. It is no longer has statutory responsibility for leading strategic arrangements for children’s services. However in Lambeth, on a voluntary basis, the partnership continues to work within the structure of the Children’s Trust Board inherited from the previous legislation. Its key responsibility is to promote a local vision – as set out in the Children and Young People’s Plan - to drive improved outcomes for local children, young people and their families. The Children Trust Board has a specific function to prepare and monitor the implementation of the Children and Young People’s Plan, but it is not a joint commissioning body. It provides a strategic framework within which the partners may commission services in a coordinated way using either joint or aligned budgets.
The LSCB is charged with co-ordinating and ensuring the effectiveness of safeguarding in their local area. It has a challenge and improvement function, and is required to hold the Children’s Trust and other strategic bodies to account for their effectiveness in safeguarding.
The Chair of the LSCB sits on the Children Trust Board as a “participating observer” in all discussions about safeguarding and he brings an independent challenge from the LSCB. The Chair of the Children Trust Board, who is the Lead Member for Children sits equally as a “participating observer” on the LSCB. The Lead Member for Children is also present to ensure that the Council is fulfilling its responsibility to safeguard children.
Following the publication of the Munro Report and the government’s decision to accept it’s recommendations, the LSCB no longer provides an account of its work to the Children’s Trust Board. The Annual Report is given to the Chief Executive of Lambeth and the Leader of the Council. It will also be shared with other lead strategic Boards in the Council, including the Children Trust Board and the Health and Wellbeing Board.
Role of Lead Member:
Cllr Peter Robbins, Lead Member for Children, joined the LSCB in May 2010, taking over from Cllr Paul McGlone. He is a “participating observer” whose role is to scrutinise and challenge to ensure that the Council is fulfilling its responsibility to safeguard children and deliver the five Every Child Matters outcomes. The Lead Member for children also Chairs the Children’s Trust Board.
LSCB Budget:
The LSCB budget for 2010-11 was agreed the previous year at the Board. The lion share of the cost fell to CYPS which met 100% of the staffing costs.
19 Page 330
Budget -2010 -11:
Staffing costs 2010 -11 Scale Cost Board Manager PO7 60,216
Policy and Performance PO5 52,234 Manager Training and PO5 25,543 Development Officer (0.5) Training and PO5 25,543 Development Officer (0.5) Administrative Officer SO2 38,369
Voluntary and Faith PO5 52,234 Sector Officer
Total 254,139
Projected Costs 2010 -11 Publications and launches 10,000 Agency Contributions 2010 -11 Annual Conference 10,000 CYPS staffing funds 254,139 Board costs 8,000 CYPS contribution to running 8,544.00 Training 25,000 costs SCR 11,000 Lambeth PCT 30,000 LSCB Independent Chair 19,000 Kings College Hospital 0 SCR Independent Chair 15,000 Guys and St Thomas’ 0 Staffing 254,139 Hospital SLAM/CAMHS 7,500 Total 352,139 Police 15,000 Probation 2,000 CAFCASS 500
Total 31 7,683.0 0* *£34,455.91 shortfall was paid by carry over from previous year
Budget - 2011-12:
The LSCB reviewed the budget arrangements in 2010-11 and considered a number of options to make the LSCB cost effective and more equitable between the agencies.
CYPS reduced the number of posts that they fund for the LSCB, and Kings College Hospital, CAMHS and Guys Hospital have provided additional funding to increase
20 Page 331
their contribution. The Police however have withdrawn £10,000 of discretionary funding that they had been making since 2008.
Agency Contributions 2011 - 12 CYPS staffing funds 117,016 • Board Manager 0.5 • 1.5 x Policy Officers • 0.5 Admin CYPS contribution to running 8,544.00 costs Lambeth PCT 30,000
Kings College Hospital 9,200
Guys and St Thomas’ 9,200
Hospital
SLAM/CAMHS 7,500
Adult Community Services 0 HRE 0 Police 5,000 Probation 2,000 CAFCASS 500 Income generation 5,000 Total 193,960
21 Page 332
5. Scrutiny, Monitoring and Evaluation and Quality Assurance Activity
Quality Assurance Activity for period April 2010 – September 2011
One of the key roles of the LSCB is to scrutinise the effectiveness of operational safeguarding practice. The LSCB strategy for scrutinising practice makes use of the following three processes:
a) Single agency and multi agency audit:
Methodology:
Audits are carried out with partners, using the Government Offices for London Audit tools, using Ofsted gradings and criteria for the quality of the work, and during which the child, the parents, the social worker and team manager are interviewed separately about the case. The focus of audits has shifted since the Munro Report away from traditional measures of compliance with process to focus on whether better outcomes have been achieved. b) Consultation with families and children who have been involved with safeguarding services.
Methodology:
Consultation takes place using various methods and an annual report is provided to the LSCB about key messages arising. Consultation is built into the multi agency audits that the LSCB carries out, to triangulate the messages and experiences of the child and family with the conclusions of the audit by professionals. In 2010 a telephone survey of children subject to child protection plans was undertaken, and a paper questionnaire completed. In addition a group was formed to consult young people who have been involved in safeguarding consult with them about the LSCB priorities. This group was then able to send two representatives to the Board to feedback and present their thoughts to the Board. c) Performance indicators and data
Methodology:
Lambeth uses the statutory Child In Need government return to measure performance in Social Care and the Pan London data set which includes a wider range of safeguarding indicators across agencies. This report will also use the Joint Strategic Health Assessment 2011 and Local Authority Designated Officer Report into allegations against members of staff and volunteers in Lambeth.
5.1 Audits of Safeguarding
Overall summary:
During the period April 2010 to September 2011 the LSCB carried out three significant audits:
a) Eight children subject to Child Protection Plans
22 Page 333
b) Eight children subject to Child in Need Plans c) Sixteen children looked after d) A section 11 audit was carried with Housing, Probation and Lambeth Living.
In summary the audits indicated evidence that the work was achieving good outcomes around safeguarding. In two cases in the child protection audit this was not found to be the case and subsequent action had to be taken to safeguard these children. Senior managers in the service responded robustly by bringing in changes to the management of the team responsible for these two cases and carried out a sweep of all cases in the service to ensure that this was not replicated. A further eight cases are being audited to verify the effectiveness of these measures.
Children’s Social Care changed its Quality Assurance Framework in the light of Munro and is exploring a range of original and radical proposals to strengthen it further in consultation with staff.
a) Child Protection Audit – Eight cases: The LSCB signed off a new partnership agreement for carrying out multi agency audits in January 2011, and agreed a programme for the year. The first significant multi agency audit took place in January 2011 and was finalised in May 2011, involving eight children subject to child protection plans.
Overall Findings:
The audit identified that six cases achieved effective safeguarding outcomes. In two cases the outcomes were below our robust measures. The feedback from the children and families has also reinforced the message that the work has overall been good and children feel safe.
The LSCB decided in September 2011 to run a further eight case child protection audit to reassure itself that the action taken around learning has been effective in addressing concerns. The audit is not complete at time of writing but early findings indicate that there is evidence of effective safeguarding.
To follow up the learning from the audit Social Care ran a mandatory half day workshop with all its Referral and Assessment and Child Protection and Family Support staff. To support learning the LSCB has also shifted resource to provide more training for social workers around raising the quality of assessments, and new courses to help all agencies to carry out effective joint section 47 investigations where a child is suspected of suffering significant harm.
Findings:
Feedback from children
• Overall most of the children and young people interviewed could identify their social worker; they understood why they have a social worker and were visited regularly. The young people also had a lot of positive comments about their social worker and there was evidence of good direct work with children.
23 Page 334
• Five out six children said that things had got better or that they felt safe or safer since a social worker had become involved. The other child was aged five and struggled to participate in the session.
Feedback from parents:
• Parents attending the Case Conference all described the meeting as stressful and disempowering, with one parent describing the meeting as “scary”.
• All parents received the minutes and thought the information was easy to understand, that the CP Plan was clear and they understood what was expected of them, and all parents attended the Core Group meetings.
• Two of the parents stated that they liked their social worker and that their social worker spoke to them like a friend. However one parent did not think the social worker actioned things very quickly. All parents stated that they would contact the social worker if they needed to ask questions about the Child Protection Plan and only one parent stated that they were informed about the complaints procedure.
• It was evident that the social worker speaks to all the children on their own and sees them on their on average of every two weeks.
• Two of the parents are now working with Kids Co. and both rated them highly. One parent informed Kids Company was a ‘life saver’ as she was supported to attend college and assistance in finding employment.
Findings across the Partnership:
Strengths: Evidence of good practice:
1. In six of the eight cases there was evidence of adequate or good joint work between agency partners by ensuring children are being kept safe. Areas of good practice where parents/ carers are engaging with Social Care, health and education and fulfilling their statutory duties and responsibilities.
2. Some evidence of regular Social Care, health and police supervision and positive feedback from interview with Social Care staff and Managers about supervision.
3. There was evidence out of the seven cases, (one case was an unborn baby) that children were being visited and seen alone on a regular basis and their views, wishes and feelings taken into account. This shows that the service has improved from previous audits carried out in 2009.
4. In all eight cases, there was good evidence of social care, health and education, police as well parents/ carers attending Initial Child Protection Conferences.
5. In two cases, there was evidence of good practice at Strategy Meetings with police, school and health representation to assess risk and significant harm, and to formulate risk assessment as part of the decision making.
24 Page 335
6. Evidence that parents regularly attended all meetings and conferences.
7. In two cases, there was evidence of multi agency Strategy meetings being held with comprehensive minute’s recorded and clear actions and outcomes.
8. Evidence of comprehensive list of findings and good quality chronology of significant events found in Strategy Meetings/S47 Enquiry episodes.
9. Evidence that the correct processes and protocols were being followed in a timely fashion, multi agency partnerships were working which lead to good outcomes for children and which were further evidenced within the children and parent consultation where the children and five of the parents stated that things had improved since the involvement of social care.
10. There is good evidence from this audit that statutory agencies are on the whole good at identifying and referring concerns to CYPS. In the majority of cases the referrals have been of good or adequate quality, appropriate and made in a timely way. This suggests that the core messages of level one training have been well understood by the partnership.
11. There was one case involving adult mental health in the sample, and the perinatal pathway was clear and effective, and resulted in effective safeguarding.
12. The feedback from five about the service that they had received from Social Care and the partnership was very positive. Children and their parents had said that the intervention had helped to improve things on for them.
Learning Points Across the Partnership:
In any audit some learning points will be identified as this is the purpose of having an audit. In this audit most of the agencies were able to identify ways that they could help improve the partnership work to achieve better outcomes for children and families.
Health:
1) On the whole attendance and contribution by community health professionals at child protection conferences was good (with the notable exception of GPs, none of whom attended or provided a report). But there was an issue with the provision of reports for conference from health visitors/school nurses in six of the cases, with either no report, or concerns on the quality of the report, or that the report did not cover all the children in the family. Sometimes the information received at conference wasn’t uploaded on to the Rio IT system, making it harder for other health colleagues to get a full picture of concerns.
2) The lack of joined up IT systems across health boundaries impeded information sharing within health.
3) In two cases the health visitor or school nurse did not feedback important information to the key worker that had a bearing on the case.
25 Page 336
4) Use of the escalation policy: - some health staff were said to be dissatisfied with some of the responses that they received from social care when making a referral on some occasions. However there was little evidence that health staff had escalated the concerns using the escalation policy in Chapter 18.5 of the London Child Protection Procedures edition 4 . All agencies should make use of the escalation procedure if there is an unresolved dispute about a concern for a child.
5) Of concern in the audit was the fact that in two of the cases, health had not placed the children on enhanced child protection supervision. One of these cases was subject to a child protection plan at the time, whilst the other had been characterised by high levels of need and vulnerability and promoted several referrals to social care.
6) The use of the CAF and Multi Agency Team (MAT) to give children early help:- there was very little evidence of health (or any other agency) using the MAT (previously known as TAC, or Team Around the Child) to get early help for children in these cases. In these cases the standard response of community health professionals was to refer the case to Social Care. This meant that in some cases the earlier help that could have been given and might have prevented escalation to a child protection plan was not put in place.
CAMHS and CLAMHS
1) There was good work identified in the audit around CAMHS and CLAMHS, but the audit did raise a concern about the referral criteria for accessing direct work for children subject to a child protection plan.
In three cases the audit found that referrals were rejected as not meeting the CAMHS criteria. In one case this was because the referral didn’t attempt to address the criteria. As a result children who had experienced abuse and neglect and had emotional and behavioural problems were unable to access direct work. Discussions are taking place at the LSCB to look at this threshold issue more closely.
Police:
1) There was evidence of good practice in many of the cases by the CAIT Team of the police. However in one case auditors had concerns about the work of the Sapphire Unit which appeared to place the needs of the criminal investigation over the needs of the protection of a child. This is being discussed with the unit.
2) The audit identified that the police rarely attend child protection review conferences, even when the social work recommendation is to remove a child’s name from a child protection plan. This clearly weakens the multi agency partnership work, but is a matter of local resources.
Social Care:
There were examples of good practice in three quarters of the cases where the safeguarding was effective and good. However, even in the good cases there were some issues identified:
26 Page 337
1) Conference Minutes. There was a backlog in the distribution of child protection conference minutes at the time of the audit, which has since been rectified.
2) Need to ensure all Key agencies are invited to Strategy meetings. In a number of cases key agencies were not invited to strategy meetings or conferences.
3) Need to share information about the outcome of the investigation. There was often limited feedback to other agencies in the partnership about the outcomes of investigations, or the reasons why cases were closed. This meant that some agencies did not know what had happened on cases.
4) Examples of drift, delay, and weak assessment featured in two particular cases. The use of chronologies would have helped assess the history effectively and make appropriate assessments, but few cases had effective chronologies on file.
5) Direct work . In some cases there was a need to offer children and families more direct work than was often apparent to help them move on.
6) Need for more analysis on ethnicity, diversity and identify . Case files did not often evidence exploration of culture and identity, including history of parent’s childhood parenting experiences in Initial or Core Assessments in the eight cases audited.
7) Re-investigation of incidents of harm. There were two incidents where there were fresh incidents of neglect that were not subsequently investigated as section 47 and did not lead to a re-evaluation of the levels of risk at the time. However the review conference picked these issues up and revisited the risk assessment.
8) Child Protection Plans. In three cases the child protection plans needed to identify clearer outcomes and specify the direct work that needed to be achieved. Following the audit further work has been done to improve the child protection plan template in Lambeth to try and address this issue.
9) Use of the Multi Agency Teams early intervention. The audit revealed that agencies on these cases did not make as much use as they could have of the Multi agency Teams to get early help for families, and social care were not stepping the cases back down to a MAT in many of the cases that they closed.
Since this audit a Team Manager from the Early Intervention Service has been seconded into the Referral and Assessment team to strengthen the step down process.
Actions Following:
The LSCB has drawn up a detailed action plan for agencies to address the issues that arose and is monitoring this in its November Board.
b) Child in Need Audit – Eight Cases:
In July, August and September 2011 the LSCB led a multi agency audit into eight cases of children subject to child in need plans. This meant that although they had significant need for social work support, they were not at risk of significant harm.
27 Page 338
Findings
Out of the eight cases the work was considered to be of good quality overall.
Evidence of good practice
• There is evidence of good multi agency working between police, health and education is addressing issues as they arise, with agencies effectively working together to respond to issues.
• The referrals made by partners were appropriate and required an assessment to safeguard the child/young person.
• There is evidence of good multi agency working between Police, Health and education which addressed issues as they arose, with agencies working together effectively to respond to issues.
• There is good evidence that appropriate interagency checks are completed to ensure all view of professional concerns are established from the onset.
• There is a marked improvement evidenced over the last twelve months in relation to response to referrals, teams are working hard to act in a timely manner. There is still some work to do.
• It is evident that core assessments completed over the last twelve months demonstrate some improvement in practice; there are clearer assessments with some good analysis to inform the CIN plan.
• It is evident that other views are sought from professionals.
• There is evidence that the young people involved has been seen and their views sought.
• CIN plans are appropriate in the cases audited and there is a real commitment by social workers in engaging with the family and supporting a child centred approach.
• The ‘plan’ is reviewed in various arena’s such as CIN reviews, strategy discussions, supervision and risk management panels, risk is continually reviewed as a result which safeguards the child and young person well, although no obvious formal document is produced for all to view and follow.
• Management oversight is evident and decisions recorded appropriately.
Learning points
28 Page 339
• Referrals by some agencies were poor in their information to social care; there was minimal information, no evidence that family were aware, telephone referrals were not followed up with written referral from agencies. This relied on the recorder to be taking information accurately.
• The TAC approach was minimal, in some cases a FSW was allocated but mainly cases have little evidence of any preventative work prior to referral to social care.
• Multi agency partners report that social care was not always efficient in feeding back outcomes, sharing information between reviews, although it has to be recognised that it is also the responsibility of the multi agency partners to challenge why this is not happening, but no evidence of this observed.
• There seems no set standard for CIN plans, there is a model on the IT system but this is very cumbersome and not clear for a family, there is no evidence to suggest that the plans have been distributed to family or professionals. CIN meetings are held but no updated plans are evident on the system.
• CIN plans should be outcome based with clear identified issues, who is going to address these and by when and desired outcomes for the child. There is no evidence that this structure is implemented. Also there is no evidence that minutes and actions agreed at CIN meetings are not distributed.
• The CIN plan content if available lack issues to be addressed, who will address these issues and when they will be completed with outcomes identified.
c) Children Looked After – Sixteen Cases
The LSCB led a multi agency audit of sixteen cases of children looked after to review the quality of care provided. The outcome of the review was that there was some good and outstanding practice evidenced within the sample and most cases were good.
The audit scrutinised five domains according to the five Every Child Matters Outcomes – Being Health, Staying Safe, Enjoying and Achieving, Making a Positive Contribution and Economic Wellbeing.
The following findings were identified around safeguarding from these audits:
Safeguarding Findings in our CLA population:
There was a wealth of evidence of good child centred practice for children in care and very good outcomes across the sample. However, this report is primarily concerned with the safeguarding aspect of these cases and hence focuses on the findings related to keeping children in care safe:
29 Page 340
• There is evidence that good decisions and interventions are made based on risk when required to safeguard a child.
• Appropriate multi agency communication is evident, all agencies completing audits expressed positive experiences when managing safeguarding needs, IRO were kept informed of events and asked for opinions when appropriate so as to inform decision making.
• There is good evidence that the child is at the centre of all decision making and the impact reflected accordingly.
• There was clear evaluation of risk and safeguarding concerns by senior management before a decision was agreed in one case to disrupt and move the child to an alternative placement.
• In one case where the child has a disability this has not overshadowed his desire to be like his peers and wanting to have the same opportunities i.e. going out with friends, going to shops alone. The care plan and placement has enabled this YP to develop further his identity, social aspirations and semi independence alongside safeguarding risk analysis because of his vulnerability.
Learning Points:
• There were some instances of the Police not informing social care of issues in a timely manner but evidence that this is improving.
• Identity, diversity and culture was not always explored fully which potentially weakens identification of risk around the child.
Section 11 Audit
The LSCB made a decision in 2009/2010 not to re-run the section 11 audit which ensures that the agencies are compliant with safeguarding requirements as this had been done in great detail in 2009. It has however followed up two key agencies who have not been compliant and ensured that they complete the audit and address the areas that are missing.
5.2 Consultation with Children:
The use of consultation with children about safeguarding services is in early development in Lambeth but growing quickly. The Board signed off its first plan around consultation in January 2011 and provided an annual report in September of the same year. The LSCB has carried out three separate types of consultation with young people since the last Annual Report was published in 2010. These included the following:
30 Page 341
Children: • A telephone consultation with children subject to child protection plans 2010 (aged 10 to 17 years - 25 responses) • Multi-agency audit interviews with children subject to child protection plans (7 children and young people aged 5 to 15 years) • A young people (aged 8 to 17 years) feedback survey about their experience of children in need assessments (March to May 2011 – 8 responses)
Parents: • Parents feedback survey about their experience of children in need assessments (April 2010 to March 2011 – 31 responses) • Parents feedback survey about their experience of children in need assessments (March to May 2011 – 23 responses) • Multi-agency audit interviews – children subject to child protection plans (8 parents and carers)
A group of young people subject to safeguarding services will be consulted around the priorities of the Board and two representatives are due to be invited to attend the Board in November.
Key messages from Children and Parents who receive a service from Social Care:
The feedback indicates that the majority of children feel safe, were treated with respect by the social worker and agencies, and said that things had got better at home. The majority of parents felt that things had got better and that they were treated respectfully by agencies.
The findings also highlighted, as one would expect, some ways that the service can work to improve the experience for children and young people.
1. Feeling Safe • Things have improved in the home for most young people since the social worker’s first visit • Most children reported that they felt safe. • Most young people know who to go to if they were worried about things • Most parents feel more confident in dealing with the issues first raised in the assessment report
2. First contact with social care • Children feel listened to, taken seriously and treated with respect • Parents describe the first meeting with social worker as tense and are terrified about the child protection process • Some parents feel issues could have been resolved earlier with partner agencies
3. Parent agencies and information sharing • Parents reported positive working relationships with education and health • Parents are not always clear about what information would be shared with others
31 Page 342
4. Social worker visits and reports • Children understood why they have a social worker, have a good working relationship with them and are seen regularly, • Most children are spoken to alone by the social worker • Disseminating the assessment report to young people and parents needs to be improved • More information about the child including race, culture, religion, language, disability and sexuality needs to be included in the assessment report
5. Case conferences and core group meetings • Many young people have attended their case conference, there were mixed responses from others as to whether they would want to go. • Parents describe case conference as stressful and disempowering • Not all parents are given a copy of the social worker’s report more than twenty four hours before the case conference • Child Protection plans needed to be clearer and more succinct for the parents so it easier to understand the process
6. Listening to the voice of children, young people and their parents • Young people would like simpler explanations about the child protection process and want to be kept more informed throughout the process • Most young people feel listened to by their social worker • Parents feel core group process are more helpful than case conferences • Some parents expressed feeling powerless and not listened to at case conference
5.3 Data Performance
Based on the London Safeguarding Children Board pilot, the LSCB has collated a data set from fifty two national safeguarding indicators in order to gain a strategic overview of the performance of the partnership around safeguarding.
Key Messages for data April 2010 – March 2011:
• Initial assessments completed within the statutory ten working days have met the target and service users are receiving timely responses.
• Lambeth continues to complete a higher number of Core Assessments and Initial Assessments than other equivalent authorities. This implies that Lambeth’s thresholds are lower than elsewhere, but in the light of the Laming Report in 2009 in which Local Authorities were criticised for applying thresholds that were too high, this would appear to be appropriate. The high number of referrals, together with the low re-referral rate, is an indicator of the high levels of deprivation in the Borough. The Board is keeping this matter under close review.
32 Page 343
• The number of children subject to child protection plans has increased from 301 to 338 from March 31 st 2010 and March 31 st 2011 which indicates that the increase of 40% in child protection cases from 2009 to 2010 has been maintained. This has been matched by a similar rise in child in need work, but the CLA population has not increased proportionally, which means that there is a substantial rise in intervention in families in the community. The LSCB reviewed the reasons for the rise and concluded that it was mainly due to the heightened awareness of child protection issues following the Baby P case in 2009, and the Lambeth increase over the last year mirrors the national picture.
• The number of children subject to child protection plans for two years or more has continued to be low, and lower than other comparative Boroughs. This represented good performance.
• The numbers of children subject to child protection plans for a second time has continued to be low and indicates that children are not de-registered too early, and is considered very good performance.
• Children from a black ethnic minority background continue to be over represented on child protection plans in Lambeth. However given that the population sample is so small any conclusions from these figures should be treated with caution. The calculations are also derived on data from the 2001 census which is ten years old. Analysis undertaken in December 2010 established that the over representation occurs before the referrals are received by social care rather than in the system after referral. Analysis also suggested that the over representation was more apparent amongst Caribbean children, and mixed heritage children, whilst African children were slightly under represented. The precise cause remains unclear but our analysis suggests that the most likely cause is high levels of deprivation in the BME communities in Lambeth. Although Caribbean children are also over represented in the preventative work of the Multi Agency Teams and early intervention, it is to a lesser extent. Further work is ongoing to understand how the early help can target children from BME communities more effectively.
• The number of permanent exclusions were more than twice the target and previous years’ figures at 0.37% of the school population. However data since April 2011 indicates that the rate has dropped by 47%.
• Lambeth has the highest rate of serious youth violence in London but the rate is rising less rapidly than in other Boroughs. Gang related incidents are high but there have been fewer incidents up to March 2011 than there were the previous year. Serious youth violence remains a significant issue.
• The data set indicators show that Lambeth continues to have a high level of teenage pregnancy, but that the level is decreasing through the work of the Children’s Trust Board.
33 Page 344
5.4 Joint Strategic Needs Assessment May 2010:
The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment gives an overview of the demographic profile of Lambeth and the population that the LSCB services.
Lambeth is the fifth most deprived Borough in London and the nineteenth most deprived in the country according to the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation. One in twenty of its population live in fuel poverty and 15% of those of working age depend on benefits. Sixteen out of twenty one Lambeth wards are amongst the most deprived 20% of the country with the highest levels of deprivation being found in Coldharbour Lane, Vassall, Stockwell, Tulsehill and Oval wards. The population of Lambeth was estimated to be 273,249 by the National Office for Statistics in 2007 and there are believed to be 67,000 0 – 19 year olds in Lambeth (based on the 2001 census). The population is growing and expected to reach an increase of 15% by 2028. The take up of school meals in Lambeth was 69% in 2009, 20% higher than the London average.
The population of Lambeth is one of the most culturally rich and diverse populations in the UK, in which 35% are from a Black Ethnic Minority background, making it the seventh highest BME population in the country. The largest ethnic group in Lambeth after White British is Black African at 11.9% followed by Black Caribbean at 10.8%, but recent immigration includes Eastern Europeans and Latin Americans. Twenty one percent of the population of Lambeth speak English as a second or third language and according to data from schools, 132 different languages are spoken in homes across Lambeth, the most common being Portuguese, Spanish and Yoruba.
Lambeth is one of the most densely populated Boroughs nationally with 10,072 people living per square kilometre compared with 4,779 as a London average. There is a population churn of 22% each year. Around 67% of households live in rented accommodation and owner occupancy is just 30%. There are 8,000 over crowded properties in Lambeth, two thirds of which contain children.
Key Issues from the JNSA 2011
Teenage Pregnancy: Lambeth has amongst the highest rates of teenage conception in England, although these are now beginning to reduce significantly. The Teenage Pregnancy (TP) rate has dropped from 86.6 per 1000 females aged 15-17 years in 2004 to 71.5 per 1000 females aged 15-17 in 2008. Lambeth, however, is still struggling to achieve the 2010-11 targets set by the Department of Health and Government Office for London which aimed to reduce the rate of under 18 conception by 50%, to firmly establish a downward trend in the conception rate for under 16s and to increase the number of young parents in education training and employment.
Infant Mortality Rate : In Lambeth the infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.8 per ¡ 1000 live births in 1995 ¡ 97 to 5.5 per 1000 live births in 2006 08 which is a reduction of over 37%; however there is still a gap when compared to the London and England rate even though this gap has been narrowing for the last 5 years.
Serious Crime : Serious crime information relates to most serious violence (MSV), domestic violence (DV), serious sexual offenses (SOO) and serious youth violence (SYV). There were increases in all these categories of crime in 2010 compared with 2009. The statistics for Most Serious Violence showing the largest increase of 26%
34 Page 345
(483 offenses), Serious Youth Violence increased by 18% (411 suspects), Serious Sexual Offences increased by 12% (81 offenses) and Domestic Violence by 1.5% (2,567 offenses). 54% of Domestic Violence offenders are engaged in alcohol abuse, 39% suffer from drug abuse and 28% have mental health issues. Serious Sexual Offences are a key public concern, and the volume of cases has substantially increased as is the case in London as a whole. Ninety percent of the victims were female with 30% of victims being between 20-24. Alcohol has been identified as a contributing factor to victim vulnerability. Serious Youth Violence is focused around areas that young people congregate e.g. schools, transport hubs.
Drug and Alcohol: Lambeth has the highest rate of problematic drug users in London. Poly-drug use is prevalent with around 76% of problematic drug users reporting use of both opiates and crack cocaine. Around 5.6% of Lambeth’s adult population are categorised as harmful drinkers, with a further 17.4% as hazardous and 16.8% as binge drinkers. Using these figures 2, and associated research, it is possible to estimate the dependent drinker population of Lambeth as between 10,000 and 15,000 people. Alcohol is also a contributor to violent crime, both in terms of perpetrator and victim. There were around 4,000 crimes in 2008-09 in Lambeth which were alcohol related, of which nearly 3,000 were violent.
Serious Mental Ill health (SMI): There is a high prevalence of risk factors for mental health problems among children and adolescents in Lambeth. Data from 2008 indicates that the prevalence of child and adolescent mental health problems is higher amongst boys, and amongst white children compared to children from some ethnic minority groups. Children of asylum-seekers, looked after children and children living in low income, fragmented families have especially high mental health needs.
The true prevalence of mental health problems among 5-17 year olds in Lambeth lies between 4039 and 5157 (15.3% of 5-17 year olds). National estimates suggest around 10% of 5-17 year olds have diagnosed mental health disorder, according to DoH, 2005.
Primary care and the SLaM figures suggest that 4000 people may be a fair estimate of the numbers of people with SMI in Lambeth or 1.76% of the adult Lambeth population (1.85% of adults 15-74) which is at least three times the national average stated in the 2000 and 2007 APMS. This figure is probably still an underestimate because some people are not being followed up in primary care or not registered with a GP. Between 30- 60% of adults with severe mental health problems are estimated to have some care of children.
HIV Positive Status : Lambeth has the highest number of HIV positive individuals in London. The 2007 figures show a rise of cases to 901 per 100,000 resident population which makes it the highest in London by a margin. The LSCB has not developed specific guidance and protocols around working with HIV positive parents and associated child protection matters, although there are a range of statutory and voluntary sector resources and support centres in Lambeth for parents with HIV.
Child Road Accidents: Lambeth has good performance around serious road accidents involving children which is better than the London average. At December 2010 there were 8 fewer children involved in accidents when compared to the same time in 2009. Lambeth has met the target.
2 Drug and Alcohol Treatment Planning Needs Assessment (2009/10)
35 Page 346
5.5 Complaints
The LSCB has not received any complaints about the LSCB itself, however it monitors complaints received that pertain to Children’s safeguarding. Between April 2010 and March 2011 there were five stage two complaints received by Lambeth Social Care, one of which directly concerned a complaint about safeguarding. Two of the complaints were not upheld, two were partially upheld and one was upheld.
The Assistant Director for Referral and Assessment and Family Support and Child Protection Services has reviewed the complaints and identified learning and service improvements arising.
5.6 Conclusions and Key Messages from LSCB Quality Assurance Activity: Areas of strength and areas that require improvement:
a) Audits Our audits and consultation processes tell us that although the work with the most high risk children is frequently good and does keep children safe, and that parents and children tell us that they appreciate the service they receive, our audits also tell us that there are still ongoing challenges in operational joint work and multi agency communication that require continued investment and effort to improve.
b) Referrals and Thresholds: Audit results and external Ofsted inspection tells us that the thresholds are well understood in Lambeth and children in need of safeguarding are appropriately referred to Social Care.
The Local Authority receives a high number of referrals (4,492 in 2010/11) and we know that around 89% of our referrals result in an Initial Assessment, which is higher than our statistical neighbours in London (69%). Lambeth therefore operates “safer” thresholds than comparative Boroughs, which may be appropriate given the high level of deprivation and need in Lambeth.
However about half the referrals receive no further action once an Initial Assessment has been completed and initial social work advice provided. This has implications for the debate about thresholds and the use of step down referrals to Multi Agency Teams in early intervention.
There is evidence that the early intervention of Multi Agency Teams (MAT) and CAFs for children with “additional needs” is not as robust as it needs to be. There are around 5000 referrals made to Children’s Social Care each year and only 1500 CAFs. Research of our children subject to child protection plans shows that few of them have started their journey with a MAT. Action has been taken recently to strengthen the step down process from Social Care to MAT Teams, but greater use by agency partners of CAFs and MATs needs to take place.
The LSCB is keeping thresholds and the effectiveness of early help under close review over the next eighteen months. c) Child Protection Arrangements Numbers of children subject to child protection plans on the 31 st March has risen since 2009 from 211 to 338 in 2011. This peaked at around 360 towards the end of 2010 but has fallen back after tighter screening was put in place for cases progressing to conference, and has remained steady ever since at around 320. This
36 Page 347
represents a significant increase in work load from 2009 and corresponds to the 40% increase in activity that was reported in the last Annual Report 2010. The Family Support and Child Protection Teams have been strengthened as a result with eighteen additional social workers and two managers over the last eighteen months, despite this being one of the most difficult financial periods in local government history. This indicates the strength of support from Members to Lambeth’s most vulnerable children.
Research conducted by the Children’s trust Board and the LSCB into the causal factors for this rise suggested that it was largely due to the increased awareness in the public and agencies from the Baby Peter case in Haringey in 2009, and it corresponds to a national picture.
Despite the increase in numbers, the vast majority of children subject to child protection plans see the risk improve within two years and only a very small minority return to a plan afterwards, which indicates that decisions to remove children from plans are sound and work is effective and timely. Lambeth does well consistently on these two measures in comparison with other London Boroughs.
We know that children subject to child protection plans report feeling safe, and that things have improved at home. We know that parents also report that things improve with social work support and that they are treated with respect.
We know from audit that the overwhelming majority of our children who have been identified as being at risk of significant harm are effectively safeguarded. Robust corrective action has been taken to address any that may not be as securely safeguarded as they should have been. d) Children Looked After (CLA) The numbers of children coming into local authority care also increased slightly in Lambeth between 2009 -10 but has now dropped back slightly in 2010-11. This is against the national trend of an 8.1% rise in admissions to care following 2009. This means that Lambeth is managing the bulk of the risk identified following the Baby Peter case successfully within the community and that strategies to keep the Children Looked After population down have been successful. The number of children in care to Lambeth as of the end of September was 495.
e) Incidents of Significant Harm and SCRs: There are 67,000 young people under nineteen in Lambeth (2001 census). In 2010/11 a total of 4,492 referrals were made to Social Care (or 374 on average a month). A total of 4,035 of these went on to become Initial Assessments i.e. 89.8% of referrals or 336 a month. Of 4,035 Initial Assessments a total of 858 of these became section 47 inquiries (19.1% of the total referrals sent in, or 71 a month). There were 338 children subject to a Child Protection Plan on the 31 st March 2011.
In 2010 -11 forty nine children and young people died from a number of different causes, some through illness, some through other causes, but there were no children that met the threshold for a Serious Case Review. This means that within the population of Lambeth in that period no children died or suffered significant life long injuries as a result of neglect or abuse.
37 Page 348
f) Child Protection Statistics
Lambeth Children 2006 - 7 2007 - 8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11
No. of children subject to a child 38.75 41.32 33.92 48.39 54.34 protection plan rate per 10k as of 31 st March 3
No. children with a child protection 263 298 244 404 400 plan during the year ending 31 st March Nos of children taken off a child 236 284 286 312 346 protection plan during year ending 31 st March Nos of children Looked After 592 571 543 565 498
Nos of children made subject of a 33 32 20 54 42 child protection plan for a second (12.5) (10.7%) (8.2%) (13%) (10.7%) time during year ending 31 st March (statistical neighbours 13%) Percentage of children subject to a 71.36% 72.15% 74.8% 75.41% 74.63% child protection plan from a black, ethnic minority background on 31 st March 2008 Nos. reviewed within required 170 165 168 211 265 frequency (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
Nos of children subject to a child 29 21 12 16 10 protection plan for more than 2 (12.3%) (7.4%) (4.2%) (5%) (2.9%) years (% of population) (Statistical neighbours 7.5%) Categories of abuse as of 31 st 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 March
Neglect 138 149 148 177 211
Physical Abuse 7 22 9 27 21
Sexual Abuse 9 10 8 9 9
Emotional Abuse 64 51 40 88 97
Multiple Categories 23 25 6 0 0
3 (population taken as 62200 under 18 population GLA 2009 population projections)
38 Page 349
Total children subject to a child 241 257 211 301 338 protection plan as of 31 st March Nos of referrals to Social Care in 3987 3969 4281 4978 4492 the year ending 31 st March
Initial Assessments completed in 2557 2595 2406 2490 2,784 timescale (72.97) (76.79%) (67%) (62%) (69%) (statistical neighbours 79 %)
Core assessments completed in 1000 1079 1085 710 1,865 timescale of 35 days (76%) (82%) (79.6%) (73%) (95.4%)
Number of Section 47 enquiries 637 628 550 765 858 initiated during the year ending 31 st March Number of Initial Child Protection 341 400 282 463 492 conferences held in the year ending (53% of (64% of (51% of (60.52% (57.34 of 31 st March S47s) S47s) S47) of S47) S47) Nos of Initial Case Conferences per 54.82 64.31 45.34 48.39 54.34 10,000. (Statistical neighbours 06/07 – 46.0)
Nos of 0 – 15s killed or seriously 20 14 12 21 22 injured (KSI) in Road Traffic (0 (0 killed) (1 (0 killed) (0 killed) Accidents in Lambeth killed) killed)
g) Inspection Findings:
Findings from Ofsted inspections have been good: -
Unannounced Inspection 2010;
Ofsted carried out an unannounced inspection of contact, referral and assessment arrangements in September 2010 which identified no areas for priority action, identified five areas of strength, seven areas where the service met statutory requirements and just two areas for further development. This was one of the most positive Unannounced Inspections in London and showed improvement from the previous year which had also been very positive. Ofsted reported the following findings:
Areas for Priority Action:
None
Areas of Strength:
• The Local authority has well-developed and effective multi-agency responses for the protection and safeguarding of children and young people, including a multi-agency rapid response team and multi-agency risk management panel.
39 Page 350
Specialists in health, housing and domestic violence issues are integrated fully into the contact, referral and assessment service. Thresholds are understood and consistently applied across all agencies, leading to improved consistency in timely referral and intervention to safeguard children and young people.
• Implementation of innovative working arrangements in high risk, high profile cases of domestic violence, those involving guns and gangs, and with the Lambeth Black Parents Forum provide a preventative service to children and young people who are at risk of harm.
• Efficient use of resources and good systems to deliver timely and focused responses to child protection, supported by an effective electronic case management system that is used consistently by all staff to enable accountability, accuracy of information and monitoring of the quality and progress of cases.
• Highly motivated staff that are supported by knowledgeable, experienced and accessible managers at all levels to ensure effective assessment and intervention to safeguard children and young people.
• Good quality assessments are undertaken to ensure that the needs of children and young people are met. Risk and protective factors that impact on a child’s safety are assessed consistently.
The Service Meets the Standards for Statutory Guidance in the Following Areas:
• Child protection procedures comply with statutory requirements. They are understood and applied by staff consistently, with effective management oversight to ensure the safety of children and young people.
• Workloads are manageable and cases are allocated promptly to enable timely safeguarding of children and young people.
• Section 47 enquiries are comprehensive and timely and lead to appropriate safeguarding actions.
• Out-of-hours duty arrangements demonstrate effective responses and timely referral to the contact and assessment service.
• Assessments ensure that the views of children are considered and their wishes and feelings are routinely taken into account.
• Record-keeping is up-to-date, leading to good accountability, maintaining accurate information and enabling management oversight to develop best safeguarding practice.
• Staff are suitably qualified and have good opportunities for professional development to ensure they remain up-to-date with best practice and their safeguarding responsibilities.
40 Page 351
Areas for Development:
• Case records do not consistently reflect the impact and relevance of culture, ethnicity or beliefs when assessing the needs of children and their families.
• Arrangements for obtaining the views of children and young people to contribute to service improvement are underdeveloped.
Since 2010 the LSCB has launched a programme of user consultation around safeguarding and we are able to report back from three separate activities. Work is ongoing to strengthen the way that case notes address issues of identify, culture, religion and ethnicity in work with children.
Joint Area Review 2008:
The JAR report in 2008 found that safeguarding in Lambeth was “good” and reported that:
“Arrangements for safeguarding are good. Effective multi-agency partnerships with strong leadership provide excellent early intervention and prevention and ensure child protection processes are sound.”
The report identified that Lambeth had: . • Effective oversight of the quality of child protection practice. • Strong leadership of and focus on the safeguarding agenda and an effective Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) • Secure arrangements for the safe recruitment and vetting of staff in local authority services and schools. • Excellent early intervention and preventative provision supported by good use of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and TAC. • Strong and effective multi-agency arrangements to track and monitor missing children. • Effective action to tackle bullying and racial harassment in schools
The Inspectors were concerned about the high number of children subject to Child Protection Plans and the turn over rate for social workers.
This year the turnover rate for social workers is down to around 5% of the work force and reliance on agency staff is now down to just 10% to cover maternity leave and sickness.
g) LADO Procedures for managing allegations against staff and for ensuring safer recruitment are now strong and well embedded across most of the partnership.
In 2010-11 a total of 119 cases of allegations against members of staff or volunteers across the different agencies were referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer, (LADO) from across the agencies which were then fully investigated. The vast majority were dealt with within a month.
Of these cases 49 were substantiated. In total 57 were subject to a criminal investigation, 2 were prosecuted, 5 received cautions and 5 were dismissed and 1
41 Page 352
was sent to the barring board. A total of 21 were suspended and 56 were disciplined and 7 were referred to their professional regulatory body.
42 Page 353
6. Serious Case Reviews:
Summary of cases and progress in implementing learning:
Since 2007 there have been no Serious Case Reviews in Lambeth. However during the last eighteen months the LSCB has been dealing with two Serious Case Reviews that have been held in other parts of the Country where there was some historical involvement by Lambeth agencies in the case.
The Serious Case Review Sub-committee has been involved in two cases, Child Z from Croydon, and Child X from Sunderland, both of who had brief involvement with services in Lambeth between four and nine years ago respectively.
The Serious Case Review has monitored the action plans arising from these cases and reported back to the LSCB. Most of the issues identified were historical and have been addressed by national changes and service improvements that have been introduced since that time.
Internal Management Reviews:
Lambeth has had no Serious Case Reviews but it has carried out two internal reviews into the management of severely disabled children. One of the reviews is ongoing and the other has recently been signed off at the LSCB.
A detailed set of recommendations is being followed up by the Serious Case Review Sub-committee.
43 Page 354
7. Child Death Overview Panel
The Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP) of the LSCB is required to review the deaths of any children normally resident in their area (mandatory from April 2008). The main roles of the child death review process are to provide an overview of all child deaths under 18 years of age for the purpose of identifying any learning that arises and to inform the LSCB about public health concerns in is area.
A multi agency Rapid Response meeting between professionals also takes place for any child that dies “unexpectedly”, which means that they were expected to be alive twenty four hours previously. The purpose of this meeting is to make sense of the reasons for the death, identify any learning and review support to the families involved.
Review of the CDOP The CDOP in Lambeth is run jointly with Southwark and chaired on an annual rotating basis. The CDOP has just been reviewed by Public Health and a more streamlined model proposed to take into account the reduced resources. In addition, from August 2011 the Specific Point of Contact for a Child Death moved from health to the LSCB. The main proposals from the review include the following: • Continue to jointly run the CDOP with Southwark • Public Health to take over the Chair and leadership of the Panel • Streamlining the information gathering processes • Rationalising the process to avoid duplication for all neonatal deaths of children • Collecting less statistical information, departing from national butt not statutory guidance
The two LSCBs are currently in the process of agreeing and signing off the new changes which won’t fully take effect until 2012.
Findings from the CDOP 2008 – 2010
Two hundred and eight cases were notified to Lambeth and Southwark CDOP from 1st April 2008-26 th January 2011 (including 30 out of borough cases). Of these 105 completed the CDOP process.
In total there have been 49 deaths of children in Lambeth from 1 st April 2010 to 31 st March 2011, but most of these have not completed the Panel process yet and are not reflected in the data below. From April 2009 – March 2010 there were 35 child deaths registered. (There is a backlog of up to six months or more between deaths and their registration due to the coronial process, which accounts for a discrepancy in data from the last Annual Report which reported the death rate in 2009-10 to be slightly lower.)
Analysis of Results – Based on Cases Processed on the CDOP by April 2011.
The results indicate that three quarters of children who died in Lambeth were under a year old, and around 43% died shortly after birth. Of the children who died immediately after birth about 30% had congenital abnormalities and about 50% were very premature. Around 11% had some history of domestic violence in the home.
44 Page 355
Only 26.7% of all cases had “modifiable” factors associated which might have been able to prevent the death. This means that 73.3% of the deaths were unpreventable.
The analysis shows that whilst deaths were broadly even between boys and girls, white children were very under represented (i.e. 14.3% out of a population of 35.4% according to the 2001 Census). Black African children were over represented (i.e. they accounted for 26.7% of the deaths but only 18% of the population according to the 2001 Census).
Data : Of the 105 completed cases: 86 (82%) occurred in a hospital setting, with 48 (45.7%) occurring in the Neonatal Unit, and 19 (18.1%) occurring in Paediatric Intensive Care. • 55 (52%) of cases were male. • 78 (74.2%) of cases occurred in children less than 1 year old, with 45 (42.8%) of cases occurring in neonates. 28 (26.7%) of deaths were Black African and 15 (14.3%) of deaths were White British. • The main causes of death were perinatal and neonatal events (n= 44, 41.9%), followed by chromosomal, genetic and congenital abnormalities (n=19, 18.1%) and then acute medical or surgical conditions (n=10, 9.5%). • 45 (42.8%) were categorised as neonatal deaths, 22 (20.9%) were identified as unexpected deaths, 19 (18.1%) were expected, and 16 (15.2%) were classed as Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infancy. • No modifiable factors were identified in 69 (65.7%), and modifiable factors were identified in 28(26.7%) of all cases. • The table below shows the category of death by borough of residence:
Borough * 2008 -2009 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 Category of Death L S L S L S Total Number modifiable Neonatal 10 19 10 4 2 0 45 9 (20%) (42.8%) Sudden Unexpected 5 8 3 0 0 0 16 6 (37.5%) Death in Infancy (SUDI)I (15.2%) Unexpected deaths 9 7 5 1 0 0 22 12 (54.5%) (20.9%) Expected Deaths 5 7 4 2 1 0 19 1 (5.3%) (18.1%) No information available 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 (2.9%) - Total 32 41 22 7 3 0 105 28 (26.6%) Key: *L=Lambeth; S=Southwark
SUDI Deaths:
Sudden Unexpected Deaths of an Infant are investigated by the police. In these cases, which made up around 15% of all deaths, no modifiable factors were found in half the deaths and modifiable factors were found in a third.
• Key issues identified were:: acute and chronic management of sickle cell disease, awareness of co-sleeping, early warning systems and escalation
45 Page 356
policies in hospitals and language barriers between parents and healthcare staff.
Unexpected Deaths:
Half of all unexpected deaths were due to unnatural causes, such as homicide, road traffic accidents and house fires. Half the cases had modifiable factors associated with them, and around 27% of cases were known to Children’s Social Care.
• Key issues identified at CDOP include working with gangs and knife crime, housing issues, early warning systems and escalation policies in hospitals and awareness of acute and chronic management of sickle cell disease.
Expected deaths
Around 79% of all expected cases died in either Neonatal Intensive Care or Paediatric Intensive Care Units. Ninety five percent of cases were deemed to have no modifiable factors involved in the death.
• Key issues identified include updated H1N1 protocols and guidelines from HPU, notification of deaths by palliative care and maternal substance abuse or smoking.
Recommendations:
1. The CDOP made recommendations to review and slim down the information gathering process of the Panel. This had been taken forward and the review led by Dr Ruth Wallis, Director of Strategy and Services, NHS Lambeth, has now been completed. A pilot is due to start shortly with a slightly improved reviewing process (see above).
2. For preventing child deaths in Lambeth and Southwark :
• In depth assessment of antenatal education and service provision
• Greater emphasis placed on gang and knife crime prevention with increased liaison between health care, police, education and voluntary services
• Increased awareness of both acute and chronic management of sickle cell disease
• Emphasis placed in the health care system on clear communication, especially if language barriers exist, on parental recognition of sick children and the need for constant re-assessment
• On-going education and re-assessment of health care staff, such as early warning systems and interpretation of foetal heart monitoring
• Genetic counselling for consanguineous parents, and families who had already have a child with an inherited condition.
46 Page 357
These recommendations are being worked into an action plan by the Promotions Sub-committee and taken forward by Public Health and partners.
47 Page 358
8. Progress on other Key Areas:
The report has already commented on progress made in respect to the areas that were identified in 2008 as priority areas. These include:
• Domestic Violence • Adult Mental Health, Substance Misuse and Disability • Private Fostering • Children Missing from Care and Home • E Safety • Safer Work force • Community engagement • Child Death Overview Panel
Other priority areas include:
Forced Marriage:
In November 2008 HM Government published “ The Right to Choose: Multi-agency statutory guidance for dealing with forced marriage”. The statutory guidance was then followed by the HM Government publication of “Multi agency practise guidelines: handling cases of forced marriage”. The recent Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy did not identify that Forced Marriage was a particularly prevalent issue in Lambeth. However, Forced Marriage is known to be an under reported issue affecting young people under the age of eighteen in at least 39% of known cases and therefore Lambeth will undertake further work to raise awareness of FM and of support services available.
In order to ensure that the statutory guidance was implemented locally, the policy sub-committee developed a self audit tool for agencies and disseminated it with the guidance, and a leaflet to all staff. Agencies were asked to complete the audit tool and report back on progress with implementing the key points of the guidance.
The audits were returned to the Policy Sub-committee and none of the audits was deemed to be “red” which indicated that the policy was either implemented or in the process of implementation.
In addition to this the Domestic Violence Team, Adults’ and Community Services, commissioned a multi agency domestic violence training programme in 2010-2011 which included three training days for staff around the issues. The Policy sub group will review the audit progress in January 2012.
Lambeth has produced an overarching Violence Against Women and Girls strategy multi agency strategy for 2011-2014 which includes the issue of Forced Marriage. This focuses on early prevention, provision of services and protection of victims and prosecution of offenders.
Sexual Exploitation:
The LSCB produced guidance on Safeguarding children Abused through Sexual Exploitation in 2007. This is used in conjunction with London Child Protection
48 Page 359
Procedures 2011. The LSCB has audited the use of these and found good evidence of multi agency intervention to help children subject to sexual exploitation.
The Safer Lambeth Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy led by Community Safety, Adults’ and Community Services includes sexual exploitation against young women and proposes a number of preventative measures:
• A communications strategy to support the VAWG strategy will include awareness raising events and other activities including advertising campaigns highlighting Lambeth’s zero tolerance approach to VAWG.
• Provision of free Lambeth multi agency VAWG training.
• Continued funding for a specialist DV social worker as part of the Referral and Access team in Children and Young People Services (CYPS) to ensure effective early intervention
• Specific education events focused on gangs and sexual attitudes and belief amongst young people.
• Deliver sexual exploitation education training programme in Lambeth Schools
• Development of lesson plans to ensure sexual coercion is covered as part of the Sex and Relationship Education curriculum
• Train school staff in identification and response to violence against women and girls (VAWG)
• Identify resources to assist schools, youth services social workers to address and respond VAWG
• Develop referral procedure to ensure that young people who are experiencing sexual exploitation and violence are referred to appropriate services .
• Consider the development of a group work programme for young people who have, or who are at risk of perpetrating VAWG.
In June 2011 the Policy Sub-committee disseminated to agencies new CEOP guidance: “Out of Mind, Out of Sight: Breaking down the barriers to understanding child sexual exploitation”.
Following an Internal Management Review in 2008-9 the LSCB carried out a strategic assessment of services and identified a gap in services for young people who have sexually harmful behaviour. Following this the AIM project was commissioned with CAMHS to provide a multi agency programme of support to children who cause sexual harm to others and this service started in March 2010. The programme had trained twenty five practitioners from the Youth Offending Service, CAMHS and Children’s Social Care within seven months of starting and provided support and intervention to 17 young people who had shown sexually harmful behaviour. This project is preventative because the vast majority of the victims from these young people are other children or young people. The results are too early to report in terms of reducing recidivism, but national studies provide evidence to suggest that this work is effective in reducing reoffending over time and preventing these young people from growing into adult offenders.
49 Page 360
In addition to the measures above, Barnados ran a project in local schools for twelve months up to April 2011 aimed at raising awareness in young people of the risks and consequences of sexually exploitative behaviour and helping vulnerable pupils better protect themselves.
Trafficked Children:
Lambeth follows London Safeguarding Children’s Board Guidance on Trafficked children and uses London Safeguarding Trafficked Children Toolkit (both from March 2011). Lambeth Safeguarding Children’s Board produced and circulated a factsheet on Child Trafficking and publicised the issue through newsletters and through local media.
Numbers of known trafficking cases are very low in Lambeth, but this is almost definitely an under estimate of the number that there are. However, accurate figures for actual prevalence are hard to establish.
Bullying:
Bullying features on the action plan for the Promotions Sub Committee and is an LSCB priority for the next five years. The sub-committee has been focusing on the work undertaken in schools to tackle bullying. Ninety six percent of Lambeth Schools have managed to obtained ‘Healthy Schools’ status, which requires an anti-bullying policy.
The LSCB produced ‘TeenTlk’ magazine for 12 to 16 year olds, which featured anti- bullying and safeguarding articles. This was launched during anti-bullying week in November 2011, with accompanying publicity to raise awareness about bullying. Anti-Bullying features on the work plans of the Promotions and Policy Sub Committees
Disabled Children:
Disabled children are some of the most vulnerable children in Lambeth and require close scrutiny by the LSCB.
The Policy Sub-committee has focused on implementing the 2009 Guidance on Working with Disabled Children and completed a gap analysis of the service against the service requirements required in this document. This piece of work has focused on ensuring that every agency has the means to engage and communicate effectively with disabled children.
In 2009 and 2010 the Serious Case Review started two non statutory multi agency management reviews into the deaths of severely disabled children who had been known to Social Care. The cases didn’t meet the criteria for a Serious Case Review, but the LSCB agreed to carry out an internal management review to identify lessons and use these to improve the service.
During the course of one of these reviews a number of significant points of learning about the way that the Children with Disabilities Team had been operating emerged. Since 2009 the Children with Disabilities Team has been brought back under the management of Children’s Social Care from the Schools directorate, where it had been managed from 2006. A robust management programme has been put in place to address the concerns that arose to ensure that safeguarding is effective.
50 Page 361
The Performance sub-committee has analysed data around the performance in relation to disabled children, which shows that disabled children are slightly over represented on child protection plans. On the 10 th August 2011 there are 9 children out of a total 332 children with a CP plan in the Children with the disabilities team (CWD). Disabled children represent 2.7% of the population subject to child protection plans. Disabled children make up 1.89% of the general child population in Lambeth taken from 2007. This small over representation corresponds to the research which shows that disabled children are three and a half times more likely to be victims of abuse (Sullivan and Knutson 2000). One might therefore expect the figure to be higher, but this doesn’t count numbers removed from child protection plans and made subject to care proceeding. However any analysis needs to be cautious. These are very small numbers and they fluctuate so extrapolating too much significance from them can be misleading. The numbers of children being made subject to care plans has also risen in the last two years which indicates a robust approach to safeguarding overall.
The Quality Assurance Team has completed an audit on every case in the Children with Disability Team with a life limited disability and following the Child D Internal Management Review, a multi agency audit has been agreed for severely disabled children. The LSCB will consider in 2012 whether an audit of every single case held by the CWD Team is necessary, as part of the recommendations from the Child D Overview Report recommendations.
A major conference has been planned for key professionals in Lambeth in November 2011 around Fabricated and Induced Illness (FII) to help them understand best practice around FII. This is an issue that often affects disabled children and children with health needs, and was a key issue in the learning from one of the Internal Management Reviews.
A transitions protocol is now in place and working well for disabled children moving into adulthood and in need of adult services.
The LSCB will be keeping the work undertaken to safeguard disabled children under close review going forward into 2012.
Accident Prevention:
An analysis of unintentional injuries in children was undertaken by the Promotions Sub-committee in February 2011 and key factors associated with unintentional injury of children were identified. The issue was publicised through presentations and the LSCB newsletter. An audit of unintentional injury prevention work to meet new guidance is now under way and the promotions sub committee will support agencies in implementing NICE guidance on preventing unintentional injuries in the home.
Representatives of the Police and Fire Service are now very engaged with the Promotions Sub Committee and both provide accident prevention work into the community.
The LSCB oversee initiatives which influence road accidents such as the impact of changes to School Crossing Patrol Service. Casualties in every category except cyclists have reduced substantially since the 1994-1998 average. The quantity of cyclist casualties is unchanged, but it is estimated that the number of cyclists on the road has doubled.
51 Page 362
The LSCB published the Parenting Handbook and translated this into four other languages in 2010. A Parenting Magazine, with much the same content, is planned for a more targeted audience in early 2012. These publications help raise awareness around child safety and provide a platform for getting key messages out to the community about accident prevention.
Safeguarding in Schools:
As the Universal Safeguarding Team has expanded so has the capacity to quality assurance safeguarding work in schools and education settings. One of the major areas where practice is challenged is around attendance at Child Protection Conferences by school representatives. Whilst this work is ongoing there has been a marked increase in attendance and the submission of reports. As OfSTED placed an increased focus on Safeguarding in its inspection regime during 2010, moving Safeguarding alone to a limiting judgement, more work is being carried out with schools in terms of safeguarding ‘health checks’, where a safeguarding manager reviews and scrutinises the school’s arrangements in line with statutory requirements and OFSTED schedules. Whilst the OFSTED inspection schedule in this area is likely to change schools remain keen to have their practice externally scrutinised by a critical friend. Another key development in 2010 was the production of a monthly safeguarding circular to schools. This allows a flow of information directly to schools where safeguarding developments or points to note can be raised or highlighted for information or action. The circular has been well received by schools.
Training:
The LSCB training is delivered by a full time Training Manager who, since April 2011 has also been the trainer for Children’s Social Care. The LSCB Training is delivered within a budget of £20,000, which mainly provides for room hire. The LSCB offered 520 places on safeguarding training in 2008/9 across a range of subjects and provided conferences for a further 670 staff. In 2009/10 (including April and May 2010) the number trained was 930 and additional events reached 517 members of staff. In 2010-2011 the LSCB trained 1082 people plus places for 452 delegates at additional events. In 2011 – 12 the LSCB/Social Care Trainer is delivers additional training to Social Work staff on top of this.
Feedback from attendees is generally extremely positive and delegates value the training they receive. Over the year 2010/11 the LSCB training has obtained a mean average score of 4.38 out of a scale of 1.0 - 5.0 from feedback forms, with four representing “good” and five representing “excellent”.
From April 2010 the LSCB began to issue a £50 administration charge to any agency that books a place and doesn’t send a delegate. The rate of non attendance has dropped since 2009-2010 by 21%. The LSCB has benefited from this by around £6000 as a result which considerably helps offset the wasted resource of people not attending a training event.
The largest consumer of training was CYPS Social Care (26%) and the Voluntary Sector (25%) and then Early Years, Schools sector and Community Health. The Police, Probation sent only a handful of delegates, which is low but improved on the year before. The two Acute Trusts sent under thirty staff between them. There is room for improvement in the agency spread of training take up, particularly in respect to Police and Acute Staff take up.
52 Page 363
The LSCB is in the process of completing a systematic audit of what the training needs around safeguarding are in the children’s workforce across the partnership and to find a strategy to meet them. However this is a complex and ambitious task, impeded by the fact that internal agency training data is not managed systematically in a number of key agencies. Training Sub-committee continue to focus attention on this area over the next twelve months to explore what is achievable and make progress towards it. More work is also needed by the LSCB to ensure that take up of training improves across the agencies in the partnership.
Going forward in the year 2011 – 2012 the focus of LSCB training has changed. We know from our data and audit that agencies in Lambeth are very good at identifying concern about children and referring them to Children’s Social Care. The area that needs further development, according to our audit analysis, is the joint work between key agencies and ensuring that the multi agency response once the referral has been made is robust, clear and strong.
For this reason a number of new courses have been put on for 2011-12 in place of level one raising awareness courses. These include three multi agency training events around strategy meetings and section 47 investigations, and a specific course on achieving good quality assessments and interventions for every social worker and manager.
Standard (Brochure Advertised) Courses – Total Attendance and Non-Attendance Course Type Duration Times Attended Did Not Presented Attend Child Protection Process, Policy, Procedures 1 day 1 11 1 Designated Person Refresher Training 1 day 5 50 5 Domestic Violence as a Child Protection Issue 1 day 2 42 7 Impact of Parental Mental Health on Children & Young People 0.5 day 4 78 14
Introduction to Child Protection 1 day 11 270 22 Safeguarding Children with Disabilities 1 day 2 46 6
Safer Organisations 1 day 3 19 6
Sexual Exploitation of Children 1 day 2 41 3 Training for Trainers in Staff Induction: Safeguarding Children 1 day 3 26 4 Working Together to Safeguard Children 2 days 12 321 30 Working with Difficult to Engage Families 0.5 day 4 87 13
Working with Drug & Alcohol Users 1 day 2 30 2 Working with Families Affected by Drug and Alcohol Use 1 day 2 33 3 Working with Young People 1 day 2 28 5
53 Page 364
Affected by Drug and Alcohol Use Course Total Type Events Attended DNA 2010/2011 14 55 1082 121 (2009/2010) (11) (48) (788) (154)
Additional Courses/Events Course/Event Attendance Supporting Families: A joint approach to drug and alcohol misuse 91 Child Protection Responsibilities of Faith Groups 13 Basic Induction - Housing - URH 43 Basic Induction - Housing - Lambeth Living 54 Coin Street Community Centre 30 LSCB voluntary sector safeguarding conference 100 Joined Up Thinking; Joined Up Working; Joined Up Families 126 Total 2010/2011 457 (2009/2010) (564)
54 Page 365
Standard (Brochure Advertised) Courses – Attendance by Agency (2009/2010) 2010/2011 Agency Total Attending % Early Years (82) 177 (10.41) 16.36 Education (Schools) (116) 145 (14.72) 13.40 Health (Guys) (12) 11 (1.52) 1.02 Health (Kings) (7) 12 (0.89) 1.11 Health (LCH/NHS Lambeth) (61) 126 (7.74) 11.65 Health (SLaM) (19) 11 (2.41) 1.02 LBL (Adults & Community Services) (17) 15 (2.16) 1.39 LBL (CYPS) (240) 284 (30.46) 26.24 LBL (Housing, Regeneration and Environment) (3) 8 (0.38) 0.74 LBL (Other) (4) 7 (0.51) 0.65 Other (9) 6 (1.14) 0.55 Police (0) 5 (0.00) 0.46 Probation (2) 0 (0.25) 0.00 Voluntary/Independent Sector (216) 275 (27.41) 25.41 Total (2009/2010) 2010/2011 (788) 1082 (100.00) 100.00
Standard (Brochure Advertised) Courses – Attendance by Agency 284 LBL (CYPS) 240 275 Voluntary/Independent Sector 216 177 Early Years 82 145 Education (Schools) 116 126 Health (LCH/NHS Lambeth) 61 15 LBL (Adults & Community Services) 17 12 Health (Kings) 7 11 Health (SLaM) 19 11 Health (Guys) 12 8 LBL (Housing, Regeneration and Environment) 3 7 LBL (Other) 4 6 Other 9 5 Police 0 0 Probation 2 2009/2010 2010/2011 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
55 Page 366
Standard (Brochure Advertised) Courses – Feedback by Course Type
(Maximum score = 5)
Course Type Administration Administration Met Objectives Usefulness Relevance Training Standards Addressing Issues ADP Overall Venue Venue Child Protection Process, Policy, Procedures 4.44 3.67 4.22 3.78 3.78 4.22 3.33 4.22 Designated Person Refresher Training 4.74 3.65 4.86 4.57 4.76 4.77 4.13 4.64 Domestic Violence: a Child Protection Issue 4.76 4.19 4.81 4.62 4.62 4.74 4.21 4.76 Impact of Parental Mental Health on C& YP 4.36 3.86 4.30 4.06 4.09 4.23 3.77 4.21 Introduction to Child Protection 4.36 3.91 4.71 4.36 4.34 4.57 3.90 4.52 Safeguarding Children with Disabilities 4.57 3.93 4.76 4.43 4.38 4.72 4.31 4.63
Safer Organisations 4.40 3.80 4.60 4.50 4.70 4.60 4.00 4.50 Sexual Exploitation of Children 4.49 4.03 4.62 4.40 4.22 4.57 3.87 4.43 Training for Trainers in Staff Induction 4.62 4.03 4.75 4.50 4.59 4.63 3.79 4.67 Working Together to Safeguard Children 4.60 4.10 4.85 4.58 4.53 4.79 4.38 4.72 Working with Difficult to Engage Families 4.41 3.91 4.31 3.97 4.31 4.34 4.41 3.91 Working with Drug & Alcohol Users 4.28 4.02 4.48 4.11 4.12 4.18 4.28 4.02 Working with Families Affected by Substance Use 4.51 3.88 4.63 4.41 4.21 4.70 4.51 3.88 Working with Young People Affected by Substance Use 4.62 4.26 4.21 3.98 4.12 4.24 4.62 4.26
Standard (Brochure Advertised) Courses – Feedback – Average (All courses) (Maximum score = 5
56 Page 367
4.52 Overall 4.64 4.04 Adressing ADP Issues 3.91 4.58 Training Standards 4.61 4.39 Relevance 4.41 4.37 Usefulness 4.45 4.65 Objectives Met 4.64 3.95 Venue 3.90 4.51 Administration 4.14
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2009/2010 2010/2011
57 Page 368
9. Key Priorities Going Forward into 2011 - 2013
The LSCB has identified and set out key potential priorities for the next eighteen months, which are subject to consultation with a group of young people who have been involved in safeguarding services and a review of the work of the Board. The consultation with children and the review of the LSCB will change and inform these priorities and the direction of the LSCB, but the following points are key areas identified at the current time that the LSCB wants to tackle:
1) Our primary focus will be on improving the delivery of robust and effective responsive safeguarding to children in need of protection as our analysis tells us that although the work is good and effective, we still have more to do to ensure that joined up multi agency work is consistently good for all children all the time. Improved partnership working on the ground can only lead to better outcomes for children in need of safeguarding.
The publication of the Munro Report has set out a clear set of expectations around good practice and achieving better outcomes for children. The government has introduced a greater freedom for Local Authorities to decide locally how best to deliver this. The government is releasing Local Authorities from top down compliance driven centralisation of one size fits all management solutions which have impeded the quality of practice at frontline level. Lambeth social care now has an historic opportunity to decide for itself how to transform its service into one that can best deliver quality outcomes for children. The Board will need to be closely involved in monitoring the way that this is outworked so that the impact for service users is good and there are not unintended consequences following the changes.
2) Disabled children are some of the most vulnerable children in Lambeth and we know from two Internal Management Reviews and our internal case audit that there is an important piece of development work to be done with the Children with Disabilities Team to raise consistency of performance around safeguarding. The LSCB will keep under close scrutiny the progress made with this service user group through it’s quality assurance processes. The recommendations of the two Internal Management Reviews will be closely scrutinised by the SCR Sub-committee and will report back to the Board.
3) Thresholds for services are a key area that the LSCB will need to form a judgement about in the next eighteen months. Lambeth operate a lower threshold for a service than other Local Authorities, and carry out more Initial Assessments than other Boroughs. About half of these assessments do not result in an ongoing service (i.e. no further action once initial social work advice and support has finished). The potential implications of this is the service is undertaking unnecessary work for cases that could better be used to improve the quality of work with children who are in need or at risk of significant harm. The Board will need to consider whether, in the face of resource shortfalls, and the need to raise standards of quality (e.g. spending more time in direct work with children and families), that the current thresholds are sustainable or appropriate. The Board’s main concern will be to ensure that whatever thresholds are in place that they are safe and we don’t turn away any children who should have a service but who only become apparent once one has completed the relevant checks, and assessment. The development of the Multi Agency Service Hub is likely to help with this.
58 Page 369
4) The development of effective early help for children and the accent in Munro on understanding and improving the “child’s journey” through the services is one that the Board will need to grapple with in the next eighteen months. The challenge will be to ensure that services are configured in such a way that children are effectively diverted from specialist responsive safeguarding by early help, and to make better use of the Common Assessment Framework and Multi Agency Teams (MAT). The current challenge is to strengthen the step down from social care to the MATs and encourage the partnership to make greater use of the MAT in early intervention.
We also know that our BME community are over represented on child protection plans and need better targeted and focused early help.
5) The health reforms that are underway from the Coalition Government have huge potential consequences for safeguarding, particularly the issue of GPs commissioning health services. The engagement of GPs in the safeguarding agenda will be critical, as will engagement of the Health and Wellbeing Boards in the safeguarding agenda. The LSCB will be seeking to build links quickly in these areas.
6) Safeguarding training has been very successful in Lambeth and led to improved recognition and referral of children who need to be safeguarded. However there are known developmental issues across the partnership around establishing how many staff have been trained in safeguarding at what level. We know that most staff have been trained in level one safeguarding and most designated officers and leads have had some level two and three training, but it has been difficult to establish, track and quantify what level of training all staff have had in each agency and whether it is appropriate. The challenges to this are enormous. The Training sub-committee has completed a survey with the training leads in each agency as a first step. The resolution of this may not be possible without new IT systems in various agencies.
The LSCB training has refocused since April 2011 away from providing awareness raising training to agencies to focusing more on raising quality of inter agency practice for social workers and agencies involved in section 47 investigations, and undertaking quality assessments. A new set of courses has been put on to achieve this and this corresponds to the key messages coming out of the audits and quality assurance work undertaken by the LSCB.
7) Serious Youth Violence remains a significant concern in Lambeth and its impact on the lives of young people both by the Board and young people themselves for whom this is the top priority. This will continue to be an area of focus and scrutiny for the LSCB with partners, and the Board will be working with young people to see how it can strengthen the response in Lambeth to Serious Youth Violence.
Deane Jennings LSCB Board Manager
59 Page 370
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 371 b
Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub -Committee 19 January 2012
Work Programme Development and Action Monitoring All wards
Report authorised by : Executive Director Finance & Resources, Mike Suarez
Executive summary
The work programme development and decision monitoring matrix has been updated to guide the commissioning of reports and to monitor action and information requests that have arisen from the committee’s meetings.
Members are requested to note the updates to the programme and suggest, prioritise and confirm other topics where appropriate.
Summary of financial implications
There are no financial implications beyond the existing Scrutiny budget.
Recommendations (1) That the work programme and updated actions and information requests be noted. (2) That Members consider and recommend any additional items for the 2011-12 Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee work programme and confirm those items listed in Appendix 1.
Page 372
Consultation
Name of consultee Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments to response appear in report consultee received para: from consultee
Internal Mark Hynes DD Governance and 30.12.11 03.01.12 Democracy, for ED F&R Fateha Salim Legal Team, Governance and 30.12.11 30.12.11 Democracy Martin Crump Departmental Finance 30.12.11 03.01.12 5 Ama Ackon-Mensah Corporate Finance 30.12.11 04.01.12 Cllr Mark Harrison Chair 30.12.11 Cllr Judy Best Vice-Chair 30.12.11
Report history
Date report drafted: Report Date report sent: Report no.: deadline: 30.12.11 06.01.12 06.01.12 259/11-12 Report author and contact for queries: Claire Butcher, Lead Scrutiny Officer 020 7926 0024 [email protected]
Background documents
Work programme reports to previous Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee meetings.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee work programme development and decision monitoring matrix
Page 373
Children and Young People’s Service Scrutiny Sub-Committee 2011-12 Work Programme Development and Decision Monitoring
1. Context
1.1 Members are invited to consider their work programme at each meeting. Particular consideration should be given to providing sufficient guidance regarding the required contents of reports.
1.2 The template at Appendix 1 is updated following completion of any actions or recommendations arising or timetabling of new items.
1.3 The work programme should be monitored at each meeting to ensure that previous requests have been completed in full.
2. Proposals and reasons
2.1 The appended draft work programme was developed by members following an informal meeting in April 2011.
3. Savings tracker
3.1 All scrutiny committees will as a matter of course receive reports from the relevant departments detailing progress against reductions identified in the 2011/12 budget. These reports will include reference to non-financial impact.
4. Commission work
4.1 During the 2010/11 cycle of meetings the committee agreed to establish a commission examining the impact of early intervention and preventative working in Lambeth. The commission proposes to explore the effectiveness and value for money of early intervention in Lambeth and examine whether it produces savings and demonstrable outcomes in the long-term.
4.2 The Commission, which comprises Councillors Harrison (Chair), Best and Cosgrave, has received written evidence on a range of early intervention and targeted services, such as early years; parenting support; behaviour and education support; and multi-agency work. Members have also spoken to a range of service-users, including visitors to a council-run youth club and parents who have participated in parenting programmes. Further sessions with service- users and commission providers are planned.
4.3 Following agreement by the Scrutiny Chairs and Vice-Chairs any future proposals for commissions will be submitted to the Scrutiny Progress Group (Chairs and Vice-Chairs) for approval. Commissions will only be progressed when adequate resource has become available in the Scrutiny Team.
5. Comments from Executive Director of Finance and Resources
5.1 There are no capital or revenue implications arising as a direct result of this report. The work programme will be undertaken within the existing budget provision for the Scrutiny Business Unit (BU109) within the Governance & Democracy division of the Finance & Resources Department.
Page 374
5.2 There are no capital implications arising as a direct result of this report.
6. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy
6.1 There are no legal implications, but advice on specific work programme items may be provided in the future.
7. Results of consultation
7.1 All members of the council, executive and divisional directors have been consulted regarding suggestions for the scrutiny work programme and the council’s website enables members of the public to put forward suggestions.
8. Organisational implications
8.1 Risk management: None.
8.2 Equalities impact assessment: An equalities impact assessment of the work programme has not been undertaken. Reports commissioned by the committee will be expected to address any equalities issues.
8.3 Community safety implications: None.
8.4 Environmental implications: None.
8.5 Staffing and accommodation implications: None.
8.6 Any other implications: None
9. Timetable for implementation
9.1 The attached action plan and work programme (Appendix 1) will be updated throughout the year to account for actions arising from meetings and new reports being commissioned.
______
Page 375 Appendix 1
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICE SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE
2011-12 WORK PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Meeting Date Items/Topics type • Committee Lambeth Child Poverty Strategy 2011-14 (scheduled for Cabinet meeting approval 25 July 2011) • Safeguarding report, to include update on findings of Munro Review • Special Educational Needs in Lambeth – report to cover: Thursday, - introduction to SEN in Lambeth 30 th June, - progress made with SEN review e.g. general trends • 2011 Finance/ budget reductions update ( to be a standing item at all future meetings ) – to include: - relevant parts of the budget reduction achievement tracker, to be accompanied by some commentary - latest performance digest
th • Tuesday, 6 Committee Capital update, including update on and implications of James Review • September, meeting Interim report – Cooperative Council Early Adopters 2011 • Biannual Safeguarding report – Children Looked After
• Thursday, Committee Budget meeting (draft 2012-13 proposals) – young people to be invited 19 January, meeting to comment on proposals 2012 • Final SEN Review report (deferred • Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board annual report from 06.12.11)
• Committee Update on school admissions, including an update on MEDSOC panel meeting issues (as discussed at CYPS SSC on 06.09.11) • Update on managed moves • School Exclusions Scrutiny Commission update Date to be • Report on council’s relationship with schools – to cover academies, confirmed traded services, free schools, implications of greater autonomy etc (expected to • Standards of Achievement in Lambeth Schools for the previous be late academic year February) • Inspection Outcomes in Lambeth Schools for the previous academic year • Cooperative Council Early Adopters Update (as discussed/ agreed at September’s meeting)
• Wednesday, Committee Safeguarding report th • 14 March, meeting Post 16 provision/ careers 2011 • Youth Service Scrutiny Commission update
UNPROGRAMMED
Meeting type key:
KEY: G Action completed A Action in progress or deadline for completion not reached R Action not complete
Page 376 Appendix 1
Background Paper : A paper submitted to the members of the committee for information/update and made publicly available but not considered at a formal meeting of the committee (unless a members specifically requests that it is). Briefing : An informal meeting of the members of the committee (frequently open to all members) to receive information on an area of the council’s work. Call-in : A formal meeting of the committee convened in response to the receipt of a call-in. Challenge Session : An informal meeting of the members of the committee to provide an opportunity to challenge a particular council policy. Committee : A formal scheduled meeting of the committee. Commission : A small group of councillors responsible for conducting an in-depth piece of research and established by the committee. Special : A formal meeting of the committee that falls outside of the schedule of meetings.
KEY: G Action completed A Action in progress or deadline for completion not reached R Action not complete
30 June 2011 CLEARED Reports (including approval by Finance & Legal) MUST be submitted to Democratic Services by deadline 17 th June 2011 PRE MEETING PLANNING POST MEETING ACTIONS Lead Report Title & Key Points Outcome & Actions Arising Responsible Officer Deadline Status Officer/Author Resolved: Public Notice Question – (1) That the question and response be n/a n/a n/a Fenstanton School noted.
Resolved: (1) That the value and structure of the delivery tracker and the method of n/a n/a n/a providing assurance on the delivery of saving proposals be recognised.
2011/2012 Budget Reductions HSPP (CYPS) Monitoring and Reporting (2) That in future details of the monitoring of
Equalities Impact Assessments be HSPP (CYPS) 06.09.11 G Page 377 included in the delivery tracker.
(3) That the Cabinet Member for Children Labour Group and Young People respond to UNISON 06.09.11 A Office in relation to the points raised by them.
Resolved: (1) That the intention to review SEN n/a n/a n/a arrangements across the borough be Special Educational Needs in noted DD EITS (CYPS Lambeth (2) That a further report be received by the Sub-Committee once the review has DD EITS (CYPS) 19.01.12 A been completed.
Lambeth Child Poverty Strategy Resolved: HSPP (CYPS) n/a n/a n/a 2011-14 (1) That the report be noted.
Resolved: (1) That the Chair of the Lambeth Safeguarding Board be thanked for his presentation and the strengthening of the 'symbiotic' relationship between the Board and the Scrutiny Committee. (2) That the key findings from the Lambeth Private Fostering Annual Report 2010/2011 be noted. (3) That the key findings from the Lambeth Adoption Agency Annual Report 2010/2011 be noted.
DD SS (CYPS) Safeguarding report (4) That the processes in place in respect of n/a n/a n/a allegations management and formally
receive the Annual Report of the Local Page 378 Authority Designated Officer (LADO) be noted. (5) That the findings of the Final Report of the Munro review of child protection and the proposed next steps to consider the findings in Lambeth be noted. (6) That the quality assurance measures being taken to strengthen safeguarding practices in Lambeth be noted. (7) That a further report be presented in January 2012.
6 September 2011 CLEARED Reports (including approval by Finance & Legal) MUST be submitted to Democratic Services by deadline 23 rd August 2011 PRE MEETING PLANNING POST MEETING ACTIONS Lead Report Title & Key Points Outcome & Actions Arising Responsible Officer Deadline Status Officer/Author Resolved: (1) That the question and response be January Public Notice Question: MEDSOC noted. LSO/GD CYPS/ EECP 2012 (now A Panel (2) That an update on MEDSOC panel DD/EECP Feb 2012) issues to be reported back to the Sub- Committee in January 2012.
Public Notice Question: Resolved: CYPS/ EECP n/a n/a n/a Secondary School Places That the question and response be noted. Page 379 Resolved: n/a n/a n/a (1) That the report be noted.
(2) That an update on medium and long- April/ May term plans for the site be timetabled into LSO/GD A 2012 next year’s work programme. Former Shelley/ Olive School Site CYPS/ EECP Proposed Disposal (3) To recommend that the council’s disposals strategy and section 106 Relevant officers n/a n/a contributions around school places be notified revisited by the Cabinet. (4) To recommend that relevant ward Relevant officers councillors be consulted on decisions n/a n/a notified about bulge classes.
Resolved: CYPS/ EECP CYPS Capital Programmes n/a n/a n/a (1) That the report be noted.
(2) That the Sub-Committee writes to the Secretary of State urging government to make a quick decision on the additional October £500million capital funding recently LSO/GD G announced and lobbying for a reformed 2011 funding formula that fairly reflects Lambeth’s needs .
Resolved: n/a n/a n/a (1) That the report be noted.
(2) To recommend that Lambeth councillors take a leadership role in developing the Cooperative Council Early Co-operative Council model within their Relevant officers CYPS/ EITS n/a n/a Adopters – Interim report wards, for instance, through identifying notified and supporting appropriate projects to be Page 380 taken forward through the model.
January (3) That this item be revisited at the Sub- LSO/GD 2012 (now A Committee’s January 2012 meeting. Feb 2012)
2011/12 Budget Reductions Resolved: CYPS/ R n/a n/a n/a Monitoring and Reporting (1) That the report be noted.
Biannual Safeguarding Report – Resolved: CYPS/ SS n/a n/a n/a Children Looked After (1) That the report be noted.
Resolved: (1) That the report be noted. (2) That young people be invited to the Sub- Committee meeting in December to comment on departmental savings CYPS Scrutiny Sub-Committee proposals. FR/GD October Work Programme Development LSO/GD G (LSO) (3) That an update report on the Co- 2011 and Action Monitoring operative Council Early Adopters be brought back to the Sub-Committee meeting in January 2012. (4) That an update on MEDSOC Panel issues be brought back to the Sub- Committee meeting in January 2012.
Page 381
19 January 2012 CLEARED Reports (including approval by Finance & Legal) MUST be submitted to Democratic Services by deadline 23 November 2011 PRE MEETING PLANNING POST MEETING ACTIONS Lead Report Title & Key Points Outcome & Actions Arising Responsible Officer Deadline Status Officer/Author Budget meeting (draft 2012-13
proposals)
Final SEN Review report
Lambeth Safeguarding Children
Board annual report
Page 382
Date to be confirmed CLEARED Reports (including approval by Finance & Legal) MUST be submitted to Democratic Services by deadline 6 January 2012 PRE MEETING PLANNING POST MEETING ACTIONS Lead Report Title & Key Points Outcome & Actions Arising Responsible Officer Deadline Status Officer/Author Update on school admissions and
managed moves
School Exclusions Scrutiny
Commission update
Report on council’s relationship with schools – to cover academies, traded services, free schools, implications of greater autonomy etc Page 383
Standards of Achievement in Lambeth Schools for the previous academic year
Inspection Outcomes in Lambeth Schools for the previous academic year
14 March 2012 CLEARED Reports (including approval by Finance & Legal) MUST be submitted to Democratic Services by deadline 1 March 2011 PRE MEETING PLANNING POST MEETING ACTIONS Lead Report Title & Key Points Outcome & Actions Arising Responsible Officer Deadline Status Officer/Author Safeguarding report
Post 16 provision/ careers
Youth Service Scrutiny
Commission update
Page 384