Best Value Joint Review
Directorates of Education
and
Social Services &
Housing
Children with Special
Educational Needs,
Children with Disabilities,
and
Children with Significant
Health Needs
April 2001 – March 2002
March 2002
CONTENTS
Page
GLOSSARY 3
1. INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 The Aim of the Review.- 4
1.2 The
Scope of the Review. 4
1.3 The
Purpose and Expected Outcomes of the Review 4
2. METHODOLOGY 5
2.5 Focus groups
3.
Values
and Principles 7
3.2. Inclusive
services
3.3. Entitlement
3.4. Planning
3.5. Training and support: Inclusion
4.
Strategic
Planning - joint Work 7
5. Outcomes of Discussion and Consultation 8
5.1.1 Communication. 8
(a) General Service
Information. 9
(b) Inter agency
communication 12
(c) Information Technology
and Data Management 12
(d) Communication with
Service Users/Parents/Children 12
5.1.2. Assessment 13
5.1.3. Co-ordinated
Services 14
5.1.4. Equality
of Access and Provision 15
6. COMPARISON 17
6.1. Comparison 17
6.2. Demand
and Activity. 17
6.3. Cost 20
6.4. Process & Structure 22
6.5. Summary 23
7. Competition
and Alternative Service Providers 25
7.1. Context 25
7.2 Outsourcing Options 25
7.3. Education Outsourcing 26
7.4 Social Services Outsourcing 27
8. Recommendations. 28
9. Service delivery objectives 28
10. Options for the
future 29
ATTACHMENT 1 Improvement Plan 31
Appendix 1 – Scoping document 40
Appendix 2 – Timeline 52
Appendix 3 – Structure of Management
and Working Groups 54
Appendix 4 – Service Quality/Value
Survey (Schools) 56
Appendix
5 - SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS CONSULTATION –
SEN Development Plan 60
Glossary
|
BVR
|
Best Value Review
|
|
CAMHS
|
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
|
|
Child in Need
|
A child who is unlikely to achieve
or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without help
and/or is disabled
|
|
DfES
|
Department for Education and Skills
|
|
DoH
|
Department of Health
|
|
EFQM
|
European Foundation for Quality Management
|
|
HimP
|
Health Improvement Plan
|
|
IT
|
Information technology
|
|
JIP
|
Joint Investment Plan
|
|
LEA
|
Local Education Authority
|
|
Looked After
Children
|
Children who are in the care of the Council
|
|
OFSTED
|
Office for Standards in Education
|
|
PCT
|
Primary Care Trust
|
|
PDT
|
Practice Development Team
|
|
PPG
|
Partnership Planning Group
|
|
QP MAP
|
‘Quality Protects’ (government improvement programme)
Management Action Plan
|
|
SEN
|
Special Educational Needs (applies
to 0-19 age range) A child has special educational needs if they have a
learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision
|
|
SRB
|
Single Regeneration Budget
|
|
SS&HD (or
SSD)
|
Social Services and Housing Directorate
|
|
SSI
|
Social Services Inspectorate
|
|
TOR
|
Terms of Reference
|
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Aim of the Review.
The aim of the
review was to scrutinise the effectiveness of local authority education and
social services provided for children with special educational needs, children
with disabilities and children with limiting long term illnesses; taking
account of legislation, policy, processes, practice and available resources.
Children
considered through this report refers to children with significant learning
difficulties, physical and sensory difficulties, communication interaction and
autistic spectrum disorders, behavioural, emotional and social difficulties and
children with life threatening or limiting long term illnesses.
1.2 The Scope of the Review.
A Scoping
Report, which was approved by The Children’s Committee on the 22nd
of March 2001. This identified the parameters of the services under review, the
key legislation guidance and principles, which underpin service delivery,
national and corporate objectives, and the approach, which the review would
take. The management team quickly realised that the review would need to focus
upon core Education and Social Services issues, related Health issues and not
examine housing or leisure in any detail. Youth services did feature in the
review through the consultation process.
The Scoping Document can be found
at Appendix 1.
1.3 The Purpose and Expected Outcomes of the Review are:
·
to identify existing services which meet the identified
needs of the children, to the satisfaction of children and carers.
·
to compare performance in terms of quality and cost
with those of other agencies.
·
to identify areas for service development taking
account of the views of service users and other stakeholders and audits of
need.
·
to develop service development plans taking account of
the above factors
·
to ensure that services are developed in a way which
promotes effective collaboration between the statutory, voluntary and private
sector agencies
·
to ensure that services are accessible to those who
will most benefit from them and promote equality of opportunity
·
to develop services which respond to the identified
needs and represent value for money
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 A
Project Management group was co-chaired by the Head of Children’s Social
Services and the Assistant Director of Education. The group was responsible for
promoting ownership by members and professionals. The terms of reference of the Project Management Group were to
define and agree the parameters of the review, including time scales and
reporting mechanisms, define and agree the processes, allocating tasks and
monitoring progress and consider and evaluate key messages and recommendations
for service development. In order to progress the review a time line was drawn
up setting key milestones for the developing work.
The
Timeline can be found at Appendix 2.
2.2 The
Project Management group had representation from the Voluntary and Community
Sectors, Social Services, the Education Directorate, Early Years Services,
Health Services and Public Sector Union representation. The Management Group invited representatives
of other agencies and services to specific meetings in order to obtain their
unique perspective
Membership of the Management Group can be found at Appendix 3.
2.3
Five review groups
with cross agency representation were set up to reflect the different aspects
of service. These were:
Ø
Policy and strategy
Ø
Direct Services
Ø
Indirect Services
Ø
Administration and Resources
Ø
Residential and Short Term Support
The Structure
of the Working Groups is set out in Appendix
3.
2.4 A
half day meeting of all groups was held in order to outline the scope and
structure of the review and enable detailed small group discussion to draft the
work programme. Following on from this each working group met regularly and
discussed a range of cross service themes in order to undertake consultation
with service users and identify benchmarking issues. At least one
representative from each group joined the consultation focus groups with
parents. This meant that each parent
focus group had access to a member of each working group. Questions were generated to take to the
focus group meetings with parents and carers, with the ‘working group’
perspective in mind.
2.5 Focus
groups were convened with parents and carers of children aged between 2 –
19 yrs, these were organised around the Department for Education and Skills
(DfES) Special Educational Needs categories:
Ø
Behaviour, Emotional and Social Development
Ø
Communication and Interaction, and Autistic Spectrum
Disorders
Ø
Communication and Learning, including Severe and
Profound Learning Difficulties
Ø
Sensory and Physical Development
Ø
Sick or Terminally Ill Children
2.6 In
order to obtain a broader perspective regarding services, questionnaires
regarding education and social services were distributed to pupils and parents
through schools. A formula for
distribution of questionnaires was developed in order to ensure a
representative sample. School staff
were supportive in helping children to complete the questionnaires.
2.7
A meeting was held with representatives from the Voluntary and
Community Sector in order to provide information regarding the review process,
findings to date (feedback from focus groups and questionnaires) and to seek
their views and comment.
A
similar meeting was held with representatives from public sector staff
including union representation.
2.8 This review has taken
account of information and consultations, which have been undertaken in
relation to this group within the last 18 months. A summary of previous consultation can be found at Appendix 5.
2.9 Throughout the process
there was regular formal and informal feedback to members.
CONSULTATION
STRUCTURE CHART
3. Values and
Principles
3.1. The Isle of Wight council believes that
all children and young people have a right to access local services. They have a right to learn and develop
together and should not be devalued or discriminated against. The council promotes a culture of acceptance
in which all children can be valued equally, treated with respect and given
equal opportunities with due regard to race and culture. These values underpin the successful
development of policy and practice and are central to the council’s policy for
inclusion and policy for corporate parenting.
3.2. Inclusive services are fundamental to
developing an inclusive society. Securing successful inclusion involves
attitudinal change and developing a belief that individuals can co-exist
regardless of abilities and disabilities within our community.
3.3. Entitlement: Children are entitled to
receive services in accordance with their assessed needs. Wherever possible,
this should be within their local community, recognising that appropriate
support, advice and resources may be necessary to achieve this. Parents and
young people are entitled to express a preference for where that should take
place.
3.4. Planning: All planning within the council
should have inclusive principles at its heart. Inclusion requires strategic
planning at a systems and organisational level and at an individual level.
Considerable effort is needed to ensure the barriers to inclusion are overcome.
3.5. Training and support: Inclusion requires
support, training and the development of new skills. This can be provided
through local authority staff and services or through commissioned services.
3.6. Tensions: The council recognises that
there are potential tensions between needs identification and the finite
resources available for services. Similarly inclusive principles can create
tensions within communities as the needs of the many are weighed against the
rights of the few.
4. Strategic
Planning - joint Work
4.1 At a corporate level
the council has established a joint Childrens' Services Committee in order to
bring together, in particular, elements of the work of the Social Services
department and Education Authority where vulnerable children and young people
are involved.
4.2 The Local Education
Authority and Social Services Department engage in a range of joint work with
the Health Authority at a strategic and operational level. This has significant
benefits in terms of planning and resource deployment and has resulted in a
range of collaborative activity, including joint and seconded appointments.
4.3 Joint Work is
undertaken in a range of areas which also incorporates the work of the
voluntary and community sector.
q Partnership
planning group – children and families (statutory agencies)
q Children
and young peoples Strategic Partnership Board Planning (statutory and Voluntary
sector)
q Children’s
services joint commissioning panel strategic and operational
(Health, Education, Social
Services managers)
q
Drug Action Team
q
Youth Offending Team
q
Youth Justice Strategy
q
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Strategy
q
Special Educational Needs Reference and Strategy Group
q
LEA Statement panel
q
Social Services Resources Panel
q
Early Years Partnership
q
Children’s Fund
q
Domestic Violence Forum
q
National Healthy School Standards
q
Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
4.4 In addition, a number
of posts have been established across ‘traditional’ agency boundaries in order
to promote collaborative work e.g.; education co-ordinator for looked after
children – funded by social services, based in education; Joint commissioning
Manager – children’s services, jointly funded by Education, Social Services and
Health.
4.5 Increasingly work is
collaborative, the Oak House initiative being the most recent and successful
development bringing together key professionals across agencies to support the
assessment and intervention process for children and their parents.
5. Outcomes
of Discussion and Consultation
5.1 A number of key themes
have emerged as a result of consultation, which point to areas of successful
practice and areas where further improvements need to take place. These Key
themes can be broken down into the following:
Ø
Communication
Ø
Assessment
Ø
Co-ordinated Services
Ø
Equality of Access and Provision
5.1.1 Communication.
Communication within and between
departments, and in relation to service users arose as a recurring theme
throughout the process of consultation. It was recognised that communication
was variable with examples of good practice e.g.; the establishment of Oak
House and also effective ‘informal’ links but there is a need for clear concise
information to promote understanding by service users and professionals of
respective roles. This clarity of role needs to be extended to include all
service provision; public sector, voluntary sector and independent providers.
A number of key
areas were identified:
(a) General Service Information.
(b) Inter agency communication
(c) Information Technology and Data
Management
(d) Communication with Service
Users/Parents/Children
(a) General Service Information
There was an
identified weakness regarding readily available information for service users
in relation to the full range of services available, the eligibility criteria
for access to services and complaints procedures.
Parents
considered more information was needed in order to make informed choices.
Schools were often seen as the main access point. The evidence from service
users was that when information was made available this was valued.
It is recognised that this is an area where
improvements can be made to promote service user understanding of how services
are organised and delivered.
(b) Inter Agency Communication
There was an acknowledgement that the defined
nature of the Island and co-terminus boundaries of statutory agencies meant
that informal communication systems, in many respects, was effective however,
there were reports of informal communication systems undermining or by-passing
formal communication processes. There
was a lack of understanding, by some service users, about which agency was
responsible for which service and between agencies a lack of awareness about
what other services were available.
The complexity and overlap between services
indicates there is scope for developing a directory of services and simple
flowchart regarding services available and how services are accessed
(c) Information
Technology and Data Management
There was a recognition that there are
differences in terms of IT systems between and within agencies, also that
access to IT was extremely variable. The infrastructure for IT between agencies
was also inconsistent in terms of initial funding, upgrading and support.
Whilst systems within the Education Directorate were considered more advanced
than in social Services these could not be accessed by all staff. Some staff have no equipment and have
limited access to e-mail facilities. The storage of Data is fragmented both
within agencies and across agencies. This presented particular difficulties
when trying to interrogate systems and retrieve information.
This is a intricate area of work with
existing data systems within service areas requiring significant change and
resources in order for integration between Social Services and the Education
Authority to occur. It is necessary to review the extent to which data systems
can be integrated and existing task groups need to collaborate. There is a recognition that staff need to
have access to the appropriate equipment to input data, receive and send
e-mail.
(d) Communication
with Service Users/Parents/Children
Services users
commented upon the value they placed upon information and advice provided by
Education and Social Services Directorates. There was a view that in some
instances there was a lack of understanding of what parents wanted and needed
and what agencies were able to provide. It was also noted that communication
through E-Systems was limited.
Some parents
felt there were times when they were not consulted or informed about
recommendations/actions made regarding their child, these comments were
targeted at schools as well as agencies. There were reports of some parents
feeling ignored, misunderstood, unsupported, judged and blamed which led to
feelings of isolation, impotence, fear and stress regarding what was likely to
happen to them and their child.
Establishing more clearly defined
eligibility criteria and being clear about what services can deliver can be
improved. This will be underpinned by the corporate parenting objectives of the
council and the policy for social inclusion. This work is further underpinned
by the Framework for Assessment and the revised Code of Practice (SEN), where
the involvement of parents and children is considered crucial. Through its SEN monitoring process the LEA
will undertake a parent satisfaction survey.
5.1.2. Assessment.
Both Social Services and Education
Directorates have a duty to provide access to an assessment of a child’s needs
(Children Act 1989; Education Act 1996). Each agency follows particular
government guidance concerning processes and timescales when undertaking or
commissioning assessments. There are different levels and types of assessment.
Assessment is a process and not an event. It is a means to determine need and
should be seen as part of an education/care management process. Assessment is
complex and involves the drawing together of information from a range of
sources, including the views of children, parents and others, to identify need
and plan appropriate short term and long term intervention.
5.1.2.1. A range of
issues were raised by some parents in relation to assessment processes in
particular, the length of time taken to complete assessments. Frustration was
expressed in certain cases at the perceived failure to provide support and
denial of support until assessments were complete. Concerns were also raised
about some schools failing to act upon the recommendations following assessment
and what role the LEA had in ensuring things were implemented. Parents involved
with both Social Services and Education reported ‘duplication’ of processes
with a need for transfer of information to reduce parental anxiety and
pressure. Some parents believed that
assessment and a ‘label’ for their child was important to secure the necessary
resources. In general, there is a need for clarity regarding eligibility
criteria for assessment to promote understanding for parents, carers and
professional staff.
5.1.2.2. Some parents
considered the process of assessment too remote and impersonal, particularly
during the period of time when information is being gathered from a variety of
sources. Whilst some of this was seen as bureaucratic there was an
acknowledgement that parents needed information concerning the process and
structure of assessments and the decision making mechanisms.
5.1.2.3. Some parents
also reported disagreements between professionals in relation to a diagnosis or
recognition of need and the lack of parity between Island based assessment
compared to assessment undertaken on the mainland.
5.1.2.4. Developments
at Oak House, via a multi-agency approach, were seen as positive developments.
Joint work between health, Social Services and Education have come together
within this facility to ensure a single point of referral and assessment which,
in turn leads to joint intervention. This approach has lead to reduced waiting lists,
more targeted assessment and intervention.
5.1.2.5 In addition
the Early Years partnership has brought together a number of statutory and
voluntary bodies. Integrated support for children of pre-school age who have
Special Educational Needs was achieved through re-organisation of three
separate services into one team in September 2001, in collaboration with a
special school. Three area special needs co-ordinators have also been
appointed, together with an early years ‘link officer’.
5.1.2.6. The speed at which Statements of Special Educational Need
were completed has improved and annual reviews are undertaken according to
statutory guidance.
5.1.2.7 The
Social Services Directorate have also implemented the Department of Health ‘Framework for Assessment’ of children in
need and their families.
5.1.2.8. The developments at Oak House and
within the Early Years Partnership are considered examples of ‘good practice’.
Further improvements in partnership work of this nature will be developed.
Refer to Action Plan.
5.1.2.9. The LEA is implementing a framework
for monitoring special Educational Provision within schools from April 2002.
5.1.2.10. The Framework for Assessment, together
with the Code of Practice (SEN) establish the requirement of multi agency
assessment. In order to reduce duplication of assessment the LEA and Social
Services will collaborate further to share reports and assessment processes. A
common assessment protocol will be developed underpinned by training. Refer to
Action Plan.
5.1.2.11. The SSD and the LEA will develop, in
partnership, an agreed approach to eligibility criteria and resource
deployment.
5.1.3. Co-ordinated Services
5.1.3.1. Funding routes
for services have changed which has led to numerous separate funding streams
sometimes targeted at particular projects or groups. The Government agenda has
increased the focus upon ‘joined up’ services and locally examples of positive
collaborative work exist between Health, Education and Social Services.
Department and services are increasingly dependent upon each other for data
gathering and analysis to report to government upon local planning and outcomes
for children.
5.1.3.2. Issues were
raised through the consultation, which suggest the need for human and financial
resources to be used more effectively to meet changing circumstances. Some
positive local initiatives were identified where funding has been secured to
develop local services e.g. Invest to Save; Standards Fund; SRB, Early Years
and the Children’s Fund.
5.1.3.3. The processes
for the identification of need and the mechanism for the prioritisation of
competing demands against finite resources was called into question. There was
a perception amongst service users and staff that those who shout loudest get
most.
5.1.3.4. Some parents
and carers reported having to negotiate through a network of people in order to
gain access to support and provision.
5.1.3.5. A range of
services are provided by agencies, some of which may overlap, for example:
CAMHS, Behaviour Therapy, Educational Psychology, Family Solutions Team. The
way in which these services are accessed, delivered, monitored and evaluated
differ and in some instances a child or family may be in receipt of
information, advice and support from more than one at any time.
5.1.3.6. The
‘transitions’ process was identified as requiring a more focused and integrated
approach from the agencies. It is also
recognised that this needs to take account of the Valuing People guidance.
5.1.3.7. The review has emphasised the need to strengthen and
promote integrated service delivery, firstly building upon existing work e.g.;
The Total Communication Project, which has been developed by the Health
authority and extended into Education and SSD; Oak house. Secondly, a feasibility
study of further options relating to more formal integration.
5.1.4. Equality of
Access and Provision
5.1.4.1. Some parents
were very unsure of the services and provision available to help them support
their child and the sources of appropriate information and advice.
5.1.4.2. As reported
previously, some parents and carers hold a perception that there is an
inequality of access to assessment, support and services. Some parents
considered that they were judged and their child’s needs not recognised because
the disability of their child was not obvious.
5.1.4.3. Parents also
commented that access to youth service facilities had been denied to their
child because they had a disability. This provision was also described as
inaccessible with poor provision for some groups. In addition, some parents of
children with complex needs indicated that they were expected to remain with
their child because of lack of staff expertise or specialist facilities.
5.1.4.4. A lack of
consistency was reported in relation to the way in which children were treated
by schools, which reflected attitudes of school staff and in some instances a
lack of understanding of children’s needs. Parents reported instances of
children being denied access to school trips or special events, although others
reported very positive attitudes towards supporting their child.
5.1.4.5. Reports of
schools using Health and Safety risks as reasons for denying children access to
after school clubs which run contrary to parental beliefs that such activities
would help their child develop.
5.1.4.6. Respite
provision and support was also cited as unequal in relation to the groups of
children for whom access was, seemingly, readily available. For others,
intervention and support was only made available at the point of family
breakdown. Parents were identifying that these services need to be broader and
more flexible.
5.1.4.7.
There was a perceived need for more training for teachers,
learning support assistants, social workers and social work assistants in the
understanding and management of children with special needs and learning
disabilities.
5.1.4.8 Some parents
commented that their children were disadvantaged because of transport issues.
In particular, if their child needed specialist transport, this could not be
easily provided outside of normal school transport arrangements. This meant
that parents had to be relied upon in order to transport their child to and
from activities.
5.1.4.9. As stated previously the SSD and the
LEA will develop, in partnership, an agreed approach to eligibility criteria
and resource deployment.
5.1.4.10. The complexity and overlap between services indicates there
is scope for developing a directory of services and simple flowchart regarding
services available and how services are accessed
5.1.4.11
Schools and Colleges will be expected to comply with the SEN
and Disability Discrimination Act from September 2002.
5.1.4.12
The LEA and Social Services Departments will promote staff
training their respective training and development courses and will encourage
joint training.
5.1.4.13
A joint training and development programme will be
investigated.
6. COMPARISON
6.1 Comparison
6.1.1 In common
with other Councils undertaking reviews of services for disabled children,
attempts to generate comparable information on activity and processes (which
led to contact with 35 Councils) yielded very little useful information, with
only four Councils responding in detail.
6.1.2 Comparison activity
included questionnaires to comparable Councils, a Member and Officer visit to
Hertfordshire Council, The use of data from a quality assessment of Children’s
Services and investigation of regional and national education and social care
data, and other Best Value reviews.
6.1.3 The Social Services
Inspectorate’s report on Lincolnshire’s review of services for disabled
children in November 2001 acknowledged that this is a problem. There is little
national reporting of services for disabled children required of Councils. The
review also showed that despite SEN services between Councils sharing many
common features, care services for disabled children varied from Council to
Council, ranging from complete integration with education services
(Hertfordshire) to specialist teams (Isle of Wight and Torbay). This diversity
in provision appears to lead to differences in performance measurement, service
definitions and policies.
6.1.4 The review team sought
data that would reflect on the value of services from a variety of sources.
This was a particular problem in Social Services, where comparable information
was not readily available. Other reviews were not always helpful. Surrey County
Council have undertaken a review of education and social care services for
disabled children. Their review was similarly hampered by a lack of comparative
information. The review contained data, but the information was already two
years old. Attempts to refresh this data to enable up to date comparison were
unsuccessful.
6.1.5 Despite a lack of
response to requests for data and process information from comparator Councils,
The Social Services and Housing Directorate has participated in an independent
multi-Council European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) assessment of
the quality of children’s services. This was undertaken by the QRM consultancy.
Regional education groups have also provided information on SEN services.
6.2
Demand and Activity
6.2.1 Demand for services differs between Councils.
The table below provides evidence of higher demand for SEN and disability
services on the Isle of Wight. It also shows an above average performance in
respect of school exclusions.
|
LEA Comparison - Performance and Exclusion
|
|
Year 2000
|
Isle of Wight
|
Statistical Neighbours
|
National
|
|
|
Statemented Pupils
Secondary
|
4.7%
|
4.0%
|
4.0%
|
Average
|
|
Primary
|
4.0%
|
2.7%
|
2.7%
|
Above Average
|
|
Pupils in Special Schools
Secondary
|
1.7%
|
1.2%
|
1.5%
|
Above Average
|
|
Primary
|
1.8%
|
0.7%
|
1.0%
|
Above Average
|
|
Permanent Exclusions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary
(Per
1000 Pupils)
|
Boys: 0.0
Girls: 0.0
|
0.2
0.0
|
0.3
0.0
|
Well below average
Average
|
|
Secondary
(Per
1000 Pupils)
|
Boys: 0.9
Girls: 0.7
|
3.6
0.7
|
4.6
1.1
|
Well below average
Average
|
Source: OfSTED January 2001.
Statistical Neighbours
North Lincolnshire York
Torbay Darlington
Calderdale Medway
Shropshire Herefordshire
Warrington East Riding of Yorkshire
6.2.2 The following table describes the differing
SEN and disability needs in comparable Councils. Variations in need will affect
costs and service structures.
|
Assessed Needs in Comparable Councils
|
|
Statemented
Pupils (Needs)
|
Isle of
Wight
(24,000)
0-19
|
Herefordshire
(40,000)
0-19
|
Portsmouth
(46,250)
0-19
|
Southampton
(50,000)
0-19
|
|
Communication /Autism
|
21.7%
|
17 Pupils
|
17%
|
N/A
|
|
Cognition & Learning
|
40.8%
|
N/A
|
52%
|
N/A
|
|
Sensory & Physical
|
10.4%
|
32 pupils
|
15%
|
N/A
|
|
Emotional /Behavioural
|
18.9%
|
78 pupils
|
18.9%
|
N/A
|
|
Medical (other)
|
0.9%
|
N/A
|
1%
|
N/A
|
|
Total number of statemented pupils
|
827 (3.45%)
|
904 (2.26%)
|
729 (2.8%)
|
595 (1.9%)
|
6.2.3 The EFQM social care
services assessment undertaken for the Isle of Wight by consultants QRM was
also limited by patchy data and information contributions in respect of
services for disabled children. This confirms our experience that this area of
social care is notably less well measured and reported than for instance
services for Child Protection and Children in Need. For example, The Isle of
Wight was the only Council able to report the total number of children on the
local Disability Register (237 out of 832 known disabled children in a
population of 26,400 children). Of other Councils approached, Torbay were
unable to provide comparable information on demand or their disability
register. Brighton is employing a local voluntary organisation to establish and
maintain a new register.
6.2.4 Assessment showed that
the Island’s Childrens Disability Team at Social Services received 70 referrals
in 2000/01, of these, only 2% were repeat referrals, this is better than the
government target of 23% and is better than the next best performing Council in
the assessment, which reported 23% re-referrals.
6.2.5 Of social care referrals
received, the service assessed 86% compared to 46% in the nearest assessed
Council. All of the assessed cases received a service; none of the other
comparator Councils were able to provide comparable information.
6.2.6 Time from social care
referral to assessment was 35 days, this exceeds the government’s target of 7
days, but the assessment and wider review has been unable to find comparable
and reportable data from other councils. In addition, the social work service undertakes
90% of reviews within statutory timescales; the next best reported performance
was a Council achieving 86% within the proper timescale.
6.2.7 All of the Councils in
the assessment reported that all disabled ‘children in need’ have a named
social worker or care manager. This is not always the case in other childcare
services provided by Councils participating in the EFQM assessment.
6.2.8 The number of children
looked after by the Social Services and Housing Directorate is comparable and
very similar to other Councils involved in the assessment. Reliable comparison
with other Councils is made difficult by lack of a commonly used definition of
disability services within care agencies.
6.2.9 Torbay Council and
Brighton City Council provided social care information. Both Councils have used
the QP MAP, in common with the Isle of Wight, to produce performance targets
and standards; there are no other comparable performance targets or processes
in place. Similarly, both Councils reported near identical workloads and
staffing arrangements to the Isle of Wight, apart from residential services and
sessional outreach staff which are available to both Councils but are not
easily measured for comparison.
6.2.10 The way in
which education services are structured or delivered varies enormously and
makes comparison difficult. For
example; Portsmouth LEA have only one full time teacher for children with
hearing difficulties, for a child population nearly double that of the Isle of
Wight. Southampton has one specialist
plus a 1.2 fte support teacher. The
Island has three full-time teachers of the hearing impaired. Superficial
analysis would suggest that, either these authorities are understaffed or the
Island is overstaffed. However, both
Portsmouth and Southampton have a number of special units attached to
mainstream schools that do not show up as a central resource but do meet the
needs of children with hearing problems.
Both authorities also ‘share’ provision with a neighbouring
authority. The Island established
provision for ‘deaf’ children in the 1970’s in order to reduce the necessity
for ‘off Island’ placements most usually residential provision; more recently
unit provision has been phased out to allow children to attend their local
school with specialist teaching support being provided by a central team of
teachers.
6.2.11 The level of respite
social care provided to children was difficult to collect due to an
increasingly diverse and localised range of respite care activities, and a
resulting lack of a common definition of what measurable respite care can be.
Those Councils that attempted to describe respite care levels reported
variations ranging from 34% to 5%.
6.3 Cost
6.3.1 As different services are required of each
council, analysis of the comparative costs of services set out in the table
below need to be considered with caution. This is complicated by the finding
that some services provided by the Isle of Wight LEA are ‘ elsewhere, i.e. some
are delivered through schools.
|
Cost Comparisons
|
|
Cost of
Services (5-19)
|
Isle of Wight
|
Herefordshire
|
Portsmouth
|
Southampton
|
|
Education Psychology
|
£185,000
£7.71 per pupil (5-19)
|
N/A
|
£375,000
£14.15 per pupil
|
£640,000 (1)
£12.80 per pupil
(5-19)
|
|
Support Teaching Services (including sensory impairment and physical
disability)
|
£425,000
£17.71 per pupil
|
N/A
|
£195,100
£7.36 per pupil
|
£155,000 (2)
(+£240,000 outreach)
£5.06 per pupil (£10.25 inc o/r)
|
|
Behaviour Support team (outreach)
|
£159,000
£6.62 per pupil
|
N/A
|
£140,000
£5.28 per pupil
|
£60,000
(+ £100,000 outreach from special schools)
£1.20 per pupil (£4.14 inc. o/r)
(1) An
income generating service
(2) £240,000
also funds outreach from special schools
|
|
SEN Administration
|
£138,500
£5.78 per pupil
|
N/A
|
£197,000
£4.28 per pupil
|
£197,000
£3.94 per pupil
|
6.3.2 The IOW Educational Psychology service is
costed at £7.71 per pupil (5-19), which is substantially less than the services
provided by Southampton and Portsmouth. However the Southampton service offsets
some of its costs through income generation by selling additional services to
schools, other LEAs and agencies. Related to the above is the comparatively
high cost of support teaching services on the IOW. Many authorities, including
Southampton and Portsmouth, employ only specialist teachers for children with sensory
and physical difficulties, whilst the Island has retained a central team of
specialist teachers to provide support for pupils with general and specific
learning difficulties.
|
Residential School Placements
|
|
|
No. of
Pupils
|
Places Per
1000
(pupil pop)
|
Percentage
Contribution by agency (%)
|
Total
Costs
£1,000’s
|
Average
cost per place -£1,000’s
|
|
|
|
|
SS
|
Health
|
Edu
|
|
|
|
Isle Of
Wight
|
29
|
1.51
|
22
|
14
|
64
|
1293
|
45
|
|
Bracknell Forest
|
50
|
3.27
|
33
|
0
|
67
|
2018
|
40
|
|
Bucks
|
121
|
1.63
|
10
|
6
|
84
|
4170
|
34
|
|
Milton Keynes
|
68
|
2
|
25
|
1
|
74
|
2240
|
33
|
|
Portsmouth
|
24
|
0.92
|
11
|
1
|
88
|
584
|
24
|
|
Reading
|
31
|
1.8
|
19
|
5
|
76
|
1017
|
33
|
|
Southampton
|
25
|
0.83
|
5
|
0
|
95
|
499
|
20
|
|
West Berkshire
|
36
|
1.51
|
38
|
0
|
62
|
1586
|
44
|
|
Wokingham
|
52
|
2.2
|
12
|
2
|
86
|
1486
|
29
|
6.3.3 The Isle of Wight, because of its physical
separation relies more heavily on local provision and suffers from very high
costs for any mainland placements.
6.3.4 Torbay Council education and social services
departments have now placed all disabled children currently in a school
placement or looked after within the Council area. Brighton has three
specialist education placements outside of the city and three children looked
after out of the city (fewer than the Isle of Wight). Both Councils are able to
place children nearer to home using Council in-house provision and locally
placed independent and voluntary facilities not available on the Isle of Wight.
6.3.5 Torbay
Council has a children’s disability service, which closely resembles the Isle
of Wight service. Eligibility criteria and joint working arrangements are similar.
It is funded with 2% of the Social Services budget (2.7% on the Isle of Wight).
The Torbay specialist service care manages all disabled children in need. In
contrast Brighton Council spend 15% of their social care and housing
directorate budget on services for disabled children. This seems very high. The
specialist joint children’s disability team also only deal with children whose
needs are more than ‘moderate’. Mainstream social work teams deal with children
not in these higher categories of need.
6.3.6 Both Torbay
and Brighton were insufficiently confident of their data systems to share
detailed activity and financial information, but they have shared some
indicative costs. For example, Torbay have respite care costs ranging from
£200-90 per night (Isle of Wight typical cost is £58). Family link costs are
similar. Brighton indicate that Family Link costs are £55 per night (Isle of
Wight - £57). Children’s homecare services are not costed in Torbay but
Brighton estimate that unit costs are £18 per hour (Isle of Wight £11 per
hour).
6.3.7 Both Councils
have respite care arrangements. Torbay has a health flexibility arrangement
with the local Healthcare Trust and Brighton has an agreement with National
Childrens Homes for four respite places and one full time care place for
£590,000.
6.4 Process
and Structure
6.4.1 Process comparison
appears to show broadly common features among education services, but there are
diverse approaches to providing social care services. There is an increasing
convergence among Councils who shared information, on making arrangements that
streamline and simplify the service users experience of assessment and service
delivery from education, health and housing. Consultation during this review
highlighted demand from stakeholders for this on the Island.
6.4.2 A
visit was made to Hertfordshire County Council, which has fully integrated its
Education and Social Services Functions into one Directorate. This has resulted
in the creation of a single service dealing with all local authority aspects of
a child’s disability or special needs. The objective of the service is to
simplify and make more effective the assessment of education and social
services needs and the planning and commissioning of services to meet needs.
Investigating this option for strategic change was regarded as a benchmark
opportunity to consider how services could be best configured, some
observations are set out in a table below and discussed in the summary at 6.5
below.
Integrated Services at Hertfordshire County Council
Strengths and Advantages
·
Each service user has
one case file for education and social care.
·
The service complies
with ‘Assessment Framework Guidance’.
·
Consultation with
staff, schools and service users was a key tool in making changes and
structures set up during change are still in use.
·
It is intended that
future savings be put back into the service.
·
The change creates a
need for new multi-skilled posts and staff.
·
Strategic change has
resulted in clear objectives and targets.
·
Children and families
should get more information/fewer assessments.
·
Government departments
are sympathetic to the problems the Council is having, with acceptance of a
degree of experimentation.
Problems
and Weaknesses
·
The Changes were
costly. Over the period of change development costs exceeded £1M per year.
·
Integration was a
challenge needing careful management.
·
There have been
‘teething problems’ in service delivery, finance and policy issues, all
requiring careful management.
·
There is concern among
staff and managers that change may have been too fast, development has now
been slowed.
·
No redundancies had
been promised, but the project is hampered by vacancies, particularly in key
posts. Multi-skilled staff have been difficult to find and significant
training is now taking place.
·
The service needed a
common database and performance management infrastructure. This is not in
place and causes problems.
·
There have been no
savings; costs have risen (£3M per year) as more people have accessed the
service.
·
They have produced a
Joint Service Plan but it is heavily biased towards Education, they have
nevertheless decided on continuing to have one plan for each service.
|
6.4.3 Other
Councils contacted for structural and process information included Milton
Keynes and Brighton.
6.4.4 Brighton City
Council has a high level of joint working between education and social services
at strategic levels, but this is not seen as a long-term model. The Council is
now investigating an integrated model that would resemble Hertfordshire.
6.4.5 Other
Councils contacted for structural and process information included Milton
Keynes.
6.4.6 Milton Keynes
has created a service influenced by the Council’s Social Inclusion service;
this service is expected to receive some praise following a recently completed
Joint Review of Social Services. Education and social care services are
separate entities working together within the Council’s Service Development
Plan. The service is social work and care management based, working toward
‘person centred planning’ set out in the ‘Valuing People’ programme. They do
not have the multi-agency input currently available at Oak House, but are
developing partnerships through nurse care managers and under-eight’s services.
6.4.7 Milton Keynes
has experienced problems through critical OFSTED reports and Housing
assessments. Recruitment to key education, housing and social care posts is
very difficult and hampering improvement.
6.4.8 The social
inclusion focus of the Council gives Social Services a lead in developing
strategic and operational partnerships particularly with health, based on a
sound social work and care management service well placed to lead on
streamlining the service users experience. This is a continuing process and the
Council is not planning a fuller integration of education, health and social
services.
6.5 Summary.
6.5.1 Many Councils now appear
to have education and social care services for SEN and disabled children that
are therefore broadly similar to the Isle of Wight in current structures and
workloads. The Island is providing a less costly service, with comparably good
performance in statementing and social care provision, but it is not always
able to provide locally based education and social care services for children
with complex or specialist needs. It compares well with councils which are more
urban in type, who often provide a wider range of specialist education and care
support services than rural councils.
6.5.2 The EFQM assessment of
social care concludes with a comparative assessment of the performance of
social services to disabled children on the Isle of Wight (see box below). This
is informed by comparison with other Councils, performance against government
targets and performance measures, and policy guidance.
Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses
(Identified in independent Social Care
EFQM Assessment)
Comparative Strengths
The
Council can demonstrate that its screening and assessment for children with
disabilities is effective and identifying needs, and is commended for the low
level of repeat referrals. Excellent comparative performance was demonstrated
in a range of other areas, this included:
·
Comparatively low
number of referrals waiting for assessment,
·
Prompt delivery of
packages of care following assessment,
·
The percentage of
children with an allocated worker,
·
The prompt review of
cases.
Comparative
Areas for Improvement
Improvements
are needed in:
·
Response times and
reducing caseloads that are comparably higher than those in other areas of
the Councils Childrens services.
·
Improved management
and performance information. Some critical areas included more information on
time taken in various stages of assessment and delivery of care, and
information on the nature and use of respite care and support.
·
Respite care
arrangements, in order to help reduce the number of children with a
disability who are looked after. This view is based on experience in other
Councils and the comparably high number of children in public care.
|
The integration of SEN and children’s disability
services has not been found in comparable Councils, although the option of a
more strategic integration of LEA and Social Services provision is increasingly
apparent. During the review, Brighton City Council has been considering a move
toward a more integrated social care, education, health and housing service
similar to that of Hertfordshire.
The visit to the integrated education and social care
service in Hertfordshire raised a number of issues relating to part or
structural integration and closer joint working between services. These
included:
·
Concern over the benefits of full integration at this
time,
·
The value of joint working alternatives which may not
result in full integration,
·
The possible evolution of existing Council and health
services toward greater operational or strategic joint working as an
alternative to integration.
Those
visiting Hertfordshire also shared concerns that Hertfordshire were pathfinding
and that it had been a costly, high risk and as yet incomplete process. There
was also concern that such an integration may limit possible future options for
the management and operation of all education and social services. There are
also implications for health services, which are not a full partner in the
Hertfordshire service, but could be on the Isle of Wight.
7. Competition
and Alternative Service Providers
7.1. Context
7.1.1 The Council is an experienced user of
outsourced care and skills. It
currently purchases a significantly higher proportion of skills and care from
the independent sector, than many comparable Councils. Officers, Council Members and other
stakeholders are aware of the benefits and disadvantages of independent service
provision.
7.1.2 Current outsourcing and
care purchasing arrangements are believed to be conducted effectively. Current purchasing includes school places,
specialist childcare services, residential placements, and contracted work with
the Health Authority and Independent Special Schools who provide teaching
services within mainstream schools. The
Council is experienced at arranging and monitoring such provision through the
use of tendering, quality standards and performance management.
7.2 Outsourcing Options
7.2.1 The Review team has considered the
possibility of outsourcing or finding alternative provision for some or all
aspects of the services reviewed.
Consultation and comparison information highlighted the benefits of
greater integration of services including Special Educational Needs (SEN)
services, social work services, and other significant partners such as Under 8s
services and health service provision.
This trend to integrate services made investigating the outsourcing of
services more problematic than first expected.
7.2.2 The review team view the
need to integrate education and social services as a positive response to the
voices and needs of service users and carers.
There is concern that integrating or outsourcing limited aspects of the
Council’s education and social care services may hinder the development of
wider and more long-term strategic options.
7.2.3 Following investigation
of the available options and benefits, it is recommended that the Council would
not immediately benefit from outsourcing services under review, at least until
a wider strategic view of the future extent of integration between all
education and children’s care and health services has been undertaken.
However, there may be benefits for the
effective management and provision of SEN and other education services from
continuing discussion with another local authority provider why may be
interested in an outsourcing or partnership arrangement with potential mutual
benefits.
It is further recommended that the
outsourcing of services should be reviewed at key points in the service
improvement plan. This would ensure that
a strategic and long-term view can be developed which benefits the users of all
education and social services.
7.3 Education Outsourcing
7.3.1 During the period of option appraisal,
approaches were made to organisations experienced in outsourcing activity with
local authorities, with a view to investigating their views on the outsourcing
of SEN services. These approaches were
made to a number of organisations currently providing outsourced services from
both the independent and public sector.
7.3.2 Each organisation was
asked for its willingness to consider undertaking the management and provision
of a full range of SEN services, amounting to £1m of annual revenue. This would include all SEN services
including psychology, school support and service management.
7.3.3 Each organisation was
also asked whether it would be interested in taking on the wider LEA education
provision, including school improvement, facilities management, personnel,
finance and adviser services.
7.3.4 Two independent
organisations and a local authority were approached. Both of the independent organisations gave the same
response. One of the organisations,
Cambridge Education Associates, typified the response of both
organisations. They believed that the
SEN service was ‘not sufficiently attractive’ as a business proposition. It is a small service with little scope for
a mutually beneficial partnership.
However, if the Council was to offer it’s wider LEA functions as part of
an outsourcing arrangement, they would both be interested, and to this end have
asked to be re-approached should such an opportunity arise.
7.3.5 The local Authority
approached (Hampshire County Council) has made an initial response which
indicates that they would be interested in a practical and clearly defined
outsourcing partnership, which could involve the management and provision of
SEN services. Hampshire have also
informally indicated that they too would be interested in a wider outsourcing
of LEA education functions. They will
only proceed with detailed work based on a firm commitment to outsourcing.
7.4 Social Services Outsourcing
7.4.1 Consideration was also
given to finding alternative social services provision. The two areas believed to benefit most were
the management and provision of family carers and of the provision of social
work and social work support services.
7.4.2 In deciding what benefits
could be arrived at from outsourcing or using alternative providers of
management and care, several considerations led to no active market testing
taking place.
7.4.3 The Council is highly
dependent on family placements for disabled children requiring respite or full
public care. The isolation of the
Island, and critical sustained pressure on the existing family placement service,
indicated that taking part of the service and outsourcing it’s management and
provision would lead to a further loss of overall capacity in the wider
service. On the basis of current
experience it was felt that competition for foster carers, and the impact on
capacity and costs, would provide no benefit in outsourcing family care
services at present.
7.4.4 The review team also
considered the potential for outsourcing social work and support services,
particularly to a voluntary organisation experienced in such arrangements. However, following consideration of the
issues involved, it was decided not to proceed with further investigation.
7.4.5 The Council has
experience of trying to establish such arrangements in the past. The scale of the services required by the Island
has been too limited to ensure mutual benefits for the Council and
provider. The last such attempt was
made in 1999.
7.4.6 In addition, the scale of the Island requires
a high degree of collaboration with particular respect to high risk generic childcare
considerations such as child protection.
Outsourcing social work teams at this stage may mean a reduction in the
ability of the Council to continue improving child protection services. The outsourcing of a significant and
effective proportion of child care services may also limit future and more
wide-ranging opportunities for the integration of education, social services
and health services.
8. Recommendations.
8.1 Improve joint working in order to provide
a seamless service with a view to developing pooled resources – human, physical
and financial. Integrate services in order that public sector and voluntary and
community sector services compliment each other to provide a comprehensive
continuum of provision.
8.2 Investigate and develop
systems for greater utilisation of existing information between services when
undertaking assessments and review assessment processes to identify common
areas of assessment across agencies to avoid duplication. This should have
particular reference to the SEN code of practice and the Framework for
Assessment.
8.3 Develop consistent
eligibility criteria for services. Say what cannot be provided as well as what
can. Services to be provided around a balanced view of children and families
needs rather than a diagnosis from individual practitioners.
8.4 Agree a corporate
policy around transport issues for children to share the burden with parents
and promote equal access to opportunities.
8.5 Share good practice
regarding inclusion throughout the island to promote mutual understanding and
respect through a variety of mechanisms.
8.6 Develop a directory,
for adults and children, of services, resources and provision which is
comprehensive across the public and voluntary and community sectors, which is
regularly updated (at least once per year), available in a variety of formats.
8.7 Improve access to high
quality services services provided by a range of organisations e.g. out of
school provision for older pupils, youth services, social activities and a
broader family link scheme, together with access to support and
training/learning opportunities and 24 hour advice.
8.9 Develop systems to
increase parent and children participation in all aspects of decision making.
9. Service delivery objectives
9.1 Ensure there are simple
systems for providing information for parents and professionals.
9.2 Establish quality standards that are
transparent.
9.3 Streamline assessment
procedures in order to capitalise upon existing assessment information and
reduce duplication.
9.4 Ensure that
outcomes are focused.
9.5 Ensure systems are established to ensure Parental Involvement/
Empowerment.
9.6 Improved
collaborative and inclusive work with schools.
9.7 Eliminate the
inter-agency ‘blame’ culture – developing a corporate response.
9.8 Establish a corporate transport policy to
ensure equal access to services and provision.
10. Options
for the future
10.1 Maintain
services as they are.
Response to the consultation would indicate
that existing systems are not seamless and therefore the status quo is not a
viable option. Cost Nil.
10.2 Improve joint working across agencies
through developing and modify existing systems.
Establish joint systems which include:
¨ Information sharing, assessment processes,
shared data, transparent eligibility criteria for support.
¨ Regional benchmarking.
¨ E mail/web information managed process for
updates etc.
¨ Develop integrated systems for transition to
adulthood.
¨
Develop and
extend the family link service.
¨
Improving youth
service accessibility to support inclusion.
¨
Provide
out-of-hours access to advice through respite services.
¨
Maintenance of
staff training and awareness of responsibilities of other agencies. Investment
would be required to undertake a feasibility study on joint processes. External project funding through bids to
DoH; DfES may be possible.
10.3 Improve joint working
across all agencies through developing and modifying existing systems through
co-location of staff
All
of the above plus;
¨
Undertake an
audit of buildings and staff to assess Feasibility of co-location . This may
lead to rationalisation of administration etc.
¨
Identify which
elements of services are included and excluded within an integrated service and
clarify the relationship with the voluntary & community sector. Work of
this nature would require investment in order to support the above work.
10.4 Develop integrated
service provision between education special educational needs services and
social services children’s disability services. This option would have
implications for integrated service provision for all children.
Restructuring at all levels, including
management and operational structures; an emerging theme in many councils with
broader integration of Social Services Children’s Services with education. This
would include all of 10.3 and 10.4 above.
10.5 Develop integrated service provision
including Health services (children with disabilities). This option would have
implications for integrated service provision for all children.
Negotiating with Health authority PCT and Health Care Trust in order to
identify elements of service provision which could also be integrated e.g.,
therapy services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
Improvement Plan
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND
DISABILITIES
BEST VALUE IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES
1.
Create a more seamless and simplified service by improving
assessment and joint working and exploring future integration. (Links
with 9.3,9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7)
2. Develop fair and equitable services
through improvements to Eligibility Criteria.
(Links with 9.2, 9.4, 9.5)
3. Enable service users to have access to
transport services which help meet assessed needs. (Links with 9.8)
4. Make services more
inclusive by :
(a) developing good working practices. (Links with 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6)
(b) improving the access to and availability
of high quality and inclusive services that are provided by a range of
organisation. (Links with 9.4, 9.6,
9.7, 9.8)
5. Make services more accessible by
improving information services for service users and other stakeholders. (Links with 9.1, 9.2, 9.3).
6. Develop services that
better reflect needs by improving service user involvement in all aspects of
the service. (Links with 9.1, 9.2, 9.5,
9.6, 9.7).
CHILDREN
WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITIES
BEST VALUE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1. Objective: Create a more seamless and simplified service by improving
joint working and exploring future integration.
|
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
SOLUTIONS
|
ACTIONS
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATORS
|
|
(i)
|
Working perspectives and statutory requirements differ across
agencies which can result in a lack of understanding across agencies.
|
Develop joint training/professional development
|
All SS and ED staff and health and allied professionals including
users (Policy and OP plan) to have access to joint training. Develop one training programme.
|
|
|
|
|
(ii)
|
Each agency has operated within its own boundaries with restricted
joint working.
|
Develop and implement a
cross service approach (inc health), ie joint appointments/budget
management. Secondments. Joint systems. Joint strategic planning and thinking.
Joint commissioning plan
(built on BV Review)
|
Development of joint commissioning plan and strategy via Partnership
Planning Group (PPG)
|
September 2002 Assistant Director of Education (ADE)
Head of Children’s Services (Soc Serv)
Commissioning Manager (Health)
|
With existing resource and groups.
|
Plan established and taken forward.
|
|
|
|
Establish a Practice
development team (PDT) who will develop common assessment guidelines based on
national guidance, and; Develop joint service
standards based on practice
development
|
To establish a PDT with Terms Of Reference to include multi-agency
and user and voluntary organisations input.
Also to deliver joint services - standards benchmarked with best
practice
|
September 2002-2004
Asst Director of Education (ADE)
Head of Children’s Services (Soc Serv)
(Health Rep)
|
120 days’ officer time.
Project office (joint post)
£50,000 inc. Admin.
|
Agreed guidelines published and implemented.
Service Standards established
|
|
(iv)
|
Information exchange is
currently inefficient compounded by incompatible IT/info systems. See 4a(ii)
|
Develop protocols for info
exchange
Intelligent IT arrangements
which can share common information.
|
Joint planning group (IT-weighted) possibly sub group of PDT to cover
IT arrangements
|
Assistant Director (Planning & Resources)
Head of Children’s Services (Soc Rep)
(Health Rep)
|
12 days Officer time.
|
Agreed protocol on information exchange.
|
2. Objective: Develop fair and equitable services through improvements to
eligibility criteria
|
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
SOLUTIONS
|
ACTION
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATORS
|
|
(i)
|
Criteria for services need to be clear and applied consistently.
|
Explore the potential for common eligibility criteria
|
Linked to investigation of future integration. Need to pilot possible changes. User feedback on current and new
arrangements
|
|
15 days Officer time
|
Criteria
agreed and published with Quality Assurance Framework procedures established.
|
|
(ii)
|
Services available are not widely understood by service users.
|
Publish Eligibility Criteria in a single plain English document
|
Create systems for publication and targeting information
|
Assistant Director of Education
Corporate Information Team
Complete by December 2003
|
2 days
|
Documentation
available in a variety of formats.
|
|
(iii)
|
Application of eligibility criteria is currently inconsistent.
|
Audit and review current Eligibility Criteria and their application.
|
Implement Quality Assurance
Framework for managers to apply consistently.
Training for staff and
awareness raising for service users.
|
Assistant Director of Education
Complete December 2003
|
6 days officer time.
|
Quality
framework established and reviewed in Practice.
Training
delivered.
|
3. Objective: Enable users to have access to transport
services which help meet assessed needs.
|
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
SOLUTIONS
|
ACTION
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATORS
|
|
(i)
|
Specialist Transport for social contact to enable young people to
travel independently is variable
|
Improve access to local
services to reduce need to travel.
Quantify the demand for
transport, including service users ability to pay and local potential.
Evaluate the use of Council
Transport resources (ie specialist select transport at weekend).
|
|
Assistant Director of Education
Partnership working groups, e.g. Children’s Fund, Principal Youth
Officer
Head of Children’s Disability Service
Principal Education Officer (SEN)
Commence July 2002
|
|
Integrate directory for Social Activities.
Audit of need completed.
Report completed with recommendations
|
|
(ii)
|
Maintaining continuity of education for children in the care of the
local authority
|
Joint funding for children in public care from existing resources
where placement changes put education at risk.
|
Joint working between Directorates.
|
Head of Children’s Services
Principal Education Officer (SEN)
September 2002
|
Cost within existing resources.
|
Fewer school movements for children in public care.
|
4. (a) Objective: Make Services more inclusive by developing Good Working
Practices
|
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
SOLUTIONS
|
ACTIONS
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATORS
|
|
(i)
|
Make services more inclusive through establishing
good working practices; “framework for assessment”/SEN “Code of Practice”.
|
Set and hit targets for compliance with national
processes and standards.
|
Achieve inter-agency agreements.
|
Education officer (SEN)
Fieldwork Service (S/S)
|
Within existing resourcing
|
Cross reference with 1(iii)
|
|
(ii)
|
eligibility criteria (ref. Objective 2)
|
Agree service standards
with service users and other stakeholders.
Further development of
joint location / working / processes ie common assessment tools, to include
Council & Health services.
|
Establish standards and
targets. Set up consultative forum
with parents
Incorporate joint forums
into existing and future information strategies.
|
|
|
|
|
(iii)
|
IT systems between
directorates are inadequate and incompatible.
|
Develop data and
information exchange through improved systems.
|
Improvement to IT systems
and reporting systems and electronic performance management systems.
|
Assistant Director of
Education (Planning and Resources)
Head of Central Support
Service (SS)
|
£600,000 (Social Services)
|
IT Systems with interface
capability.
|
|
(iv)
|
Restricted parental
participation in contributing to service improvement.
|
Greater involvement of a
wide range of users, carers and continuous and varied approaches and communicate
findings to all stakeholders.
|
Training for staff in joint
working and best practice, including Health ie a joint programme.
Obtain feedback through
member focus groups.
|
Heads of Service within
Social Services, Education and Health.
|
TBA
|
Training activity through
joint training.
Focus group meetings held.
|
|
(v)
|
Collaboration and inclusive
work with schools is variable.
|
Development of existing
forums for collaboration eg PPG.
Inclusion of SEN Strategy Group into PPG.
|
Further work on extending
joint working processes and the location of services.
Explore regional
developments for local quality standards.
Develop a parental survey
of schools’ inclusivity.
|
Education Officer (SEN)
SEN Reference &
Strategy Group
|
|
Compliance with the
Disability Discrimination Act.
Positive outcome from
survey.
|
4. (b) Objective: Make Services more inclusive by improving Access and
Availability
|
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
SOLUTIONS
|
IMPLICATIONS
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATORS
|
|
(i)
|
People are unclear how to
access appropriate services when in need.
|
Explore the viability of a
single point of access for as many services as possible.
|
Feasibility study:
- investigate the approach
of other councils, including electronic systems.
|
Project Officer, to lead
Jan 2003
|
TBA
|
Options paper produced
|
|
(ii)
|
Fragmented service
provision from user perspective.
Dissatisfaction with access to respite care, including social
activities.
|
Maintain and improve
consistent filtering of referrals/enquiries.
Build upon existing joint
work/co-location, e.g. Oak House
|
Replicate Oak House model
in another area of service delivery.
|
Head of Children’s
Services.
Assistant Director of
Education.
Commissioning Manager
(Health)
Commence Jan 2003
|
TBA
|
Joint service
provision. Improved user
satisfaction.
|
|
(iii)
|
Lack of Charity regarding
respite provision and access.
|
Respite care resources
should be more clearly explained and targeted effectively and flexibly.
|
Investigate the potential
of charging for respite services.
Promotional activity on the
respite resources that are available - unmet need. Recruitment of a range of respite/social activities. Explain all the forms that respite can
take.
Analysis of existing data.
|
Team manager Children’s
Disability Team.
Joint Commissioning Board
Partnership Planning Group
(PPG)
Commence July 2002
|
Within existing resources.
|
Cost/Benefit analysis for
charging.
Service leaflet on respite
provision.
|
|
(iv)
|
Dissatisfaction with crisis
responses.
|
Improve crisis management
response through co-ordination of resources and joint team/agency working.
|
Training and change in
culture.
Develop joint team approach
as a pilot project.
|
PPG
|
TBA
|
Reduction in family
breakdown and children received into care.
|
5. Objective: Improving Information for Service Users
and Other Stakeholders
|
|
IMPROVEMENT
|
SOLUTIONS
|
ACTIONS
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATOR
|
|
(i)
|
People are unsure what is
available and what they are entitled to.
|
Information should be easy
to find and in a variety of forms
Better sign-posting of help
and support
|
Information Strategy which
is clear about what people need to know, when and how to communicate with
them. To include information, advice,
translation, variety of media, continue contact and updating.
|
|
|
Develop a joint information
plan based on the SSD information strategy.
Plain English and a variety
of media to be made available.
Directory of services -
build and keep up-to-date.
|
|
(ii)
|
Inter service agency
communication is variable.
|
Creating a whole system
approach to communication
|
Partnerships with other
information providers and develop channels for communication.
Make full use of
e-government opportunities.
|
Identify & collaborate
with key partners
|
|
Increased service efficiency
and effectiveness of service
delivery.
|
|
(iii)
|
Lack of understanding of
assessment processes.
|
Involvement of users in
assessment and other key processes, keeping people informed and up-to-date.
|
Better explanation of
process including information about “next steps”, timescale, standards,
charters, complaints, rights of appeal, etc
|
|
|
Develop a medium for
exchanging information, e.g. newsletter
|
6. Objective: Developing services through user
involvement.
|
Improvement
|
ISSUES
|
SOLUTIONS
|
ACTIONS
|
WHO/WHEN
|
COST
|
INDICATOR
|
|
(i)
|
Ensuring feedback from
service users – informs future planning.
|
Provide opportunities for
gathering feedback from service users.
|
Agree systems and
processes.
Develop structured
opinion-gathering system/ process which is co-ordinated across services. Set up focus group discussion sessions.
|
Head of Service
Commence July 2002/3
|
|
Increased user feedback may
reduce complaints.
Satisfaction levels
reported.
Information to be fed back to service managers.
|
Appendix 1
SCOPING DOCUMENT
Directorate of Education and Community
Development
Directorate of Social Services and Housing
Best Value Review:
Children with
Special Educational Needs, Children with Disabilities and Children with
Significant Health Needs
SCOPING REPORT
1. The Aim of the Review
1.1 To
consider the legislation, policy, process, practice and personnel aspects of
services for children with special educational needs, children with
disabilities and children with significant health needs within Best Value to
identify and bring about improved outcomes.
2. Objectives
2.1 To
identify and challenge the current Social Services, Housing and Education,
Leisure Services input into provision of services.
2.2 To set
clear objectives and standards for service delivery through consultation with
key stakeholders.
2.3 To take
account of messages from DoH, SSI, Audit Commission, OfSTED, DfEE, Inspections
and Guidance concerning service development, objectives, national and local
targets and Performance Indicators.
2.4 To compare
performance in terms of quality and cost with that of other service providers.
2.5 To ensure
that there is effective collaboration, continuous staff development and best
use of public resources between partner agencies.
2.6 To ensure
services are accessible and delivered in a manner that respects race, religion,
language, culture, gender and disability throughout the
Isle of Wight.
2.7 Time
Frame:
Commence March 2001
Report progress at
regular intervals
Final report and costed
Action Plan for November 2001
3. Introduction
3.1 This
Best Value Review will focus on the following service areas:
Centrally
provided Education Services for Children with Special Educational Needs (SEN):
(i) Educational
Psychology Service and Support Teaching Service
(ii) Tuition
Support Service / Behaviour Support Service
(iii) Special
Education Management and Administration Service
Social Care Services for disabled children
and children who have significant limiting illness including:
(i) Fieldwork assessment and care planning
services.
(ii) Family support services provided by the
Social Services and Housing Directorate.
(iii) Community based services where SSD
resources are a contributory factor.
(iv) Family placement services for disabled
children (Family Link).
(v) Residential care services for disabled
children (single agency and joint agency funded).
3.2 This
review will take account of Specialist Health Services including Paediatric
assessment, Child Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), Occupational
Therapy, Speech Therapy Services and their interface with Education and
Community Development and Social Services.
3.3 The review
will take account of Housing and Leisure Services and other community based
services which impact on the quality of life for disabled children and their
families.
3.4 This
review will not cover ‘in-school’ services for children with SEN:
(i) Special
School Provision – Watergate and Medina House
(ii) Love
Lane Primary School Speech and Language Unit
(iii) School
based Outreach Services
(iv) Education
Welfare Services
4. Definitions (Detailed
description see Annex 1)
4.1 For the
purpose of this review, ‘children’ are children and young people within the 0 –
19 years age range.
4.2 Transition
to adult services. A young person would
normally move into Further or Higher Education or employment by age 18. Disabled young people have access to adult
Health Care Services at 16 years old and adult Social Services at 18 years old,
dependent on their social and emotional development and needs.
4.3 Children
with disabilities are ‘children in need’ within the definitions contained in
the Children Act 1989.
4.4 Fieldwork
Services is the term given to the delivery and co-ordination of services
provided under the Children Act 1989 to children ‘in need’ and their
families. Social Workers and Social
Work Assistants assess the needs of such families and work in partnership with
them to plan services to address those needs.
4.5 Family
Support Services are commissioned to support families through home sitting or
taking children or young people out in order to provide stimulation for the
disabled child or young person and to give other family members time for their
other children.
4.6 Centrally
provided Educational Services means those services funded centrally outside of
schools delegated and devolved budgets.
4.7 Children
with special educational needs are those which have a learning difficulty which
calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her (Section 2.1:
1994 Code of Practice).
5. Legislation and Guidance
5.1 The Local
Authority has a duty under the Children Act 1989 to identify children in need
who live in their area. The Local
Authority must establish a voluntary Register of Children with Disabilities who
live in their area and Social Services must provide information about the full
range of services available to disabled children and their families.
5.2 The Social
Services and Housing Directorate must work in partnership with other statutory
agencies and voluntary organisations within a framework of legislation and
guidance. This includes the Children
Act 1989, which requires the provision of services, following assessment, that
are designed to minimise the effect on disabled children of their disabilities
and to give them the opportunity to lead lives which are as normal as
possible. The Directorate also has to
take account of the developing legislation and guidance, such as the Carers and
Disabled Children Act 2000, SEN and Disability Rights Bill and the soon to be
published Learning Disability Strategy.
5.3 The Local Education
Authority, through the Education and Community Development Directorate, has a
duty under the 1981, 1993 and 1996 Education Acts and the attendant Code of
Practice for Special Educational Needs (COP) to identify children with SEN, who
live in their area, and work in partnership with parents, schools and statutory
agencies to directly provide or promote access to education services which
supports the child to reach his / her educational potential.
5.4 All
services will operate within the current Human Rights legislation.
6. Principles which underpin Service
Delivery
6.1 Children
with SEN and disabilities are children first.
Services for disabled children should be underpinned by the Social Model
of disability. Every effort should be
made to challenge and remove the barriers which society places on them.
6.2 Services
for disabled children must promote social inclusion and, where possible and
appropriate, promote access to mainstream services.
6.3 The
Education and Community Development Directorate defines its Purpose in its
Strategic Plan as:
“To secure the highest quality educational
and learning opportunities throughout life for the whole population of the Isle
of Wight.” (see diagram 1)
6.4 These
principles are underpinned by the Council’s draft Corporate Objectives for the
enhancement of life chances and social inclusion A – D.
Draft
Corporate Objectives 2001 – 2002
A To care for
the vulnerable and underprivileged.
B To raise achievement, encourage community and lifelong learning
and promote inclusion.
C To develop the knowledge and skills required for current and
future employment opportunities.
D To protect and
enhance the health, safety and environment of the Island.
E To protect the natural environment of the Island and its public
transport network.
F To manage efficiently and beneficially the Council’s property,
human and other resources.
G To promote the
Island’s economic, tourism and leisure development.
7. The Environment
7.1 Children
and families social work is a Local Authority function which has been provided
across the country within Social Service Departments, primarily by Social
Services staff. Likewise Special
Educational Needs support services are provided by Local Education Authorities
usually, though not always, through centrally employed staff. One of the major challenges of this review
is to consider the way in which the LEA and SSD provide these services, who
else might provide this function and what the nature of multi-agency /
multi-skilled teams should be. Services
for Children in Need are seen within the context of a multi-agency assessment
framework.
7.2 The
services within this review come under the Educational Effectiveness and
Lifelong Learning branch of the Directorate and are directly funded through the
LEA central budget.
The LEA was subject to a full OfSTED
inspection in June 2000 and has produced a post inspection action plan which
featured some of the services under review.
The Directorate has initiated a full and wide ranging review and
consultation on provision for pupils with SEN which concludes in April 2001 and
will form the major consultation vehicle for this review
Children’s Social Services were inspected by
the Social Services Inspectorate (Department of Health) in March 2000. The aim of the inspection was to evaluate
the effectiveness of local authority services for children and families from
the point where a referral was accepted, through assessment, the provision for
family support services, services for children looked after and those leaving
care. The post inspection action plan
also impacts on some of the services under review.
8. The Approach
8.1 Challenges:
§
Are services delivered in a way which complies with
legislation and guidance and meets national and local targets?
§
Are services cost-effective?
§
Are processes and outcomes efficient and effective?
§
Are human and financial resources appropriate and
sufficient?
§
How are unmet needs identified?
8.2 Consultation:
The list of stakeholders will be used as the
framework for consultation.
Key Stakeholders:
§
Health
§
Education and Community Development
§
Other Public Sector
§
Voluntary Sector Charitable Organisations
§
Social Services and Housing
§
Isle of Council: Elected members and appropriate
committees
§
Users, Carers / Parent Groups and interest groups
§
Learning and Skills Council
§
Central Government
§
DfEE
§
OfSTED
§
Trade Unions
§
Staff
§
Schools
8.3 Compare:
§
SSD, Health and Education and Community Development
Directorates have an established list of performance indicators relating to
social inclusion, educational achievement and health needs.
§
Local authority SSD’s have completed a Children in Need
census which provides comparable information concerning activity levels and
cost of services.
§
Benchmarking will be done with other local authorities
and other agencies.
8.4 Compete
/ Collaborate
Investigate alternative
provision for some or all of the services being reviewed.
9. Services
Within the framework identified at
3.1 the review will encompass:
§
Information and Communication Services
§
Integrated assessment, diagnosis, care planning
§
Access to Specialist Assessments:
§
Health Services to Schools
§
Health / Aids
§
Housing / Adaptations
§
Home sitting
§
Family Link
§
Centrally funded Education Services for children with SEN
§
Residential provision (short and long term)
§
Transition to adult services
§
Complaints
10. Staffing and Resources
§
Co-operation and commitment from partner agencies.
§
Being able to identify similar services to benchmark.
§
Review staff time being made available.
11. Resource Requirements
Project Leaders: James Doyle
David
Pettitt
Project Managers: Rob Faulkner
Jill
Blanchard
15. Budget Details
See attached Annex 2 – Education and
Community Development Directorate
See attached Annex 3 – Social Services
and Housing Directorate
Definitions
Special Educational Needs (applies to 0 – 19 age range)
A child has special educational needs if they have
a learning difficulty which calls for
special educational provision to be
made for them.
A child has a learning
difficulty if they:
a) Have a significantly greater difficulty
in learning than the majority of children of the same age.
or
b) Have a disability which prevents or
hinders the child from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally
provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local
education authority.
c) Is under five and falls within the
definition at (a) or (b) or would so do if special educational provision was
not made for the child.
A child must not be regarded as having a learning
difficulty solely because the language or medium of communication of the home
is different from the language in which he or she is or will be taught.
Special
educational provision means:
a) For a child of two or over, educational
provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational
provision made generally for children of the child’s age in maintained schools,
other than special schools, in the area.
b) For
a child under two, educational provision of any kind.
(Education Act 1996, Section 312)
Children in Need (applies to children under the
age of 18)
A child is defined by the Act as being in need if:
a) He is unlikely to achieve or maintain,
or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard
of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local
authority under this Part (of the Act);
b) His health or development is likely to
be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him
of such services; or
c) He
is disabled.
“Development” means physical,
intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development, and “health” means
physical or mental health.
(Children Act 1989, s. 17(1))
Disability
A child is disabled if he is blind, deaf or dumb
or suffers from mental disorder of any kind or is substantially and permanently
handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or such other disability
as may be prescribed.
(Children
Act 1989, s. 17(11))
Representation of the
Relationship between Children with Special Educational Needs,
Children in Need and
Children with Disability
Education and Community
Development Directorate
Budget 2001 – 2002
Special Educational Needs
Education
Psychological Service
Learning
Support Team
Residential
Boarding Schools
Hearing
/ Visually Impaired Support
Behavioural
Support
Tutorial
Units
Speech
and Language Therapy
SEN
Communication Disorders
School
Specialist Support Packages
Education
other than at School (EOTAS)
Clatterford
Pupil Referral Unit (closed July 2000)
Social Services and
Housing Directorate
Budget 2001 – 2002
Special Educational Needs
Respite
Care Accommodation, LD Children (Beaulieu)
Childcare
Act, Section 17, Paediatric Social Worker
Childcare
Act, Section 17, Children’s Disability Team
Clinical
Psychology and Play Therapy
Children’s
Disability Team
Fostering,
Children’s Disability Team
Oak
House (Assessment of Children with Disabilities)
Family
Link Scheme
Agency
Placements, LD Children
Diagram 1: The Structure of the
Planning Process
APPENDIX 2 - TIMELINE
|
|
|
|
May-01
|
|
|
|
Jun-01
|
|
|
|
Jul-01
|
|
|
|
|
Aug-01
|
|
|
|
Sep-01
|
|
|
|
Oct-01
|
|
|
|
|
Nov-01
|
|
|
|
|
|
23/4
|
30/4
|
7/5
|
14/5
|
21/5
|
28/5
|
4/6
|
11/6
|
18/6
|
25/5
|
2/7
|
9/7
|
16/7
|
23/7
|
30/7
|
6/8
|
13/8
|
20/8
|
27/8
|
3/9
|
10/9
|
17/9
|
24/9
|
1/10
|
8/10
|
15/10
|
22/10
|
29/10
|
5/11
|
12/11
|
19/11
|
26/11
|
|
MANAGEMENT GROUP
|
|
|
|
*
16/5
|
|
|
|
*
13/6
|
|
|
|
*
11/7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
5/9
|
|
|
|
|
*
10/6
|
|
|
|
|
*
14/11
|
|
*
25/11
|
|
JIMMY DOYLE (Chair), DAVID PETTITT, ROB FAULKNER,
BOB DENMAN, MARTIN JOHNSON,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIRST
DRAFT
REPORT
|
|
2ND
DRAFT
REPORT
|
|
  JILL BLANCHARD, KEITH LANE JEREMY TAYLOR,
STEVE MILFORD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN VOSPER, BOB TAPLINI,
GRAHHAM ALLEN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  
POLICY & STRATEGY
JIMMY DOYLE, DAVID PETTITT
|
FIRST
MEETING u
|
|
|
|
u2nd
|
FIRST
CONSULTATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4th
|
|
WG
REPORT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
    ROB FAULKNER, JILL BLANCHARD
MARION EVANS, STEVE MILFORD
|
|
|
|
QUESTIONS
TO
RAISE
|
|
|
|
|
3rdu
|
BENCHMARKING
QUESTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPARE
CONSULT OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   DIRECT
SERVICES
HELEN OSBORNE, MAIRE REEVES,
BERYL BARTON, ROB FAULKNER,
|
FIRST
MEETING u
|
|
|
|
u2nd
|
FIRST
CONSULTATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
    JOHN VOSPER
|
|
|
|
QUESTIONS
TO
RAISE
|
|
|
|
|
3rdu
|
BENCHMARKING
QUESTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4th
|
|
W G
REPORT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSULT
COMPARE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
    INDIRECT
SERVICES
JEREMY TAYLOR, BOB DENMAN,
SUE GLEAVES, SARAH PEPYS,
|
FIRST
MEETING u
|
|
|
|
u2nd
|
FIRST
CONSULTATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
    JILL
BLANCHARD,
|
|
|
|
QUESTIONS
TO
RAISE
|
|
|
|
|
3rdu
|
BENCHMARKING
QUESTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4th
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSULT
COMPARE
|
|
|
W G
REPORT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
    MAIN
RESOURCES & ADMIN
KEITH LANE, ELAINE APTHOMAS,
|
FIRST
MEETING u
|
|
|
|
u2nd
|
FIRST
CONSULTATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
    PETE SCOTT, KATHRYN KRAPPE,
DAWNCOUSINS OR JAMES LOWE, JILL BLANCHARD, STEVE MILFORD
|
|
|
|
QUESTIONS
TO
RAISE
|
|
|
|
|
3rdu
|
BENCHMARKING
QUESTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4th
|
|
W G
REPORT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSULT
COMPARE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
     RESIDENTIAL
& SHORT TERM SUPPORT
PRU GRIMSHAW, KEVIN
WILLIAMS,
|
FIRST
MEETING u
|
|
|
|
u2nd
|
FIRST
CONSULTATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
W G
REPORT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   ROB FAULKNER,
KEITH LANE, JOHN VOSPER.
|
|
|
|
QUESTIONS
TO
RAISE
|
|
|
|
|
3rdu
|
BENCHMARKING
QUESTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4th
ANALYSIS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSULT
COMPARE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u
Working group
meetings
* Management
group meetings
Appendix 3
WORKING
AND
MANAGEMENT GROUPS
APPENDIX
3
STRUCTURE OF
WORKING & MANAGEMENT GROUPS
MANAGEMENT GROUP
JIMMY DOYLE (Joint Chair),
DAVID PETTITT, (Joint Chair)
ROB FAULKNER, (Education)
BOB DENMAN, (Education)
MARTIN JOHNSON, (Social
Services)
JILL
BLANCHARD, (Social Services)
KEITH LANE (Education)
JEREMY TAYLOR, (Social
Services)
STEVE MILFORD (Best Value
Unit)
JOHN VOSPER, (Best Value Unit)
BOB TAPLIN, (Social Services)
GRAHAM ALLEN (Unison)
ELAINE GARRETT (Health)
MARION EAST (Early Years)
DOROTHY HARRINGTON
(Parent Partnership)
PAULINE SIMON (RCC)
SARAH WEECH (Health)
POLICY & STRATEGY
JIMMY DOYLE, (Social Services)
DAVID PETTITT (Education)
ROB FAULKNER, (Education)
JILL BLANCHARD (Social Services)
MARION EVANS, (Social Services)
STEVE MILFORD (Best Value Unit)
ELAINE GARRETT (Health)
SARA WEECH (Health)
GRAHAM BOWEN (School Rep)
DIRECT SERVICES
HELEN OSBORNE, (Social
Services)
MAIRE REEVES, (Education)
BERYL BARTON, (Education)
ROB FAULKNER, (Education)
JOHN VOSPER (Best Value Unit)
LINDA PAY (Health)
SHEILA HALL (Health)
INDIRECT SERVICES
JEREMY TAYLOR, (Social Services)
BOB DENMAN, (Education)
SUE GLEAVES, (Education)
SARAH PEPYS, (Social Services)
JILL BLANCHARD, (Social
Services)
SHEILA HALL (Health)
MANAGEMENT RESOURCES &
ADMIN
KEITH LANE, (Education)
ELAINE APTHOMAS, (Health)
PETE SCOTT, (Social Services)
KATHRYN KRAPPE, (Education)
DAWN COUSINS, (Social
Services)
JILL BLANCHARD, (Social
Services)
STEVE MILFORD (Best Value
Unit)
RESIDENTIAL & SHORT TERM SUPPORT
PRU GRIMSHAW, (Social
Services)
KEVIN
WILLIAMS, (Joint Commissioning
Manager)
ROB FAULKNER, (Education)
KEITH LANE, (Education)
JOHN VOSPER (Best Value Unit)
Appendix 4
SERVICE QUALITY/VALUE SURVEY
(SCHOOLS)
Appendix 5
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS
CONSULTATION
Appendix 5
Special Educational NEEDS
DEVELOPMENT Plan.
1 Foreword
1.1
This Plan for Special Educational Needs sets out the
priorities and developments which are necessary over the next 4 years in order
to ensure that services and provision meet the needs of Island children and
young people.
1.2 The themes
encompassed in this plan are:
§
Strategic development of provision and services
§
The development of quality services and provision,
which demonstrate Best Value
§
A commitment to multi-agency working
§
Partnership with key stakeholders
1.3.1 This
plan is an important part of the Council’s wider planning process to ensure
that everyone has entitlement of access to a good and continuing education to
the benefit of themselves and the community as a whole.
1.3.2 The
Directorate of Education and Community Development commenced a review of all
aspects of SEN Provision in September 2000.
Widespread consultation, with staff in schools, support services, school
governors and parents has taken place to ensure a balanced approach to the
review and these views have been carefully considered when preparing this plan.
1.5 The proposals reflect current legislation
and national trends and are supportive of the revised Code of Practice and SEN
and Disability Act.
2 Introduction
2.1 This development plan
for Special Educational Needs sets out the ways in which Services and Provision
will be developed over the next 4 years.
2.2
The plan should be seen as a dynamic working document, which
is used as a tool to secure improved provision and services for children and
young people with SEN. It should be
seen as a template for development rather than a blueprint to be adhered to
regardless of changing needs and circumstances.
2.3 The plan is a first step to ensuring that
the arrangements made for pupils with Special Education Needs remain in focus
and take account of new demands and needs. The plan sets out key priorities
which have emerged as a result of consultation and discussion and includes
timescales and tasks.
2.4 Monitoring and evaluation of progress
will be undertaken through a variety of means, most usually:
§
Internal review by the Director of Education and
Community Development
§
Special Educational Needs Reference Group
§
Headteacher Meetings
§
Education and Community Development and Life Long
Learning Select Committee
§
Other interested groups through existing meetings
3. Local Context and Developments
3.1
The
LEA was inspected in June 2000 and overall, the provision for Special
Educational needs was considered unsatisfactory. It was recognised that provision and services were in transition
and that action was being taken to remedy weaknesses.
The support given to
schools, overall, by SEN services was considered satisfactory, with evidence of
improved coherence and line management of SEN administration and SEN support
services.
¨ Recommendations included:
¨ To comply fully with
statutory requirements to initiate annual reviews
¨ Ensure the planned programme
for consultation, development of a clear strategy for SEN proceeds according to
the set time scale
¨ Ensure the strategy:
Ø Is clearly communicated
Ø Includes effective
procedures for monitoring the quality of SEN provision
Ø Has robust systems and
structures for evaluating the progress
made by pupils with SEN and make judgements about value for money
¨ Improve the links and
coherence between the separate SEN Service plans and policy documentation
3.2
There
is a clear commitment within the Authority to provide support for pupils with
Special Educational Needs and, wherever possible to secure their education in a
mainstream setting.
3.3
The Authority is committed to inclusion but has never insisted
on a dogmatic adherence to inclusiveness and there has been an important focus
upon pupil’s individual needs.
3.4
The key values and beliefs which underpin the SEN Policy of
the Authority are:
§
Equal value and respect for all
§
Recognition of individual differences with special
regard for children with Special Educational Needs
§
Equal opportunities for all
§
Lifelong development through the provision of
appropriate learning opportunities
§
A constant improvement in the quality of service
§
Commitment to both the spirit and statutory
requirements of legislation, including partnership between pupils, parents and
professionals.
3.5
It is important that the LEA is able to identify trends in SEN
and to manage data on pupils effectively.
Accurate collation and analysis of data will ensure the changing needs
of the pupil population is reflected in the provision and services available.
3.6
Resource allocation for supporting pupils with SEN is a
significant part of the LEA’s retained budget.
Delegation of all “High Incidence” Statement monies was achieved in
April 2001 using a formula based upon a Cognitive Index score and free school
meal entitlement. Resources for pupils
with “Low Incidence” needs are currently centrally retained.
3.7
The LEA has a duty to ensure that resources are used
effectively and efficiently and is introducing a monitoring system to review
the quality of SEN provision utilising school self-evaluation this will
continue to be reviewed and refined in the light of experience.
3.8
In order to provide a more coherent service to pre-school
children and their parents the line management responsibility of the family and
pre-school team has transferred to the Early Years Unit. In addition, three area Special Needs
Co-ordinators have been appointed and an advisory post for the foundation key
stage created.
3.9
A greater emphasis upon multi-agency working has culminated in
the secondment of an educational psychologist to Social Services in order to
co-ordinate the assessment and diagnosis of children who have Communication and
Interaction/Autism difficulties. This
post holder also co-ordinates the Communication and Interaction team of
outreach support workers and teachers, making this area of work more cohesive.
3.10 Resourced provision for middle school age
children has been established for children with Communication and Interaction/Autism
difficulties. This provision is being
developed in partnership with a mainstream middle school and St. Catherine’s
Independent Special school through a contracted service.
3.11 The support for children who present with
difficult behaviour has been reviewed and a primary and middle school support
teams established to provide individual support for pupils and undertake group
work intervention, together with the appointment of a specialist educational
psychologist.
4. National
Context and Developments
4.1
There have been a number of significant developments
nationally within the area of Special Educational Needs which Local Authorities
must have due regard to.
4.2 The Special Educational Needs and
Disability Act 2001*
(Published in Draft
in 2001 and due to come into effect in September 2002)
The Special
Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 amends the Disability Discrimination
Act and inserts a new part IV to prevent discrimination against disabled people
in their access to education.
A Special
Educational Needs draft Code of Practice has been published, for consultation
and is due to come into effect in January 2002.
This
requires LEA’s to:
§
Make arrangements for Parent Partnership Services to
ensure parents have access to independent support, advice and guidance in
relation to SEN
§
Increase access to schools for disabled pupils
§
Make arrangements for resolving disagreements between
parents and schools and between parents and the LEA
§
Review its arrangements for providing a mainstream
school place for a child with SEN
4.3 This Act also
ensures that LEA’s and schools:
§
Will not be able to discriminate against existing or
prospective pupils in admissions
§
Have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that
disabled pupils are not at a disadvantage
§
Increase access for disabled pupils
§
Have a duty not to treat disabled pupils less
favourably than non-disabled pupils
§
Make anticipatory adjustments rather than waiting until
a disabled pupil arrives at school
* The SEN and Disability Act 2001 uses the definition of disability as
set out in The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
4.4
The revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice which
is likely to come into effect in January 2002 requires LEA’s and schools to:
§
Promote a more inclusive approach for pupils with SEN
§
Take greater account of pupil’s and parent’s views and
for LEA’s to establish conciliation arrangements
§
Be clear about the action taken to support children in
school or elsewhere
§
Be supportive of children under the age of five who
have SEN
§
Provide appropriate education for excluded pupils
§
Encourage the development of whole school policies and
be clear about responsibilities for SEN, in particular the role of governors
and the SENCO
4.5 Changing legislation and developing
practice means that LEAs and schools continue to need to remain responsive to
change and prepared to review procedures and practice in the light of such
developments.
5 SEN
Consultation Process
5.1 The LEA embarked on a
formative consultation during the autumn term 2000 the results of which were
reported in the formal consultation document circulated for consultation in the
spring term 2001.
5.2 At the formal
consultation stage there were a range of meetings with key stakeholders,
including:
§
Headteachers and Governors
§
Voluntary organisations and interest groups
§
Teacher representative groups
§
Parents of pupils who attend Special school provision
§
Other statutory agencies
§
Pre-school providers
§
Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators
In addition, a
questionnaire was widely circulated to all schools, voluntary organisations and
statutory agencies and a parent information leaflet sent to all parents, via
schools and pre-schools.
5.3 There were 144
responses in total to the formal questionnaire and an additional 12 responses
by letter or e-mail. 108 returns were
completed in sufficient detail to enable analysis by group.
Breakdown of stakeholder returns via questionnaire
|
|
Early years
|
Primary
|
Middle
|
High
|
Special
|
Support staff
|
-
|
10
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
Headteacher
|
3
|
16
|
5
|
1
|
1
|
|
Governors
|
-
|
5
|
9
|
0
|
2
|
|
Parents
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
10
|
|
Teachers
|
1
|
13
|
8
|
1
|
13
|
|
Other
|
2
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
4
|
In addition to
the above, returns were received from organisations and partnership groups in
written form to contribute to the consultation.
5.4 In general, there was substantial agreement with the proposals
presented in the document and some work has already been undertaken in
implementing aspects of the proposals.
An analysis of returns is provided in appendix A.
5.5 Understandably, written
comments indicate different views about the proposals and to some extent
reflect respondents access to information about the proposals, which encompass
a broad range of themes. A common theme however is concern that individual
pupils continue to be supported appropriately and that school staff whether in
mainstream or in special schools continue to have the professional advice which
is needed to ensure pupils benefit from their school placement. The majority of
respondents, in their written comments, support the philosophy of increased
inclusion but are cautious about the pace of change and the longer term
implications. Some respondents were vociferously opposed to any change but
were, as indicated through the statistical information in appendix A, in a
minority.
5.6 The questions
which received a less than favourable response were;
§
Reducing the percentage of pupils in segregated
provision to become more in line with national statistics;
§
Developing a “kite-mark” system for inclusive
schools.
Comments
relating to reducing the percentage of pupils in segregated special schools
were generally not about anti-inclusive philosophy but more about ensuring
pupil needs were met. 21% of respondents “did not know” if this was a good
thing or not.
Responses to
the notion of a “kite-mark” for inclusion were variable. Some respondents viewing this as a paper
exercise and waste of money, others as an opportunity to demonstrate good
practice. 22% of respondents “did not
know” if this was a good thing or not.
These were the only questions
where there was significant disagreement with the proposal.
6. Priorities
for Development
6.1 Through the
consultation process a number of priorities for development have been
identified. This is not meant to
exclude any new or emerging issues, which arise either locally or Nationally.
6.2 Developing a greater
involvement from all stakeholders in order to progress and monitor the strategy
for Special Educational needs is an important development. It is proposed to
establish a Special Educational Needs Reference Group with an overarching brief
across all areas of SEN which will be able to commission activity and research
as well as monitor developments and guide policy.
6.3 The priorities for most
immediate consideration and implementation are set out as themes taken from the
revised Code of Practice (Special Educational Needs) prefaced by Strategic
Development issues.
6.4 A matrix of
current and proposed developments is set out below.
Also included
are services provided by the Health Authority and Social Services. It is considered important to include these
services in order to obtain a complete picture of the full range of provision
for children and young people with Special Needs, and their parents.
Action Plans
Priority 1: Strategic Development
1.1
SEN Reference and strategy Group
1.2
SEN Services
1.3
Threshold Criteria
1.4
SEN Information
1.5
Monitoring SEN Provision
1.6
Early Years Resourcing
Priority
2: Cognition and Learning
2.1
Special School Re-Organisation
2.2
Special School Outreach services
2.3
Specific Learning Difficulties
Priority
3: Behavioural, Emotional and Social
Development
3.1 Review of Provision
3.2
Assessment framework and Protocol
Priority
4: Communication and Interaction
4.1
Resourced Provision
Priority
5: Sensory and/or Physical
Development
5.1
Hearing Impairment
5.2
Physical Disability
5.3
Visual Impairment
