HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report to

/ Schools Forum

Date:

/ 22 January 2013 / Status : / Update on progress.

Title:

/ Locality Team – Update on implementation of agreed proposals

Item No:

/ 4

Report From:

/ Area Director of Children’s Services

Contact name/s:

/ Steve Handforth

Tel:

/ 01264 387456 /

Email:

/

1. Introduction

1.1 This report provides School Forum with an update on the progress of the role and function of the Locality Teams across Hampshire.
1.2 A full report on the context and the need to change aspects of the service delivery model was brought to Schools Forum on 26 June 2012. At that meeting it was decided that Children’s Services would work with schools over the next 12 months on a revised model that is locally co-ordinated and managed whilst changing the current service delivery model, taking into consideration the consultation feedback.
1.3 It was agreed to seek to implement a revised model from September 2012. A progress report would be provided for Schools Forum in January 2013 and a final report that evaluated the implementation, and looks at an agreed way forward would come to Schools Forum in November 2013 ready for any further changes as agreed at that time for April 2014.
Agreed Outline Service Model
2.1 Key changes to the service delivery model were agreed at the meeting of 26 June 2012. The focus of service delivery would be within the age range 5-14 years, but not exclusively, and would target children with ‘tier three’ complex needs with the intervention being co-ordinated by a lead professional.
2.2 Educational attendance and attainment were expected to be key issues for the children and young people and these issues would normally be part of the range of complex needs.
2.3 Referrals to the Locality Team would be made once schools had come to the view that they had been unable to change the situation in partnership with other local services.
2.4 Schools would provide the Locality Team with an outline of the assessed needs and their attempts to change or address the issues identified.
2.5 Locality teams would not necessarily expect a CAF to be completed but schools could decide locally on how the necessary information was to be collated and analysed, where possible in partnership with parents and carers and the child/young person.
2.6 Locality teams would work with schools to establish workable clusters whereby, based on pupil numbers, a resource would be devolved to that cluster.
2.7 Locality teams would work with each identified cluster and bring together a process for allocation and review of the work for that cluster.
2.8 A separate process would be agreed at a District level to provide a service for legal interventions to address non-attendance. Such a process would include representatives from the establishments within the District.
2.9 All local resource allocation would take account of both the ‘step-down’ process from social care and the ‘step-up’ process from local establishments in recognition of the joint funding from Children’s Services.
3. Themes emerging from the implementation to date
3.1 A full, up to date progress report set out district by district and cluster by cluster is attached as Appendix 1. This section will summarise some of the emerging themes from implementation thus far.

3.2 Firstly, it was an explicit objective to create a more localised service with a greater degree of transparency and school input with regards to resource allocation. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see a range of different models being implemented as this reflects the desired localism. This does provide Schools Forum with an opportunity throughout next year to evaluate the range of models and search for best practice solutions.

3.3 It has been clear across the county that some secondary heads remain dissatisfied with the decision not to return the funds directly to schools. This has caused some delays in some districts in reaching agreement across the sectors in establishing clusters that are locally agreed. However, these locally agreed arrangements are being secured.

3.4 Resource allocation to individual establishments and specialist provision has been challenging and where we have been able to work locally to obtain practical solutions this has worked well. For example we have agreed that young people who attend the Education Centres will receive a service from the cluster where the child lives. Locality Team Managers have been have been working with head teachers in order to establish workable clusters and devolving pro-rata the resource to each cluster based on pupil numbers.

3.5 During the consultation special schools requested a separate Service Level Agreement as they already had a de facto tier 3 service in place due to the complexity and needs of the pupils they serve. We have further consulted with all special schools and they have now decided to either join a cluster based on local geography and secure any service as required, or the special schools have formed a cluster of their own within districts.

3.6 Some clusters have requested designated people rather than hours. Where this has been requested we have tried to meet this requirement. Organisationally, this does impact upon our ability to match the skill set of a wider workforce to the assessed needs of the child and family. This model of a named individual also has an impact on how we cover any absence as other clusters may not be willing to share their resource. This of course will be tested out during the evaluation period.

3.7 The initial allocation based on pupil numbers as at July 2011 has challenged some clusters. Population figures do change due to a number of factors and this would require allocations to be reviewed periodically. More significantly however, pupil population is not always the determining factor in terms of the level of need for children. This issue has been raised in several areas as previously allocation of work was more needs led. Taking account of deprivation in the allocation formula would address this issue. Thus far, Locality Team Managers have worked with Head teachers in order to achieve a common–sense approach to local resource allocation. Locality Teams however are not in a position to change the formula without a mandate from Schools Forum if local solutions cannot be agreed. Again this is something which will need consideration in the final evaluation.

3.8 The Legal Intervention Service is in place across the county and all districts have a process in place to consider such interventions. It is important to note that this service is not age related however we must be aware that only interventions that will have an impact on more positive outcomes should be considered.

3.9 All staff within locality teams are now acting as lead professionals for which a full training programme is in place. Capacity to take on this role has therefore significantly increased with each worker able to provide this role.

3.10 Team managers have adopted a transparent process that demonstrates to each cluster how their resource is being used. Monthly statistics will be available to each cluster.

3.11 In every District a panel has been set up to discuss referrals from schools for possible legal intervention due to non-attendance. The panels are inclusive and both primary and secondary headteachers or their nominated representatives form part of the panel which is chaired by the District Manager. Most panels began operating in November 2012 although some were not able to meet until December 2012. Feedback from the panels is that these are generally welcomed and a range of decisions have been made in agreement with all panel members.

3.12 Referrals for all tier three work to each Locality Team have been slow thus far as we have worked through the transition stages and as partners clarified the revised expectations and processes. All districts apart from Basingstoke still have significant capacity however it is generally thought that full capacity will be reached early in 2013.

3.13 Processes for referrals do differ across the District and they range from individual cluster allocation panels to central allocation via the Locality Team Manager. The Locality Teams have attempted to facilitate local management arrangements within each cluster, however progress varies significantly across and within Districts. However it is the intention that in all districts we will eventually move to local cluster allocation processes as local arrangements are confirmed.

3.14 As at 21 December 2012 the number of children being actively worked with across the county by Locality Teams totals 1050.

3.15 In some Districts Locality Teams have been unable to form workable clusters thus far. However, we are aware that relevant head teachers are trying to negotiate locally within their areas to find an agreeable and workable solution. For example, in Havant all the primary schools have come together as one cluster and each secondary school operates as single school with their devolved resource. In Fareham some individual schools wish to use their specific allocation and not to share within a cluster based on priority need.

4. Further issues for consideration over the next 6 months.

4.1 Guidance to schools on supporting teenage mothers is currently being re-written by the Teenage Pregnancy co-ordinator.

4.2 Parents who elect to home educate their children will still be assessed for safeguarding by the Locality Team. A revised protocol will be published.

4.3 Proposals for dealing with children who are missing from Education are being drafted by Lisa Marie-Smith, District Manager (E&I Branch). The proposals will be clear about roles and responsibilities across all sectors.

4.4 Children who are excluded (fixed term or permanent) from school should be referred to the Locality Team in order to determine if further help is required that is not already available. Best practice would dictate that this should happen before any exclusion takes place. This will be made clear within each cluster arrangement.

4.5 The Locality Teams currently hold the budget for primary school uniform grants. We hope to move this grant back to schools over the next few months.

4.6 A workshop on 10 January 2013 will be held with all children centre managers to ensure Tier 3 Lead Professional work is located where necessary with children centre staff. A clear protocol between Locality Teams and children’s centres is now in place and will be shared with all schools.

4.7 Some emerging Learning and Development needs for some of our Locality Team staff has surfaced whereby some individual staff may need to enhance their skill set if those skills are not available elsewhere locally e.g. Parenting Work.

5. Conclusions

5.1 As can be seen from this report and the attached Appendix, considerable progress has been made. The vast majority of clusters have now been identified although some may change as local considerations are further explored.

5.2 The service will, as agreed, be evaluated from July 2013 and a final report will be presented to Schools Forum in November 2013 for confirmation on the way forward.

2

Appendix 1

School Clusters

Basingstoke Return

District Name / Name of Cluster (if no name, give it a number) / List of schools involved in cluster / Number of hours dedicated to cluster per week
Basingstoke / AB / Aldworth Science College;
Park View Junior and Infants;
Kempshot Junior and Infant;
Brighton Hill:
Hatch Warren Junior and Infant;
Cliddleston Primary;
St Marks junior;
North Waltham: / 51 hours
Challoner pyramid / Bishop Challoner;
St Annes;
St Bedes;
St John’s (Andover) / 15
CBEC pyramid / Manorfield junior and infants
Oakley infant and junior
Cranbourne
Kings Furlong infant and junior
St Johns
Chalk Ridge / 30
Costello pyramid / Costello
Rucstall
Great Binfields
Old Basing
St Marys
Fairfields / 30
The Vyne pyramid / The Vyne
Oakridge junior and infants
Four Lanes junior and infants
South View junior and infants / 23
Fort Hill & Everest / Fort hill
Winklebury infants and juniors
Chiltern primary
Castle hill infant and juniors
Everest
Bramley Primary School
Marnell infant and juniors
Merton Infant and juniors / 43
The Hurst pyramid / The Hurst
Sherborne St. John
Burnham copse
Silchester
the Priory
Bishopswood infant and junior
Tadley / 28
The Clere pyramid / The Clere
Ashford hill
Ecchinswell and Sydmdonton
Burghclere
Hurstbourne Tarrent
St Thomas
St Martins
Kingsclere / 19
Testbourne pyramid / Testbourne
St Mary Bourne
Whitchurch
Overton / 18
Specials / Dove House
Grangeside
Maple Ridge
Lymington House
Saxon Wood / 5

At the end of each district report, list all schools who have yet to decide what cluster to join and what action the Team Manager is pursuing.

Aldworth and Brighton Hill had indicated working as an LCP. Bishop Challoner does not want to sit in that model, and so the AB partnership may go down to secondary pyramids following conversation between the head teachers.

Date Updated:…15/12/12….

School Clusters

Eastleigh & Winchester Return

District Name / Name of Cluster (if no name, give it a number) / List of schools involved in cluster / Number of hours dedicated to cluster
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster A/Quilley / Quilley
Cherbourg
Norwood
Nightingale / 13
Winchester / Cluster B/Perins / Perins
Sun Hill Infant
Sun Hill Junior
Preston
Ropley
Four Marks
Cheriton / 24
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster C/ Crestwood / Crestwood
Shakespeare Infant
Shakespeare Junior
The Crescent / 18
Winchester / Cluster D/Kings / Kings
Colden Common
Compton
John Keble
Oliver’s Battery
St Faiths
St Peters
Stanmore / 35
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster E/ Wyvern / Wyvern
Durley Primary
Fair Oak Infants
Fair Oak Junior
Stoke Park Infants
Stoke Park Juniors
Upham Primary / 34
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster F/Wildern / Wildern
St James C of E Primary
Berrywood Primary
Botley
Freegrounds Infants
Freegrounds Junior
Kings Copse
Shamblehurst
Wellstead / 51
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster G/Toynbee / Toynbee
Fryern Infants
Fryern Junior
Merdon 50%
Chandlers Ford Infants 50%
St Francis C of E Primary
St Swithen Wells / 24
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster I/ Thornden / ThorndenSchool
Chandlers Ford Infant 50%
HiltingburyInfants
Hiltingbury Juniors
KnightwoodPrimary
OtterbournePrimary
ScantaboutPrimary
Merdon 50% / 36
Winchester / Cluster H/Swanmore / Swanmore
Swanmore Primary
Bishops Waltham Infant
Bishops Waltham Juniors
Curdridge Primary
Droxford Junior
Meon Stoke
Newtown Soberton Infants
St Johns Primary, Waltham Chase
Wickham Primary / 33
Winchester / Cluster J/Westgate / Westgate
All Saints
Lanterns Nursery
Owlesbury
Sparsholt
St Bedes
Twyford St Mary
Western
Winnall / 29
Eastleigh Borough / Cluster K/Hamble / Hamble
Bursledon Infant
Bursledon Juniors
Hamble Primary
Netley Abbey Infants
Netley Abbey Juniors / 23
Winchester / Cluster L/Henry Beaufort / Henry Beaufort
Kings Worthy
South Wonston Primary
Harestock Primary
Mitcheldever C of E Primary / 23
Winchester/Eastleigh / Cluster M/Specials / Osborne
Shepherds Down
Lakeside / 4

At the end of each district report, list all schools who have yet to decide what cluster to join and what action the Team Manager is pursuing.