RNIB survey on changes to VI service staffing and provision for blind and partially sighted children and young people in England and Wales
Final Report
August 2011
Sue Keil and Rory Cobb
Children, young people and families team
Evidence and Service Impact
RNIB
Contents
1.Introduction
2.Method
3.Findings
4.Conclusion
1.Introduction
In September 2010 RNIB Children, Young People and Families team undertook a questionnaire survey of local authority (LA) advisory services for children and young people with visual impairment (VI) in England and Wales. The aim of the survey was to ascertain the effect of public sector cuts on educational provision for blind and partially sighted children and young people. The survey had found that even before the publication of the government's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) a number of VI services had experienced cuts to staffing with consequent reductions in a few LAs to provision for some groups of children and young people with visual impairment. There was also considerable apprehension about the future, with many VI services undergoing - or about to undergo - reviews of their service organisation and funding.
In view of the degree of uncertainty about future provision, RNIB undertook a second, follow-up survey in April and May 2011 to get an up to date picture of the situation for VI services in the new financial year, following the implementation of the new local authority budgets.
2.Method
2.1Questionnaire survey
A questionnaire was circulated to heads of VI services via the Heads of Sensory Services (HOSS) e-mail forum in April 2011. The questionnaire was also publicised via the RNIB termly electronic,education newsletter.
2.2Response rate
A total of 35 completed questionnaires were returned. Thirty were from England and five from Wales. Three of the questionnaires represented consortia covering a total of 13 LAs. The response rate was therefore 27 per cent of LAs in England and 23 per cent in Wales. This is a disappointing response in comparison with the previous survey that had resulted in 57 completed questionnaires - 50 from England and seven from Wales. It is however, notable that 16 out of 17 VI services that had contacted RNIB Children, Young People and Families team prior to December 2010 expressing concerns that their service was being re-organised, staff were being made redundant and/or that provision for particular groups of children were under threat did not respond to the current survey. It is possible that the 2011 survey questionnaire did not reach all of the heads of service concerned either because by then the service had been re-organised and key contact people were no longer employed in those LAs or because the services were in the process of re-organisation during the time of the survey.
2.3Analysis
Responses were analysed using SPSS. Responses to open questions, which invited comments, were recorded in Word format and subsequently coded by theme.
3.Findings
3.1Geographical areas covered by the survey
As already noted, the majority (30) of the 35 responses included in the analysis were from heads of VI or sensory services in England, with the remainingfive from services in Wales. For Englandall nine of the local government regions were represented. Although some respondents were heads of sensory services, their responses refer specifically to the situation for VI services that support blind and partially sighted children and young people.
3.2Loss of posts between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011
Heads of services were asked whether they had lost or had frozen any staff posts between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011. As table 1 shows five services had lost posts because staff that had left voluntarily had not been replaced and in five services vacant posts had been frozen. Nine services in total had posts frozen or had lost posts because staff had not been replaced.
Table 1: VI services in England and Wales that have lost staff posts or had their hours reduced between1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011(n = 35)
Reason for loss of post / Number of services / Percentage of servicesPosts lost through redundancy / - / -
Posts lost because staff have not been
replaced for strategic or budgetary reasons / 5 / 14
Vacant posts frozen / 5 / 14
The total number of staff posts that had been lost, frozen or had their hours reduced in this period was ten, five of which were QTVI posts representing a full time equivalent (FTE) of 3.5 QTVIs.
Other posts that had been affected in this way were two technicians (1.4 FTE)), one mobility officer (0.5 FTE), one VI co-ordinator and one resource assistant.
In addition to these posts detailed in tables 1 and 2, a tenth service stated that they had lost a TA when their temporary one-year contract had come to an end.
Table 2: Number and types of staff post lost or reduced in hours between1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011 (n =35)
Type of post / Number of posts lost because staff have not been replaced / Number of posts lost as FTE / Vacant posts frozen / Frozen posts as FTE / Total number of posts / Total posts as FTEQTVI / 3 / 1.8 / 2 / 1.7 / 5 / 3.5
Technician / 1 / 1.0 / 1 / 0.4 / 2 / 1.4
Mobility officer / - / - / 1 / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5
Other / 1 / 0.6 / 1 / 1.0 / 2 / 1.6
Total / 5 / 3.4 / 5 / 3.6 / 10 / 7
3.3Posts due to be lost or frozenfrom 1 April 2011
In a separate question, respondents wereasked whether from 1 April 2011 when the new budgets came into effect, their service would be losing staff through redundancy or they would be unable to replace staff due to those leaving voluntarily not being replaced or due to posts being frozen. Thirty-four services replied to this question and their responses are summarised in tables 3 and 4.
Table 3: VI services that will lose staff posts or have their hours reduced from 1 April 2011 (n = 34)
Reason for potential loss of post / Yes(Number of services) / Yes
(Percentage of services) / Under review
(Number of services) / Under review
(Percentage of services)
Redundancy / - / - / 6 / 18
Staff are not being replaced for strategic or budgetary reasons / 4 / 12 / 7 / 20
Posts frozen / 2 / 6 / 6 / 18
Table 4: Number and types of staff post that will be lost or reduced in hours from April 2011 (n = 34)
Type of post / Number of posts lost because staff may not be replaced / Number of posts lost as FTE / Vacant posts frozen / Frozen posts as FTE / Total number of posts / Total posts as FTEQTVI / 1 / 0.2 / 1 / 1.0 / 2 / 1.2
Other / 2 / 1.75 / - / - / 2 / 1.75
Total / 3 / 1.95 / 1 / 1.0 / 4 / 2.95
While most services were not anticipating losing staff from the beginning of April onwards this was not the case for all. Four services were expecting to lose posts because staff that were leaving voluntarily were not being replaced, and two were having posts frozen. For several services the situation was currently under review, with seven saying that redundancies were being considered.
Five services in total were expecting to lose posts through staff leaving voluntary not being replaced and two of these also had posts under review. A further seven services said the future loss of posts through redundancy, not replacing staff who left voluntarily, and/or posts being frozen was under review.
Again the posts that were mostly affected were specialist teaching posts. Two QTVI posts (1.2 FTE) were due to be lost after April 2011, including one person currently on sick absence who was not going to be replaced. In addition, one co-ordinator for pupils with sensory impairment and one part-time administrator for pupils with sensory impairments were not being replaced or their post was to be frozen.
3.4 Changes made to the way that services are funded and/or organised
In addition to the questions about staffing cuts, respondents were asked about changes to the way that their service had been funded and/or organised during the two time periods. We first asked whether there had been any changes between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011. In a second question, heads of services were asked whether any changes were anticipated after 1 April 2011.
As shown in table 5, between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2010 four services had been re-organised or had changes in the way that the service was funded while the remaining 31 had experienced no changes. Table 6 shows that seven services were due to undergo changes after April 2011 (including one that had already experienced changes in the previous period) and another two said that changes were under review.
Table 5: Changes made between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011 to the way that services are funded and/or organised (n=35)
Type of change / Number of services / % of servicesCombined with another SEN service / 2 / 6
Other type of change / 2 / 6
No change / 31 / 88
Total / 35 / 100%
Table 6: Changes from 1 April 2011 to the way that services are funded and/or organised (n=35)
Type of change / Number of services / % of services)Move to a traded/charged services model / 1 / 3
Combined with another SEN service / 1 / 3
Combined with another LA service / - / -
Other type of change / 5 / 14
Changes under review / 2 / 6
No change made or being considered / 26 / 74
Total / 35 / 100%
In total therefore, since the beginning of November 2010 a total of ten VI services have been re-organised or experienced changes to their funding arrangements and for two services the situation is currently under review.
Combined with another SEN service
Two VI services have been combined with another SEN service to create a single sensory service and a third is in the process of doing so. As the first two quotes below indicate, this change has been associated with the loss of specialist teacher (either VI or HI) posts:
"Up to September 2010 we had V.I co-ordinator and an H.I co-ordinator. Now just one Sensory Coordinator. Not clear if this is short term or long term."
"HI / VI teams have merged following the loss of the HI team leader due to voluntary redundancy. I am currently overseeing the HI team on an interim basis."
"The service will be combined within the next three months to a sensory service so plans are taking place now. The SEN Strategy is out for consultation and the changes will be in place for September 2011."
Traded/charged service model
Findings from the previous survey had indicated a shift towards a traded services model of provision, however only one out of the 35 services that responded to this follow up survey said they will be moving to a traded/charged service model. This change will be accompanied by changes to the way the service is delivered, with a corresponding reduction in service provision for blind and partially sighted pupils(this issue is discussed in 3.7):
"We will be reviewing the way the service is delivered. Portage will be taking responsibility for pre-school multi-disabled visually impaired pupils with advice from the teacher of the VI. More emphasis on schools being empowered to manage the pupils with advice/training. No more accompanying parents on hospital visits for diagnosis. Service level agreements will be in force - only children with statements will be seen in schools (if all this goes ahead). Reviewing the demands of the health service."
Other types of change to service organisation and/or funding
Two VI services described other types of change that have taken place prior to the end of March 2011:
"Now based in a Children’s Services building with health and social care. Part of Children and Families’ SEN Services with Social Care/HI/ACT."
"The VI Team has been split into 2 due to LA reorganisation (disaggregation) 60:40…Reduced size of team [equals] less flexibility and ability to respond to new referrals etc."
Five services described other types of change that were scheduled to take place from April 2011. Details of the type of change were provided by four of the five services:
"…Statement funding for VI pupils probably devolved to schools rather than VI Team."
"We have moved areas(again) and now sit under Family and Community. We are being restructured in September and expect to have posts cut across the service but we don’t know how many or who."
"Structural changes to team from September 2011: Currently we are managed by a QTHI who’s management role is being made redundant at the end of this academic year. From the next academic year we will be managed by two senior Educational Psychologists…"
"In liaison with neighbouring Authorities we are beginning to explore possibilities for regional working in the future with a definite aim to move forward on this."
Changes under review
Of the two services that said the situation was currently under review, one said that moving to a traded/charged service model was under consideration and the second said that there was the possibility of combining with another local authority VI service, for example to form a consortium. A third head of service, who was not experiencing changes at the present time commented that:
"Our service remains as it is for at least the next 12 months but will be subject to a review around December 2011."
3.5 Changes to VI service budget for equipment or training
A separate question asked whether there had been any changes to the VI service budget for equipment or training between1 November 2010 and 31 March, or whether any changes were expected after 1 April 2011. The results are detailed in tables 7 and 8.
Only 14 VI services had experienced no changes to either budget over the two time periods. Of those who had experienced changes, most had seen a reduction in their budget, with only two services (one in the November to March period and one from April 2011) receiving an increase in their budget. In both cases, the increase was in the service's equipment budget:
"Increased funding was allocated on a one-off basis."
"Having had a reduced budget for 3 years a request for an increase of £5,000 was agreed upon (i.e. for the combined VI/HI service)."
Table 7: Changes in equipment or training budget between 1 November 2010 and 31 March 2011(n=35)
Type of change / Changes to equipment budget (number of services) / Changes to equipment budget(% of services) / Changes to training budget (number of services) / Changes to training budget
(% of services)
Increase in budget / 1 / 3 / - / -
Reduction in budget / 4 / 11 / 8 / 23
No change / 30 / 86 / 26 / 74
Other type of change / - / - / 1 / 3
Total / 35 / 100% / 35 / 100%
Table 8: Changes in equipment or training budget from 1 April 2011(n=35)
Type of change / Changes to equipment budget (number of services) / Changes to equipment budget(% of services) / Changes to training budget (number of services) / Changes to training budget
(% of services)
Increase in budget / 1 / 3 / - / -
Reduction in budget / 9 / 26 / 10 / 29
No change / 22 / 63 / 23 / 66
Under review / 2 / 6 / 1 / 3
No response / 1 / 3 / 1 / 3
Total / 35 / 101% (rounded) / 35 / 101% (rounded)
Reduction in equipment budget
Four VI services had had their equipment budget reduced between November 2010 and March 2011 and nine services were having a budget reduction after April 2011. One reason given for the reduction was the ending of the Schools Access Initiative funding that awarded grants to make schools more accessible to disabled children and which appears to have been used by a number of VI services to support the purchase of expensive equipment:
"'Access' budget will be reduced."
"Equipment from Access Initiative, concerns from April 2011, no funding stream."
"Access Fund has now ceased – the replacement funding stream has yet to be established."
"Access Initiative gone, and no replacement funding."
Other reasons given for the reduction in the equipment budget referred to a more general tightening of budgets, with some people not yet certain what the changes would be:
"Budget frozen so only essential spending allowed."
"We will look carefully at the purchase of new equipment and evaluate its necessity."
"We have had a reduction in our overall budget but haven’t seen the details yet."
"Likely to be a decrease but no details yet available."
Reductions in training budget
Training budgets appear to have been hit even harder, with eight VI services experiencing a reduction in their budget between November 2010 and March 2011 and ten due for a reduction from 1 April 2011 onwards. Of the ten that were due for a reduction in their budget, five had already experienced a reduction in the previous period. Thirteen VI services in total had experienced or were due for, a reduction in their training budget.
Some services now had no external training budget at all:
"Currently no training budget. If anyone wants to go on training they are asked to pay for it themselves."
"No training budget, all training must be within LA."
"Loss of training budget (Standards Fund)."
"There is no training budget."
"Central training budget for courses eg RNIB specialist TA BTEC training and ring fenced Mandatory Training (QTVI) budget have not been reinstated after they were frozen in last financial year."
"I have been told that there will no longer be a training budget for the service but have not yet seen the 2011-12 budget figures to have this confirmed."
Others were having to reduce costs in specific areas:
"No longer possible to provide lunches or cover payments for participants."
"Training monies are still identified but we have been instructed that we cannot go any training which incurs a cost. Travel will be paid but no course fees."
"…No longer able to offer training at venues which charge and not allowed to offer tea/coffee or lunch etc."
"No more residential courses to be attended. VIEW conference is too expensive and the value is not justified."
For some, authorisation for training now had to be made by senior management:
"Applications for training outside the authority have to be considered by higher management at LA."
"…All training courses over £100 (including travel) will now have to go for further authorisation to the Head of Inclusion Services."
Others spoke of reductions in their budgets with some still uncertain about what this would mean in practice, and for one service, the situation was still under review:
"This has been reduced to £2000 by approx £1000."
"Slight reduction, due to pressures in other areas of the Service."
"We have had a reduction in our overall budget but haven’t seen the details yet."
"Likely to be a decrease but no details yet available."
"Under review as there is a new system for the allocation of resources for training across children and young people’s service. We will not know how this has affected us until the system has embedded and it can be evaluated at the end of the year."