Introduction

This report has been based on 143 responses to the consultation document.

As some respondents may have offered a number of options for questions, total percentages listed under any one question may exceed 100%. Throughout the report, percentages are expressed as a measure of those answering each question, not as a measure of all respondents.

The organisational breakdown of respondents was as follows:

Local Authority / 41
Charity/Voluntary Org / 28
School / 21
Educational Organisation / 14
Other* / 8
Government/NDPB/Partners / 8
Other Children's Service / 6
Parent / 4
Governor / 4
National/Professional Org / 4
Union / 2
General Public / 2
PCT / 1

*Those which fell into the ‘other’ category included The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidance; Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCfON); The Centre for Wellbeing (NEF);The Evangelical Alliance;NSCoPSE; Comprehensive Future; and Learning Through Landscapes and an individual.

The report starts with an overview, followed by a summary analysis of each question within the consultation.

Overview

Respondents were of the general opinion that the level of effectiveness of children’s services in supporting and responding to schools was highly variable. Although some respondents suggested that service levels were effective they then went on to describe variances in the level of service, and remarked on factors they considered to be relevant.

Respondents identified many barriers and many enablers to collaboration between schools and other services. Understanding roles and responsibilities, and procedures within services was identified as a main barrier, and identification of lead roles and responsibilities was seen as a key enabler.

They were supportive of the proposal to introduce national protocols setting out the roles and responsibilities of schools and other services, and tended not to think that this should be left to local agreement. There was the view that national protocol which could be adapted to take into account local circumstances might be an effective approach.

A main key barrier to inter-school collaboration was thought to be competition between schools for example with school league tables, while partnership/federation and cluster-working arrangements were seen as main key enablers.

They identified several areas where they thought schools needed support in the development of effective partnerships with parents/carers and non-resident parents, the main issue being the appointment of staff in designated roles and more staff resource.

Respondents were mainly in agreement with the core competencies and range of skills needed in schools to effectively support well-being.

Training and staff development opportunities were identified as both the biggest barrier and the main key enabler to schools in development of their workforce to match the 21st century school vision.

In order to help schools inform their self-evaluation of their contribution to well-being respondents agreed that case studies and good practice examples would be useful, and identified examples of how they thought this would be helpful. They identified several other suggestions for guidance in the area of self evaluation.

Summary

Questions following paragraph 4.12 - Operational engagement with other services

Q1a)What is your experience of how effectively children’s services (including health) currently support and respond to schools?’

There were 100 responses to this question

Highly Effective 2 (2%)Effective 44(44%)Not Effective 26 (26%)
No Answer Indicated 28 (28%)

There was no strong general opinion regarding the effectiveness of children’s services. Many respondents commented on the question but did not indicate whether they found the services to be highly effective, effective or not effective, their views have been captured in the ‘no answer indicated’ category. A considerable number of respondents commented that service levels were variable and their views are reflected below:

44 (44%)respondents indicated that there was significant variationin the effectiveness of children’s services. They said there was disparityin service levels between agencies and schools, and also within different geographical areas. Although they said that service levels were variable, some respondents indicated that services were ‘effective’, some indicated that they were ‘not effective’ and others did not specify an overall answer. Some felt that there were elements of excellent practice, but that services were generally ‘patchy’ and not universal across schools and localities.

14(14%)were of the opinion that different service agendas, targets or valuesprevented some agencies from working well together. It was thought that national strategies and initiatives, and individual service priorities/protocolsimpacted on the ability to respond to issues.

12 (12%)commented on the ‘Healthy Schools Programme’. Respondents saw this as an effective means for children’s services to support and respond to schools in relation to well-being. There was the view that this programme enabled schools to develop links with children’s services. There was additional comment on the use of the programme as a mechanism to achieve improvement in this area.

11 (11%)mentioned that service levels were dependent on individuals and personalities involved within each particular service. Personal levels of commitment, interpersonal relationships, and each individual’sdegree of knowledge were factorswhich weretaken into account.

11 (11%) commented on aspects of the Health service (including CAMHS and PCT) which they considered to be inadequate. They felt that some services did not provide effective support and that it was difficult to work in partnership in some instances. Lack of resource within the Health service was thought to be a contributory factor with long waiting lists for the services in some areas.

10 (10%)remarked that there was a general lack of communication between services. It was felt that therewas the need to improve information sharing and referral processes, and to improve the systems needed to support this.

8 (8%)mentioned issues relating to funding. Respondents said that Services were limitedand wereunable to support schools effectively due to funding restraints. It was also thought that the availability and effectiveness of Services varied around the country, partly due to differences in funding streams.

5 (5%)were positive about health services, commenting on instances where support had been effective.

Q1b)What are the key barriers to more effective collaboration between schools and other children’s services?

There were 88 responses to this question.

50(57%)identified that a key barrier to effective collaboration was the lack of understanding regarding roles, responsibilities and operational procedures within schools and other Services. Respondents suggested the following in relation to these issues:

  • that agencies did not understand how schools worked
  • that schools did not understand how agencies worked, they were unaware of services and how to access them
  • there was lack of ownership of problems, and responsibility was passed on
  • variation in local policy had led to confusion regarding roles and responsibilities
  • it was difficult for schools to decide which service to make a referral to
  • organisational, cultural perceptions and stereotypes existed regarding what schools and children’s services offered/delivered
  • that there needed to be recognition of the fact that all five outcomes highlighted within Every Child Matters applied to all sectors
  • there was a lack of understanding and leadership regarding schools responsibility to promote pupils wider well-being, and
  • that differences existed between school and health provider policies e.g. in relation to information sharing and confidentiality.

The above list is not a complete list of comments made by respondents in relation to these issues.

32 (36%) stated there was lack of continuity between services with different national, regional and local procedures in place. They felt that the staff within various departments worked within different operational parameters, with different values and ways of working. They mentioned a lack of clear common referral processes and threshold levels, and said that government developed social, educational and health policies separately which meant that staff followed different legislative procedure. Respondents felt that rapid changeover of staff also contributed to inconsistency and problems in building and maintaining relationships.

31 (35%) commented on poor communication across services, with a lack of information/data sharing and inefficient communication systems.

30(34%) said staff were not able to deal with issues or work effectively with other services due to lack of time. It was felt that colleagues across services did not have enough time or opportunity to meet regularly, and for teachers and schools it meant that time taken to access services was a potential drain on resource such as staff/teaching time. It was also thought that the structure of the school time-table made it difficult for classroom based staff to respond flexibly to other children’s services or to attend multi-agency meetings. There was also mention of the fact that new working practicesand initiatives took time to embed.

20 (23%)respondents offered various remarks on funding, a selection of their comments follow:

  • lack of parity for funding across geographical areas meant that some schools were not eligible for support
  • funding was often short or fixed-term, resulting in projects terminating before they had time to make a measurable impact, and there was concern as to how some initiatives would be sustained after funding ceased
  • agencies were reluctant to pool funding
  • funding in one agency did not necessarily reflect need identified by another
  • budgets for some services had been delegated to schools, meaning that schools decided how much to spend on these services, and
  • that there was limited funding for supply cover in schools to enable staff to be released to attend multi-agency meetings.

The above list is not a complete list of comments made by respondents in relation to funding.

20(23%)mentioned overburdening or excessive workload and bureaucracy. They felt that there was too much expectation on some staff, and commented that in some instances overall responsibility lay with one individual. Documentation and administration was thought to be too time consuming, and respondents commented on the amount of information, advice and guidance that staff were expected to know and to communicate. They said that limited resource meant that there was little capacity to deal with issues at the time of need.

12 (14%)stated that there was limited staff resource and/or skill, and in some cases lack of authority, resulting in limited capacity to deal with issues or provide support.

4 (5%) commented on transport and distance related issues.

Q1c)What are the key enablers to more effective collaboration between schools and other children’s services?

There were 94 responses to this question.

33(35)% were of the opinion that specific roles and responsibilities and strong leadership was needed to enable more effective collaboration between schools and children’s services. Respondents said that there should be clearly identified individuals at senior level, and that clarity was needed on roles and responsibilities across schools and other services,and clear accountability.

25(27%)suggested that well planned and co-ordinated services were a key enabler. Their views included the following:

  • common professional terminology, protocols and understanding of integrated services was needed
  • that strategic plans and key actions were required
  • that mapping and data collection might be helpful in making informed decisions and in highlighting trends
  • that more effective integrated services and processes were necessary with aligned systems and easier data sharing
  • a single plan was needed across departments for the well-being of children with common goals and targets
  • schools should be involved in strategic and operational decision-making. It was thought that this would help to achieve a shared vision and to identify the role of schools in contributing to agreed outcomes, and
  • clear protocols and service level agreements were needed.

The above list is not a complete list of comments made by respondents in relation to this issue.

25(27%)felt that partnership working, multi-agency/disciplinary teams, networking opportunities across schools, and community partnerships were key enablers to collaboration between schools and other services.

22 (23%)respondents said that there needed to be more understanding of and respect for roles, services and integrated services.

19 (20%)commented on issues relating to communication, stating that clear, consistent communication was needed between services. There was the view that clearer links were needed to the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), and that systems and protocols should be communicated more concisely to schools. They thought that regular and consistent dialogue, feedback, and one to one communication with named individuals was necessary.

18 (19%)mentioned training/joint-training and Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It was felt that joint training might help to build mutual understanding and trust, and that time was needed to enable staff to engage in professional development. There was also the view that professionals across the children’s workforce should undertake pre-qualification training in collaborative and multi-disciplinary working.

13 (14%) were of the opinion that full engagement with the CAF, a review of the effectiveness of the CAF, and clearer links to this would aid collaborative working.

11 (12%) offered a range of comments relating to funding, their views included the following:

  • there needed to be a better funded and supported provision of support organisations
  • funding needed to meet needs and current arrangements were too short-sighted
  • joint funding streams were required to provide a sufficient context for collaborative working, and
  • sustainable funding was necessary to enable development across the majority of schools not just the minority of more proactive schools.

The above list is not a complete list of comments made by respondents in relation to funding.

11 (12%) indicated that allotted time allowing staff to attend meetings and work collaboratively, and to participate in training and developmental opportunities was needed.

11 (12%)mentioned a willingness to collaborate or to commit to collaborative working, with a sense of shared responsibilityneeded to resolve issues.

11 (12%)saw commitment to/working with The Children’s Trustsas a key enabler, there was also the view that a more robust approach by Children’s Centres and The Children’s Trust were effective ways forward, and that transparency and clear communication of decision-making by Children’s Trusts and Local Authorities (LAs) was needed.

10 (11%)said that recognition of the benefits of well-being and collaborative working was needed. It was thought that comprehension of the fact that investment in well-being and health might benefit academic progress, should be more widely recognised by schools and government. There was the view that lack of this recognition was more likely to be due to government policy on attainment. There was also the idea that further understanding of the difference that collaborative working could make to children and families was needed.

9 (10%) mentioned the Healthy Schools programme which they saw as an effective means of enabling children’s services to respond to and support schools in relation to well-being, and for developing effective collaborative partnerships.

9 (10%)stated that working relationships could be more effective if based on mutual trust and a more ‘open-culture’

8 (9%)referred to staffing and recruitment. There was the view that staff on long-term or permanent contracts would enable the development of more effective working relationships.

Q1d)What further support do schools need in this area?

There were 73 answers to this question

29(40%)felt that schools might benefit from more guidelines/further guidance, their views included the following:

  • that national standards were needed for service provision, delivery and organisation
  • guidance should be clear, succinct and simple
  • that schools needed tighter guidelinesand should be more aware that pupils’ well-being was one of their priorities
  • access to up to date service directories was required
  • case studies of good practice were called for
  • clarity was requested on information sharing, confidentiality and data protection issues
  • information regarding roles/responsibilities of Children’s Trusts should be disseminated to head teachers and cluster groups, and
  • measures were needed to help schools identify success.

The above list is not a complete list of comments made by respondents in relation to this issue.

28 (38%)mentioned issues surrounding training and development, their opinions included the following:

  • local, regional and national training events were needed
  • training was necessary on how to overcome barriers to multi-agency working
  • workshops/INSET was required to gain links with non government organisations working in and with schools
  • training was needed about the benefits of improved access to health services and the opportunity to learn what specific services entailed
  • that teachers/education staff should have training on factors that have a significant effect on children’s welfare such as domestic violence and bullying
  • that joint training of the children’s workforce was required – to enable schools and the rest of the children’s workforce to have shared understanding of children’s needs, with particular emphasis on systemic approaches, and
  • that greater familiarity with new/merged data bases and processes such as e-CAF was needed.

The above list is not a complete list of comments made by respondents in relation to these issues.

20 (27%)respondents offered various comments on funding. They felt that more money was needed to appoint non-teaching staff to enable staff to attend meetings, and to allow meetings to take place. There was the view that the National Healthy Schools programme was reliant on continued funding, to maintain the support of schools in promoting pupil well-being. There was also the opinion that more funding was needed to support outreach services to children, young people and their families.