children, young people and education scrutiny …

AGENDA

CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND EDUCATION

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

2.00 pm THURSDAY, 2 JUNE 2016

COUNCIL CHAMBER - PORT TALBOT CIVIC CENTRE

PART 1 1. To receive any declarations of interest from Members

2. To receive the Minutes of the Children, Young People and

Education Scrutiny Committee held on 7 April 2016 (Pages 5 - 18)

3. To receive the Minutes of the Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Committee held on 28 April 2016 (Pages 19 - 34)

4. To receive the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme 2016/17 (Pages 35 - 38)

To scrutinise decisions, information and monitoring issues reported by: Report of the Head of Commissioning and Support Services 5. Children and Young People Services - Key Priority Indicators

(Pages 39 - 52)

6. To select appropriate items from the Cabinet Board Agenda for pre-scrutiny (Cabinet Board reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)

7. Any urgent items (whether public or exempt) at the discretion of the

Chairman pursuant to Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972

8. Access to Meetings to resolve to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.

PART 2 9. To select appropriate private items from the Cabinet Board Agenda

for pre-scrutiny (Cabinet Board Reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)

S.Phillips

Chief Executive

Civic Centre Port Talbot Thursday, 26 May 2016

Committee Membership: Chairperson: Councillor A.R.Lockyer

Vice Chairperson:

Councillor H.N.James

Councillors:

R.Thomas, H.M.Bebell, Mrs.A.Chaves, M.Ellis, P.Greenaway, R.G.Jones, J.D.Morgan, Mrs.K.Pearson, M.Protheroe, A.Llewelyn, A.L.Thomas, D.Whitelock and Mrs.L.G.Williams

*Co-opted Voting Members

Mrs.M.Caddick, Ms.H.Dale and Ms.D.Vaughan

*Co-opted Non Voting Members

R.De Benedictis, A.Hughes and Mrs.C.Jones

Notes: (1) If Committee Members or non-Committee Members wish to have relevant items put on the

agenda for future meetings, then please notify the Chief Executive/Chair eight days before the meeting.

(2) If non-Committee Members wish to attend for an item of interest, then prior notification needs to

be given (by 12.00 noon on the day before the meeting). Non-Committee Members may speak but not vote, or move or second any motion.

(3) For pre scrutiny arrangements, the Chair will normally recommend forthcoming executive items

for discussion/challenge. It is also open to Committee Members to request items to be raised - though Members are asked to be selective here in regard to important issues.

(4) The relevant Cabinet Board Members will also be invited to be present at the meeting for

Scrutiny/ Consultation purposes. (5) Would the Scrutiny Committee Members please bring the Cabinet Board papers with them to the

meeting.

This page is intentionally left blank

70416

CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND EDUCATION SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

(Committee Rooms 1/2, Port Talbot)

Members Present: 7 April 2016 Chairperson:

Councillor A.R.Lockyer

Vice Chairperson:


Councillors:

A.Carter, Mrs.A.Chaves, Mrs.J.Dudley, M.Ellis, R.G.Jones, Mrs.S.Paddison, D.Whitelock, Mrs.L.G.Williams, D.Lewis and L.M.Purcell

Co-opted Voting Members:

Mrs.M.Caddick and Ms.D.Vaughan

Co-opted Non Voting Members:

A.Hughes

Officers In Attendance

A.Evans, A.Jarrett, A.Thomas, I.Guy, D.Harding, Ms.H.Lervy, Ms.H.Lewis, Ms.C.Gadd and Mrs.J.Woodman-Ralph

Cabinet Invitees:

Councillors P.A.Rees and P.D.Richards

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS

The following Members made declarations of interest at the commencement of the meeting. Councillor P.A.Rees Report of the Head of Transformation re:

Schools Admissions Policy 17/18 Results of Consultation, as he is chair of the Schools Admission Forum and took part in the decision to commend the report to Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet Board.

Agenda Item 2.

70416

Councillor Mrs.J.Dudley Report of the Head of Transformation re:

Schools Admissions Policy 17/18 Results of Consultation, as she is a member of the Schools Admission Forum.

2. MINUTES OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND EDUCATION SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON 9 MARCH 2016 The Committee considered the Minutes of the previous meeting and made the following amendments. For the report on Elective Home Education Briefing Paper it stated “Members asked if officers had looked into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of a home educated child in Pembrokeshire to try and prevent a similar case in Neath Port Talbot”. Members requested that this was amended to “Members asked if officers had looked into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of a home educated child in Pembrokeshire and could assurances be given that a similar case would not happen in Neath Port Talbot.” In relation to the Children and Young People Services 3rd Quarter (2015-16) Performance Report it stated that “Members highlighted that there were discrepancies between the graphs for this indicator as one referred to monthly data and the other to quarterly data”. Members requested that it was amended to “Members highlighted that there were four errors between the graphs for this indicator that highlighted a number of discrepancies that required clarity”. With the above amendments the Committee noted the Minutes.

3. SCRUTINY FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2015/16 The Committee received the Forward Work Programme. It was highlighted that if Members wished for items to be considered for the new cycle of meetings, following the Annual Meeting of Council, to contact the Democratic Services Officer.

70416

4. PROGRESS AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SCRUTINY INQUIRY TO ASSESS PROGRESS IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL EXPLOITATION IN NEATH PORT TALBOT The Committee received the report on progress against the recommendations from the Scrutiny Inquiry that assessed progress in protecting children from sexual exploitation in Neath Port Talbot, as detailed within the circulated report. The Chairperson highlighted that Members of the Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Committee that had been involved in the Inquiry had considered information provided by different Council Services and relevant partners in relation to this matter. Members made several recommendations to the relevant organisations and Council Departments, which were formally endorsed by the Committee on 2 September 2015 and it was agreed that progress against the recommendations would be reported back to the Committee in six months. The report included an update against all the recommendations and it was noted that progress had been made against all the recommendations and some had been completed. It was commented that Members had found the Inquiry very informative and it had been a useful exercise. Members were satisfied that significant progress had been made against the recommendations. As the recommendations had been to a range of Council departments and organisations it was not practicable for representatives to attend the meeting and any questions would be sent to the relevant officers for a full reply. Members queried whether the Awareness Raising Sessions could be made mandatory for one school governor per school. They were informed that it was not a mandatory requirement from Welsh Government and would not be enforceable. Education officers had provided a more detailed answer to this question outlining information on safeguarding training for governors, which would be circulated to the Committee. Members asked if there was a checklist of which school governing boards have had a governor trained and it was confirmed that there was. It was asked if governing bodies would be targeted if they had not undertaken training. It was agreed that officers would include this information in the circulated response. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

70416

5. CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE SERVICES - KEY PRIORITY INDICATORS The Committee received the report on the key priority indicator information within Children’s Services, as detailed within the circulated report, for indicators:

Priority Indicator 1 – Average number of cases held by qualified workers across the Service.

Priority Indicator 2 – Staff supervision rates.

Priority Indicator 3 – The number of social worker vacancies across the service (including number of starters/leavers/agency staff/sickness).

Priority Indicator 4 – Number of approved foster carers within the Council.

In relation to Priority Indicator 3 it was noted that there had been four and a half vacancies in February 2016 and it was confirmed that those positions were now being filled, which would be reflected in the figures in future reports. Members highlighted that there seemed to be more staff leaving during the winter period and it was queried if there was a pattern or reason for this. Officers explained that there did not seem to be any trends or patterns. Members noted that there had been a significant reduction in agency staff and asked how many there were remaining in the Service. It was clarified that there were currently three agency staff within the Service. It was highlighted that Priority Indicator 4 was indicating that the number of in house foster carer placements were increasing and fewer independent carers were being used by the Service. Members asked if the cost differential between in house and independent foster carers was similar across Wales. Officers confirmed that this was the case and the costs were negotiated across four local authorities. It was explained that the costs for independent foster carers included the costs to the agencies not just what the foster carers were paid. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

6. PRE-SCRUTINY The Committee scrutinised the following matters: Cabinet Board Proposals

70416

6.1 When I am Ready Policy and Practice Guidance

The Committee received the report on information on the implementation of the When I am Ready Scheme that comes into being on 4 April 2016, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that the When I am Ready Scheme was being introduced by Welsh Government and sets out the Local Authority’s legal responsibilities in respect of post 18 living arrangements for young people in foster care. The Council was required to set up a scheme in line with the requirements of the code. It was explained that there was a requirement for payments to be made in line with the national minimum payments for foster carers and therefore there were financial implications to introducing the Scheme. It was noted that the When I am Ready Scheme replaces the existing Extension to Placement Policy. Members recognised the positive aspects of the Scheme. It was commented that unlike the ‘Staying Put’ arrangements in England, it was disappointing that there was no funding from Welsh Government for the When I am Ready Scheme. It was clarified that the 50k maximum additional funding required for the Scheme was overall for the first year. Members asked if the young people could contribute money to the household, if they were working or on benefits, and it was confirmed that this was the case. Members also queried if the weekly amount contributed by young people would change if their circumstances changed. Officers explained that Children and Young People Services would pay a young person a basic weekly maintenance allowance if they were unable to claim benefits and the financial arrangements were outlined in the report. Members asked that in a case of a young person who had been in care and was in full time education this would affect their financial circumstances. It was confirmed that young people in this situation would also receive the maintenance allowance. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

70416

6.2 CSSIW Fostering Inspection Report – March 2016

The Committee highlighted that overall this was a good report. It was noted that there had been a number of recommendations and Members requested that officers reported back progress against them. Officers explained that an action plan had been developed to address the recommendations and confirmed progress would be reported to a future meeting. The report was noted by the Committee.

6.3 Inclusion Business Plan 16/17

The Committee received the report and presentation on the Inclusion Service Business Plan 2016-17, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were presented with an overview of the Inclusion Service. The Service wanted to ensure there was efficient and effective provision to support children and young people with additional learning needs. It was highlighted that there was pressure on the Service as there had been a significant increase in the number of pupils with Additional Learning Needs. The Service was developing an Autism Strategy for children and young people in partnership with other internal and external services. Another priority was to establish a Continuum of Support for children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. It had to be ensured that there was consistency of provision and the Service delivered the outcomes required. It was highlighted that the pressures on the Service were continuing to increase and there was more challenging behaviour from pupils. It was important that the Service developed the expertise of the workforce and early identification of children with additional learning needs was key. Some pupils were not being diagnosed until Year 6 and this resulted in reduced time for transition work from primary to secondary school. It was noted that getting the correct balance of skills in the Service was being addressed in the business plan. It was highlighted that Neath Port Talbot had above the national average of pupils with statements of Special Educational Need

70416

(SEN). It was noted that if there was not enough evidence in the statements of SEN parents would have the right of appeal. A person centred approach was being developed and the Service was working in partnership with parents and other agencies to deliver the best outcomes for pupils. It was explained that there were planned places available within the Council’s two special schools and in addition16 primary and secondary schools had Learning Support Centres (LSC). In 2015, 364 pupils attended these centres, 14 more than 2013. Almost all LSCs are already at full capacity for 2016-17. It was noted that the Service was looking at establishing a Second Education Nurture Centre. Members noted that there were no learning support centres for Welsh speaking pupils. Officers explained that they had previously audited the support units and there had not been a need for this provision and that they would look at this again if required. It was highlighted that there was a shortage of Welsh speaking speech and language therapists. Members asked if the Service worked with other local authority areas to provide specialist services. It was confirmed that there was joint working across the Education through Regional Working (ERW) region and there was sharing of good practice. Officers explained that most pupils with a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) would be taught in a mainstream school with additional support. However, there was challenge from parents seeking alternative, independent and costly therapies. It was highlighted that legal representatives were offering free advice to parents on behalf of organisations offering independent therapy. This resulted in some parents challenging what services their children were being offered. Members expressed concerns about this practice and that vulnerable parents could be targeted. There was also concerns that some of the therapies being offered were implying that they could cure children of their conditions, which was not the case. It was noted that such activities were putting additional pressures on the department and there were more challenges to statements. The Service had to evidence that they were meeting the needs of the child if taken to tribunal stage. It was clarified that if it was ruled that the therapy should be available then the Council would have to pay for it. Members highlighted that they had received feedback from teachers that the forms were difficult to complete as the

70416

evidence had to be precise and could the Service assist teachers with this. Officers explained that they were taking forward a cluster plan to address this issue and schools were requesting a more flexible approach. Members requested that the SEN governors for schools were also included in this work and officers took this request on board.

Members were informed that out of county provisions were very expensive and it catered for pupils with very complex needs, which could not be met in County. It was highlighted that the number of children receiving this provision had reduced. It was explained that reforming the Additional Learning Needs Services had been deferred as there was currently a consultation taking place on the Welsh Government proposals, which had taken precedent and would have an impact on Neath Port Talbot’s Services. Members noted that there was a lot pressures on the Inclusion Service and there were budget implications that would have to be considered. It was noted that where possible partnership working and sharing resources was considered.

Members recommended that a glossary being circulated to school governors detailing the terms used in the categories for children with special educational needs.

Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposal to be considered by the Cabinet Board. In addition it was agreed that Cabinet Board be asked to consider the following recommendation that a glossary being circulated to school governors detailing the terms used in the categories for children with special educational needs.

6.4 Schools Admissions Policy 17/18 Results of Consultation

(Councillor P.A.Rees reaffirmed his interest and left the meeting for this item only).

Members were informed that the Neath Port Talbot Council was the admission authority for community schools in its area and was required to determine by 15 April 2016 its admission arrangements in relation to the 2017/2018 academic year. Consultation had taken place on the Admission Policy between

70416

December 2015 and February 2016; consultees included head teachers and governing bodies of community and voluntary aided schools within the County Borough, the Admission Forum and neighbouring local authorities. It was explained that the Admission Forum had considered the draft policy and changes resulting from the consultation on 23 February 2016. However, the consultation period had not ended by the date of the meeting and some further amendments were made following this date, which were before Members at this meeting for consideration.

Officers provided a verbal update that an amendment had been made to the draft policy on page 84 that ‘or in the case of admission to a primary school, the nursery class at the school for which an application is made’ had been removed. This had resulted from comments from Welsh Government that the admissions code did not allow nursery placements to be used as a preferential consideration.

Officers highlighted that the Admissions Policy was intended for community schools and the Council was not the admission authority for voluntary aided (i.e. Faith) schools, as they were their own admission authorities. The Council did undertake some of the administration elements on behalf of voluntary aided schools, as parents applied through the Council’s portal.

Members were provided with overview of the consultations that had been received and the officer responses to them. It was recognised that as a result of the consultation amendments had been made to the Policy. Officers highlighted that the catchment area for the purpose of admission to community schools had been defined as the geographical area served by a school, as determined by the Council. It was also explained that the term partner and feeder school had been interchanged over the years and the consistent term that would now be used was partner school. Feeder school was felt to be outdated and hierarchical and some primary schools had highlighted this as an issue. The definition of the term ‘partner’ school for the purpose of the admission policy was defined as ‘a school that has a catchment area in common with another school of the same category’. In addition, it had been noted that the Home to School Transport Policy and the Admissions Policy were separate policies but

70416

there was an inter-relationship and this had been noted in the Admission Policy. Officers highlighted that the Parent Handbook also stated that parents should contact the Council for further information.

Members noted that the Policy recognised the inter-relationship between admission and Home to School Transport Policy and it advises parents to refer to the Home to School Transport Policy when applying for a place. It was asked if the draft policy detailed which was the nearest suitable school for all schools in Neath Port Talbot, including faith schools and how would parents work out which was the nearest suitable if faith schools did not have catchment areas listed. Officers outlined that the Admission Policy did not include faith schools and it was only for community schools, however, the Parents Handbook would include relevant information on how to apply to faith schools. It was further explained that if pupils attended a partner primary school it did not guarantee them a place at a partner secondary school neither did not attending a partner primary school prevent pupils applying for a place in a secondary school.

Members queried that if St Joseph’s Secondary School was its own admissions authority then why had the Council previously included faith schools in the admission policy and now excluded them. In addition, there had been a list of feeder schools included on the Council website, which had been removed. Officers explained that faith schools had not previously been included in the admission policy but there was information included in the Parent Handbook.

Members noted one consultation response mentioned that the Policy stated that ‘transport to sixth forms is discretionary and non-statutory. It is currently available to all pupils who live over 3 miles from the school’, and asked if students had to pay £100 per annum for a travel pass to attend St Joseph’s sixth form. Officers explained that this was in regards to the Home to School Transport Policy and was not in the Admission Policy. Members referred to an Ombudsman letter that had apparently identified an issue around clarity on information surrounding the Home to School Transport Policy and the most suitable school. It was felt that there were similar issues in regard to catchment areas and partner schools for faith and Welsh medium education. Officers explained that the term “most suitable” did not apply to the Admission Policy and that catchment areas had

70416

not changed for schools, with the exception of those affected by the Strategic Schools Improvement Programme.

Members also queried that as there were no Church in Wales secondary schools in the County Borough this could result in some children not having an established progression route to a secondary school. Officers took this on board and confirmed that the pupils would be able to apply for places in secondary schools through the Admission Policy.

Members noted that in some areas there were pupils that attended Welsh medium primary schools and there had always been the presumption that they could then attend either the local English medium or the Welsh medium secondary schools. It was felt that the Welsh medium primaries not being listed as partner schools to the English medium secondary schools changed this. Officers outlined that the catchment areas remained exactly the same and parents could apply to the school of their choice. It was highlighted that Welsh medium primary schools could not be partnered with English medium secondary schools as this did not fit with the definition of partner school. Officers explained that they could not be listed as partner schools as they were not in the same category. Members noted that Cwmtawe had been the only English medium secondary school in Neath Port Talbot that had Welsh medium primary schools listed as feeder schools, which was part of the reason for the change to ensure that it was fair across secondary schools. Officers agreed that the note at the bottom of Appendix 5 in the Policy, in regards to Partner Community Schools, be highlighted in bold, to make it clearer that parents could apply to the school of their choice. It was noted that once officers were aware that a pupil wished to transfer to an English medium comprehensive from a Welsh medium primary they would be included in the transition arrangements.

Members highlighted that consultation had not been undertaken on the term “partner school”. It was felt by some that the definition could be discriminatory and could be perceived as going against the advice received from the Welsh Government and Ombudsman letter on most suitable school. Officers noted that one consultee had requested a definition of partner school and following this it had been included in the Policy. It was explained that advice had been sought from counsel on the

70416

Policy. Members asked if the Ombudsman letter, which had been referred to by some Members, was relevant to the School Admission Policy and officers explained that it was not as it had been in regards to the Home to School Transport Policy.

Officers outlined that partner schools would only be relevant in regards to oversubscription criteria and it was low down on the list. Other criteria would be considered first, such as, whether they were a looked after child, catchment area, any siblings in the school and finally whether the primary school was a partner school. Statements of educational need were also taken into consideration. It was highlighted that in most schools there was not over subscription.

Some Members felt that the discussion was being drawn into Home to School Transport Policy issues and the Admission Policy had not been in question in previous years and the draft policy in the report was clear. The recommendation in the report was moved and seconded by Members of the Committee and the majority of the Committee voted in favour of the recommendation.

Following scrutiny, the majority of the Committee was supportive of the proposal, subject to the proposed amendment of the removal of “or in the case of admission to a primary school, the nursery class at the school for which an application is made” at point d page 84, to be considered by the Cabinet Board

6.5 Scope for Long Term Sickness Projects in Schools

The Committee received the report that detailed the Long Term Sickness in Schools Project and the implementation of an early intervention and effective communication methodology pilot within four schools, before gradually rolling out to all Comprehensive and Special schools, as contained within the circulated report. Members were informed that an assessment of school sickness was undertaken over a year, which indicated that the majority of days lost were due to long term sickness absence. It was highlighted that the cost of sickness was not just days lost but also the disruption to pupils’ education and the cost of providing

70416

supply teacher cover. The Project was being undertaken in order to support school leaders to manage sickness levels, support staff to return to work and minimise the associated cost. It was highlighted that a taskforce had already undertaken a central staffing pilot and their findings identified that where long term sickness absence was addressed at an early stage, the outcome for both employees and the Council were more positive. Elected Members had been instrumental in the success of that pilot. The intention was to build upon this work initially with 12 to 15 schools in four tranches and to facilitate this work a Human Resources Officer would be appointed for 18 months on a temporary basis to work with senior management and bursars in schools. The Service would be working with Trade Unions to utilise their experience in assisting with this project. It was confirmed that there would be regular updates to the Committee. Members agreed that in October 2016 the Committee would consider undertaking some additional scrutiny work, such as a one day inquiry, to assist this work.

Members requested a list of primary schools in group four once they had been confirmed. Members also highlighted that not all schools had bursars and this should be considered in when rolling out the project. The Committee noted that a significant number of days were lost due to stress related sickness absence. Assurances were requested that the reasons for these absences would be investigated and the members of staff who were off work due to this reason would be given support. Officers confirmed that this was the intended approach and the Project would be focussing on what support was required. It was also noted that a distinction had to be made between work stress and home stress and this had been effectively addressed in the Central Pilot. It was asked if all teaching trade union representatives had been present at the meeting of the Local Social Partnership Group on 8 February 2016. Officers explained that three trade unions had been represented and one was not from a teaching union. It was noted that during the Central Pilot there had been good partnership working with Unison and there had been

70416

positive feedback. It was emphasised that the main aim of the Project was to manage sickness absence effectively. Members queried if the causes of sickness absence were monitored and it was confirmed that it was. Members noted that there were some cases where staff should stay off work until they were completely better rather than causing further disruption and triggering other procedures by returning to work too soon and then having to go off again. Officers agreed that this aspect would be considered as part of the Project. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

CHAIRPERSON

280416


(Committee Rooms A/B - Neath Civic Centre)

Members Present: 28 April 2016 Presiding Chairperson:


Councillors:

A.Carter, Mrs.A.Chaves, Mrs.J.Dudley, M.Ellis, R.G.Jones, J.D.Morgan, Mrs.S.Paddison, Mrs.K.Pearson, M.Protheroe, D.Whitelock, Mrs.L.G.Williams and A.R.Lockyer (present from minute number 5 onwards)

Co-opted Voting Members:

Mrs.M.Caddick and Ms.H.Dale

Co-opted Non Voting Members:

R.De Benedictis and A.Hughes

Officers In Attendance

A.Evans, A.Jarrett, C.Millis, Mrs.D. Berni, N.Thomas, M.Lazarus, M.Daley, Ms.J.Hoggan, Mrs.N.Hire, D.Harding, J.Hodges, M.New and Ms.C.Gadd

Cabinet Invitees:

Councillors P.A.Rees and P.D.Richards

1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST FROM MEMBER The following Co-opted Non Voting Member made a declaration of interest at the commencement of the meeting. A.Hughes Report of the Head of Participation re: Review of

School Music Service, as his daughter is the joint manager of the West Glamorgan Music Service.

Agenda Item 3.

280416

2. EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE UNIT REPORT CARD The Committee received the Early Years and Childcare Unit Report Card 2015/16, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that the Unit sought to support all childcare providers throughout the County Borough with its main aim of keeping childcare settings open to ensure that the Local Authority meets its statutory duty of providing sufficient childcare places for those parents or carers who wanted them. The team was made up of three staff, one full time and two part time. It was noted that a three year delivery plan had been developed as part of the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment and it guided the work of the Unit. The team encouraged all groups to work towards a Quality Assurance kite mark to ensure parents could be confident that their child was receiving childcare that was second to none. There had been a number of referrals into the O Gam I Gam scheme to promote and encourage the development of the accessibility and affordability of a range of quality and integrated registered childcare and play provision. It was noted that 34 settings engaged with the Healthy and Sustainable Pre School Scheme, which had a number of criteria to meet to achieve the award. Members queried if the key action going forward to engage 10 new settings for this Scheme would be achieved. Officers explained that they had only started to undertake this data collection and it should be achievable as it was consistent with other areas. Members asked if a school was a fair trade school would this contribute to it being classed as a Healthy and Sustainable Pre School. It was explained that it would as environment was included in criteria. It was highlighted that the team had a £200k budget that was managed rigidly and was a mixture of core and grant funding. The team worked with a range of key partners. The key actions for next year were highlighted to Members and it was noted that it was lot of work undertaken by a small team. It was highlighted that there had been 315 deregistered childcare places during 2015/16 and Members asked what the reasons were for this. It was explained that it was mainly due to a lack of demand or sustainability. It was noted that some of the providers had opened in other venues and some had moved outside of the area. Members asked if the decline in the number of providers was part of a long term trend. Officers explained that this was not the case. It was

280416

agreed that officers would circulate to the Committee a breakdown of the different type of providers by area. Members commented that the report card was very informative and the website for the Service was very good. It was noted that some of the graphs in the report card were difficult to see clearly. Members queried the accuracy of the timescales for the figures for the parents’ satisfaction levels of childcare and officers agreed to check this information. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

3. MINORITY ETHNIC ACHIEVEMENT SUPPORT TEAM REPORT CARD The Committee received the report card for the Minority Ethnic Achievement Support (MEAS) Team, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that MEAS was a small peripatetic team in the Education Development Inclusion Service, which supports Ethnic Minority learners at risk of underachievement and learners with English as an additional language in Neath Port Talbot schools and post 16 provision. They engage with a number of partners to provide support for these learners, families and schools to ensure attainment and achievement. It was recognised that it was important for the team to be involved with the families and assist with integrating them into the community. It was explained that MEAS was funded through the Education Improvement Grant and currently received extra funding for Arabic bilingual teaching assistants from the Home Office. It was noted that the Service receives the smallest grant allocation of the Education through Regional Working (ERW) consortium Local Authorities. The Service was funded annually and had cuts to their funding in the last three years, which had resulted in some redundancies last year. There was continual pressure to meet demand with the current level of funding. Members recognised the difficulties with the uncertainty of grant funding. It was noted that team ensured that staff were given the opportunity to develop skills to help them move on if required. The team also bids annually for funding from other organisations such as the Black History Association Wales to undertake additional events and activities. Some of the additional events and activities

280416

undertaken across schools were highlighted to Members. It was noted that there were two visiting Chinese teachers, fully funded through the British Council, in Neath Port Talbot for one year. Their main focus was sharing Chinese language and culture with schools and in return they were learning about the Welsh education system. Work such as this was recognised as being important in preventing families settling in the area becoming isolated and invisible. It also fitted in with the global citizen work of schools. It was highlighted that the additional temporary funding by the Home Office had ensured support for Syrian Refugee learners and there had been positive results. Some Members who had refugees in their wards commented on the level of preparedness there had been by the Council on preparing the accommodation and school to ensure that families could settle into the area. Members asked if the funding from the Home Office would continue and it was explained that funding per person would reduce from January 2017 onwards. It was expected that there would be more families coming into the area and they would also be funded which would allow the team to keep the teaching assistants. Members were provided with some additional information on the work of the team. It was highlighted that in addition to the advice and support to schools the team undertook a lot of work to promote multiculturalism and translation work. One significant piece of work was supporting first language GCSEs which involved a lot of transition support. So far the team had achieved 100% success rate, mainly A*- A grades for all first language examinations taken, which includes, Polish, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian and Spanish. It was noted that there were currently 58 different languages recorded as spoken within the area. Part of the role of the team was to teach teachers how to support children. It was noted that results showed that bilingual students out performed monolingual students and this included other subjects as well as languages. Members recognised this and were pleased that children were encouraged to use their first language and retain those skills. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

280416

4. CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE SERVICES - KEY PRIORITY INDICATORS The Committee received the report on the key priority indicator information within Children’s Services, as detailed with the circulated report, for indicators:

Priority Indicator 5 – Number of looked after children by placement type.

Priority Indicator 6 – the number of children who have been discharged from care and then subsequently re-admitted.

Priority Indicator 7 – the number of cases held within the service categorised by status – child protection, looked after or child in need.

Priority Indicator 8 – The number of cases “stepped down” from Children and Young People Services to Team Around the Family.

Priority Indicator 9 – The percentage of children looked after during the year with a Personal Education Plan within 20 school days of entering care or joining a new school.

Members were informed that progress continued to be made by the Service. It was highlighted that the number of Looked After Children in Neath Port Talbot was 378 at 31 March 2016 and this was the lowest since June 2010. For Priority Indicator 5 it was noted that there had been a slight increase in residential placements and even though it was small numbers they were high costs. Reassurances were given that this was being carefully monitored by the Senior Management Team. In regards to Priority Indicator 6 it was highlighted that two children had been readmitted into care in March 2016. The reasons for this were explained to Members and had been looked at by the Senior Management Team. Members noted that there had been an increase in children being readmitted during August and asked if there were any trends during school holidays. Officers explained that there did not seem to be any trends at holiday times. However, the Service would expect to see more issues at those times and they would continue to monitor this to identify if there were trends appearing. Priority Indicator 8 outlined that there had been an increase in the number of cases that had been stepped down to the Team Around the Family. Members asked why there had been a significant

280416

increase in stepped down cases between February and March. In addition were the cases that were stepped down and those stepped up the same cases, as they would be concerned with families having to work with different professionals. It was explained that circumstances for families may change and there was potential for families to reach the threshold again to be stepped up. It was agreed that officers would look into this and report back to Members. Members asked if there continued to be cases stepped down to the Team Around the Family did the Team have the capacity to deal with them. Officers explained that the Team would work with families until they were no longer needed and the cases would be closed, which would result in the figures stabilising. The current figures did not show the number of families leaving the system. Caseloads were monitored regularly and the necessary steps would be taken if more capacity was required. It was highlighted that there were no waiting lists for the Team at the moment and the data on interventions indicated that they were having a positive impact. It was agreed that a report would be brought to a future meeting that included the data and outcomes for the work of the Team Around the Family. Members noted that for Priority Indicator 9 there had been delays in some looked after children receiving a Personal Education Plan within 20 days and asked why this was the case. Officers explained that this tended to occur when a child changed schools and more work was required to address this. It was noted that care plans would be in place for those children. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

5. PRE-SCRUTINY The Committee scrutinised the following matters: Cabinet Board Proposals 5.1 Fostering Statement of Purpose

Members noted that there was a typographical error on page 15 of the appendix to the report. It was requested that the sentence “To safeguard and protect the welfare of children and young people and to ensure their physical, emotional and intellectual development” was changed to “To safeguard and

280416

protect the welfare of children and young people and to assure their physical, emotional and intellectual development”.

5.2 Neath Port Talbot Fostering Service Regulation 42 Quality of

Care Report 2015/16

Members noted that it was a good report and requested that an update report against the recommendations was brought back to the Committee. Members also requested a report on placement breakdowns was brought to a future meeting. It was agreed that these reports would be scheduled into the Forward Work Programme.

5.3 Foster Carer Recruitment Strategy and Finance Policy

The Committee received the report on the Foster Carer Recruitment Strategy and Finance Policy that outlined the proposals to increase weekly payments and the payment of a retainer for foster carers for children aged 11 plus, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that increasing weekly payments and the payment of a retainer would support the recruitment and retention of foster carers for teenagers in order to reduce the number of young people placed in independent foster placements. It was noted that this would enable the Council to make greater savings. It was highlighted that the Looked After Children Strategy had successfully reduced the number of looked after children and the Service was more successful in keeping children at home. The Service had to ensure that it was meeting the needs of those children and young people in care. The aim of the Recruitment Strategy was to identify the profile of looked after children and foster carers in order consider the key issues which needed to be addressed to have a positive impact on recruitment and retention of skilled and experienced foster carers. It was highlighted that there had been a continual reduction in requests for people to become foster carers. The majority of enquiries were for people considering becoming foster carers for children under 10 years old and in particular children under 5 years old. There were difficulties in finding foster carers for teenagers and often had to use independent fostering agencies.

280416

The Service had managed to reduce the number of independent placements but there was a need for more in house foster carers for teenagers. The team had looked at the barriers and what needed to be done differently. The Strategy focuses on 11plus recruitment, handling enquiries differently and what could be done to attract foster carers to the Council rather than independent agencies and other Councils. The Strategy recommends that there was an increase in foster carer payments in order to ensure the Council was able to provide a competitive fee to match the local market. It was also recommended that up to a six week retainer was paid to foster carers for teenagers. The cost of these measures would be around £202k and would be offset by anticipated savings in external placements. It was highlighted that the costs were worked out on the worst case scenario. Members recognised the positive steps being taken to increase recruitment and retention of foster carers. It was recognised that the increase in fees would encourage more foster carers to enhance and develop their skills. Some of the cohort of carers for under 10 years old would be encouraged to progress and consider caring for teenagers. Members queried why it had taken this time to increase the fees paid and develop the Strategy. Officers explained that the focus had been on improving the Service, making it more stable and reducing the number of looked after children. This work had taken up a lot of resources and reducing the number of looked after children had allowed some resources to be redirected into funding this Strategy. It was outlined that there had been some increases in placement breakdowns and skilled carers were needed to maintain young people in foster placements with Neath Port Talbot carers. Support services were also required for those children who had the most challenging behaviours. It was explained that work was being undertaken with the clinical team within Hillside Secure Unit to support foster carers to manage behaviour of looked after children with complex needs. Members were pleased that positive messages were being given to foster carers that the work they did was valued and the Council would provide them with appropriate support. Members queried if a child reached 11 years old whilst in care would they stay with the same foster carers or would they have

280416

to change placements. It was explained that foster carers provided different levels of support some were short term and others were long term. If a child was in a long term placement then where possible they would try to ensure the child remained in the same placement and the new strategy would help to address this with the different options it offered. Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

5.4 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment Year Three Action Plan

The Committee received the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment action plan for 2016/2017 in Neath Port Talbot, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that a key part of the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment was the three year action plan. It was explained that this was year three of the plan. The report highlighted the key actions that would be implemented in during 2016/17 in the context of the overarching three year plan. The actions had been derived in support of the 12 priorities identified in the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment. Members queried why the information pack for employers to provide parents/carers had not been completed and would it need to be bilingual. Officers explained that it had started to be developed and the completed pack would be bilingual. There was a Welsh speaker in the team, which would assist with this. Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposal to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

5.6 Home to School Transport Appeals Panel

The Committee received the report to establish and convene a Home to School Transport Appeal Panel in order to hear any appeal lodged by a parent/guardian in relation to the Authority’s application of the Home to School Transport Policy, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that grounds for appeal would be for two reasons. One reason would be that the appellant believes that Local Authority has not applied the Policy correctly. The

280416

second reason was that the appellant was able to cite any special/exceptional circumstances which they believe should be considered. An Appeals Panel would be set up within 28 days of receiving an appeal and the appellant could appear in person or provide written evidence. It was highlighted that it was proposed that the Panel would comprise of senior officers that were outside of the Education, Leisure and Lifelong Learning Directorate. Following this procedure if the appellant was not satisfied with the way the appeal had been undertaken they could complain to the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales. Members commented that they understood the necessity of developing the Appeals Panel and queried that as it was a Policy agreed by Members for officers to exercise why it was proposed to be an officer and not a Member Panel. Officers explained that they had looked into the legalities of the Panel and there was no obligation for it to be an officer or a Member Panel. It was highlighted that there was a mix of panels within the Council and some were officer led panels and some were Member led. Members noted that the subject was very controversial and it would have been useful if it could have been a mixed panel of officers and Members. It was noted that this was not practicable and it had to be one or the other. Some Members felt that if the Panel was Member lead it would be more transparent to members of the public to understand. Officers explained that unless particular functions had been specified in the Constitution of the Council then it would be an executive function and this would result in the Panel being made up of Cabinet Members. It was noted that the Home to School Transport Policy would be reviewed in the autumn and as part of this process they would also review the appeals process. In the interim a Panel was required for the current Policy as appeals had been received. Members queried if there had been appeals previously and officers confirmed that there had not. Members queried how parents appealed decisions and they would have liked more information on the process in the report. Officers explained that the Policy was clear on the two areas that could be subject to appeal and once a decision was communicated to parents there was information at the bottom of the letter explaining that if they were dissatisfied they could appeal and on what grounds. It was explained that it was a decision for parents if they appealed and

280416

how much information they included. Some Members felt that it would be difficult for some parents to explain what was wrong with the way a Policy was being applied and would like further information included in future policies. Officers would take on board these comments in reviewing the Policy. Members asked if it would be acceptable for local Members to attend the Panel with appellants. It was confirmed that parents would be able to bring someone to support them to the Panel. It was agreed that a statement to this effect would be included in the procedure document. Members asked if a third reason of equality of opportunity should be considered for grounds of appeal. Officers explained that this was not stated in the current Policy and the procedure could only be in line with existing content of the Policy and appeals were not on the substance of the Policy but the way it had been applied.

Some Members highlighted that it would be difficult for Members to sit on a Panel as the majority of Members had been involved in discussions around the subject, which had been very controversial. It would be a better option for the Panel to be made up of officers that were independent of these discussions and the Education, Leisure and Lifelong Learning Directorate. Following scrutiny the majority of the Committee was supportive of the proposal to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

5.7 Review of School Music Service

(A.Hughes reaffirmed his interest and left the meeting for this item only).

The Committee received the report to approve withdrawal from the current joint West Glamorgan music service and to establish a new music service to support Neath Port Talbot schools from 1 September 2016, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that following a joint consultation between the City and County of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council it was proposed that the West Glamorgan Music Service was disaggregated and that a single music service was established to deliver music provision under

280416

a service level agreement. Members commented that as the City and County of Swansea had already made their decision to disaggregate the Service, Neath Port Talbot had no other viable option. Members were disappointed that Swansea was withdrawing subsidy of their Music Service after August 2016. It was highlighted that Neath Port Talbot Council would continue to subsidise their Music Service for the financial year 2016/2017. Members asked if there would be an increase in costs to parents/carers with the changes to the Service. Officers explained that in Neath Port Talbot there would be a small increase, but it would be manageable and it was comparatively less than in other Local Authorities. There would be a bigger increase in Swansea due to the withdrawal of the subsidy. Officers highlighted that there had been some misunderstanding during the consultation that the Service was going to be withdrawn. This was not the case; a different way of delivering the Service had to be put into place. It was noted that there was currently a strong buy back profile from Neath Port Talbot schools with only a few schools indicating that they would be withdrawing. Members were pleased that the majority of schools had indicated that they would be taking up the Service and recognised the importance of music as part of the curriculum. It was highlighted that schools in Neath Port Talbot were serviced by some staff employed by Swansea and vice versa. A skills audit would be undertaken and Neath Port Talbot staff would be placed in Neath Port Talbot schools based on their skill set and musical specialisms. Where there were surplus areas these places would be negotiated with the City and County of Swansea and vice versa. The Committee queried how the Service would be managed as there were currently two managers in Swansea and one in Neath Port Talbot. It was explained that if interviews were required then they would be held, however, jobs in the Neath Port Talbot Service would be ring fenced for Neath Port Talbot employees in the first instance. Members asked how many teachers were included in the salary costs and they were informed that there were 31 teachers, not all full time equivalents and paid at different rates.

280416

A complete inventory of assets/instruments would be undertaken and they would be split on an equitable basis. Any school pulling out of the Service Level Agreement would have assets removed from the school. It was noted that instruments that had been bought by the Friends of West Glamorgan Youth Orchestra belonged to the children that played in the orchestra and would stay with them. It was noted that the music centres, orchestras, ensembles and bands would continue to operate jointly as these were self-funding. Members highlighted that the decisions made by the City and Council of Swansea would have an impact on these groups as it was possible that it would result in fewer children taking up a musical instrument. Members thanked officers for all the work that had been put into developing the new Service and recognised that there was still a lot of work to be undertaken.

Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

6. ACCESS TO MEETINGS Resolved: that pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local

Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following items of business which involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 12 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.

7. PRE-SCRUTINY The Committee scrutinised the following matters: Cabinet Board Proposals 7.1 The Children’s Home (Wales) Regulations 2002

The Committee received the monthly reports from the Children’s Home (Wales) Regulations 2002 visits from November 2016 to February 2017, as detailed within the circulated report.

280416

Members highlighted concerns that certain information and logs were not available at the time of the visits, as this issue had been raised before. Officers had noted this and explained that the visits were unannounced and the logs were onsite either at a centre meeting or being used by staff. It was explained that the officer visiting had not requested the logs. Members were informed that significant improvements had been made following these reports. The new processes have ensured better access to information and the documentation for officers had also improved. It was noted that risk assessments were now signed off by team managers at weekly multidisciplinary meetings. It was highlighted that there had been some complaints about a pool table being removed from one of the Units. It was explained that it had to be removed due to an incident. The tables were now accessible but not in the main lounge area. It was highlighted that some of the issues with bedrooms and bathroom facilities were being addressed through the modernisation process. It was noted that there were ongoing problems with power surges affecting the heating and hot water. It was noted that it had been suggested that sanctions should be more consistent and relatable to the behaviour. Officers agreed that there was some need for improvement in consistency and staff understanding the process. It was highlighted that the changes to the staff rota had been implemented and had resulted in significant improvements. Staffing rotas were now comparatively better than other areas. Officers explained that good progress had been made in developing the multidisciplinary team, including mental health services and they were delivering positive outcomes. It was highlighted that since January 2016 there had been a change in reporting officers, which had also improved reporting arrangements and reports were received in a timelier manner. Members asked if there were positive reinforcements to improve behaviours of young people. Officers explained that there was an award system in place that ranged from bronze to platinum level and the young people could gain different privileges from moving up the levels. It was agreed that the scheme would be circulated to the Committee for information. It

280416

was noted that the responses to behaviour was tailored to the needs of the children and young people. Members commented that there had been some positive changes taking place in Hillside. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

7.2 The Manager’s Report on Hillside Secure Children’s Home

The Committee received the Managers Report on Hillside Secure Children’s Home, which provided information on staff and service planning and development for the period 1 November 2015 to 28 April 2016, as detailed within the circulated report. Members were informed that there had been some admissions of 11 year olds, which was an unusual occurrence and an indication of the complexities of young people that the Service was dealing with. It was highlighted that there had been three young people from Neath Port Talbot admitted into Hillside during this period. The higher number of admissions was historically from Children’s Homes. It was highlighted that Hillside had also responded to the increased need in providing secure beds for Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) requests from the Police and Emergency Duty Team. It was highlighted that education attendance was quite stable. It was noted that a lot of the young people had a low level of education and it was a challenge to the professionals to meet need. The young people had written to three influential people and had received a response from the Pope, which was a boost for them. Members were informed that a Speech and Language Therapist would be employed for two days a week. Members were pleased with this positive development. It was noted that there had been some staff turnover and this was due to them leaving for other opportunities or retirement. There had been some recruitment into posts and overall the team was stable. There had been a lot more training opportunities for staff and the new rota system had assisted with staff having the time to attend training sessions. It was noted that sickness absence was higher than the Council average and it was a challenging environment to work in.

280416

However, the appropriate policies were being followed to manage this. The average length of stay was two months and six days. It was highlighted that by the time young people arrive at Hillside they could have been through up to 24 different placements which would have further traumatised them. If young people could be admitted to Hillside sooner and for longer periods they could have more of an impact with the resources they now had available. The Trauma Recovery Model that was being used in Hillside was proving effective and all staff were receiving this training so there was a consistent approach to interactions with young people. Staff had also been taken through a walkthrough of the first 24 hours of being admitted to secure care so they could view it from the perspective of the young person. This process provided a number of positive outcomes including admission information and aesthetic appearance of admission areas and family room. Members were please that the Clinical Team was being developed and the approach being taken by Hillside. Members queried when a visit to Hillside could be arranged and it was noted that there was an open day on 28 June 2016, further information would be circulated to Members. Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.

CHAIRPERSON

Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme 2016/17

Date of Meeting Agenda Item

2 June 2016 Children and Young People Services Monthly Key Priority Performance Indicators – 1, 2, 3, 4

Pre-scrutiny of Cabinet Board Items

30 June 2016 Review of CYPS Monthly Key Priority Performance Indicators

Quarter 4 Performance Monitoring


28 July 2016


8 September 2016

Agenda Item

4.



6 October 2016 STAND ALONE BUDGET SCRUTINY

3 November 2016


1 December 2016



5 January 2017


26 January 2017


2 March 2017



30 March 2017


NEATH PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL


REPORT OF THE HEAD OF COMMISSIONING AND SUPPORT SERVICES – A. THOMAS

2 June 2016

Matter for Monitoring

Wards Affected: All

Children and Young People Services – Key Priority Indicators

Purpose of the Report

1. To advise Members of performance against Key Priority Indicators numbered 1 to 4 for the period 1st to 30th April 2016.

Executive Summary

2. Priority Indicators to be discussed:-

Priority Indicator 1 – Average Number of Cases held by Qualified Workers

across the Service

Priority Indicator 2 – Staff Supervision Rates

Priority Indicator 3 – The Number of Social Worker Vacancies across the

Service (including number of starters/leavers/agency staff/sickness)

Priority Indicator 4 – Number of Approved Foster Carers within NPTCBC

Background

3. Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Committee have previously agreed a set of 9 Priority Performance Indicators to be scrutinised during 2015-16.These indicators will be discussed at alternate meetings of the Committee (4 one month, 5 the next month). For the purpose of this report, Indicators 1-4 are being reported.

Agenda Item 5.

Financial Impact

4. After consideration, this is not applicable. Equality Impact assessment

5. After consideration, this is not applicable. Workforce Impacts

6. After consideration, this is not applicable. Legal Impacts 8. This progress report is prepared under:

i) Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 and discharges the Council’s duties to “make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions”.

ii) Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Constitution requires each cabinet committee to monitor quarterly budgets and performance in securing continuous improvement of all the functions within its purview.

Risk Management 9. After consideration, this is not applicable. Consultation 10. No requirement to consult. Recommendations 11. Members monitor performance contained within this report. Reasons for Proposed Decision 12. Matter for monitoring. No decision required.

Implementation of Decision 13. After consideration, this is not applicable. Appendices 14. Section 1 - Key Priority Indicator Information (1-4) for April 2016

List of Background Papers 15. None Officer Contact David Harding - Performance Management Team Telephone: 01639 685942 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

SECTION 1 - Key Priority Performance Indicators (April 2016)

Priority Indicator 1 – Average Number of Cases held by Qualified Workers across the Service

As at 30th April 2016 Caseload Information - Qualified Workers, including Deputy Team Managers

Team Available

Hours FTE

Equivalent Team

Caseload

Highest Worker

Caseload

Lowest Worker

Caseload

Average Caseload per

Worker

Cwrt Sart 444.0 12.0 150 19 9 12.5

Disability Team 452.5 12.2 199 21 5 16.3

LAC Team 363.0 9.8 180 22 1 18.4

Llangatwg 555.0 15.0 187 18 8 12.5

Sandfields 397.0 10.7 130 20 9 12.1

Route 16 271.2 7.3 41 7 3 5.6

Dyffryn 333.0 9.0 112 19 9 12.4

Intake 474.5 12.8 82 12 1 6.4

Totals 3,290.20 88.9 1,081

Average Caseload - CYPS 17.3 5.6 12.2

Please Note:

1. The above figures include cases held by Deputy Team Managers and Part-Time Workers.

2. The ‘Available Hours’ do not include staff absences e.g. Sickness, Maternity, Placement, unless cover is being provided.

Priority Indicator 2 – Staff Supervision Rates

90.7 90.7 92.1 91.299.3 97.9 95.9 99.3 99.3 98.5 96.2 98.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

May'15 Jun'15 Jul'15 Aug'15 Sep'15 Oct'15 Nov'15 Dec'15 Jan'16 Feb'16 Mar'16 Apr'16

Percentage of Workers (Qualified and Unqualified) that Receive Supervision within 28 Working Days

May

2015

June

2015

July

2015

Aug

2015

Sep

2015

Oct

2015

Nov

2015

Dec

2015

Jan

2016

Feb

2016

Mar

2016

April

2016

Performance

Indicator/Measure Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual

The percentage of

Qualified and

Unqualified Workers

that receive

Supervision within 28

working days

90.7 90.7 92.1 91.2 99.3 97.9 95.9 99.3 99.3 98.5 96.2 98.6

Number of supervisions 140 140 139 137 141 140 145 144 140 136 133 139

Of Which, were

undertaken in 28 working

days

127 127 128 125 140 137 139 143 139 134 128 137

May

2015

Jun

2015

Jul

2015

Aug

2015

Sep

2015

Oct

2015

Nov

2015

Dec

2015

Jan

2016

Feb

2016

Mar

2016

Apr

2016

Performance


The percentage of Qualified

Workers that receive

Supervision within 28 working

days

92.6 89.8 93.5 91.7 100.0 98.2 95.6 99.1

99.1

99.1 97.2 99.1

Number of Supervisions 108 108 108 108 111 110 114 114 109 108 106 110

Of Which, were undertaken in 28

working days

100 97 101 99 111 108 109 113 108 107 103 109

May

2015

June

2015

July

2015

Aug

2015

Sep

2015

Oct

2015

Nov

2015

Dec

2015

Jan

2016

Feb

2016

Mar

2016

Apr

2016

Performance


The percentage of

Unqualified Workers that

receive Supervision within

28 working days

84.4 93.8 90.0 89.7 96.7 96.7 96.8 100 100 96.4 92.6 96.6

Number of supervisions 32 32 30 29 30 30 31 30 31 28 27 29

Of Which, were undertaken in

28 working days

27 30 27 26 29 29 30 30 31 27 25 28

Priority Indicator 3 – The Number of Social Worker Vacancies across the Service (including number

of starters/leavers/agency staff/sickness)

Team

Manager

Deputy

Manager Social Worker

Peripatetic

Social Worker IRO

Consultant

Social

Worker Total

Vacancies 3 1 2 6

New Starters

Leavers

Agency 1 3 1 5

Long-Term Sick 1 1 Agency: - 3 x Llangatwg CCT – providing management support and experience

1 x Conference and Review Service – covering maternity leave/vacancy

There is an agency Team Manager in Team around the Family which is now part of Children’s Services

Vacancies: - Includes 2 newly created positions

Priority Indicator 4 – Number of Approved Foster Carers within NPTCBC

Current average cost of an internal placement is £17,434 Current average cost of an external placement is £40,979

This page is intentionally left blank

children, young people and education scrutiny …

Documents